IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.3652 of 2025

------

Arjun Sao, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Yugal Kishore Sao, resident of Durga Mandap, P.O.-Balumath, P.S.-Balumath, District-Latehar,

(Jharkhand).

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No.56 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.155 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in occupying the land belonging to the informant and because of such occupation, the deceased son of the informant was under tension,

and the petitioner threatened to do maar-pit and ultimately the deceased son of the informant committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024 INSC 149, and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ has been discussed in paragraph-20 of which reads as under:-

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India next relied upon its own judgment in the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, paragraph-25 of which reads as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

(Emphasis supplied)

wherein inter alia it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained and to the same effect is the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Arjunan vs. State reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, paragraph-7 of which reads as under:-

“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had dealt with the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learne