In Nanhak Rai vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 24-page long judgement dated December 22, 2025 setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned court. The judgement reads:"23. On all counts from the analysis of evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as material available on record, I find that appellant has not committed any positive act amounting to instigation or intentionally aiding in commission of suicide. In this way, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned court are not justified and legal and same is fit to be set aside. 24. In the result, in my view, prosecution case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded. The learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed. Appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. stands disposed of."
This appeal was directed against the judgment of conviction dated July 31, 2025 and order of sentence dated August 12, 2025 passed by District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in a Sessions Trial of 2024, which arose out of Chenari P.S. case of 2023 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and six months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under the said section.
According to written statement given by the informant/PW-2, informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter Neha Kumari four years ago with Nanhak Rai-appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that after some days, appellant-husband and informant’s daughter-wife started quarreling on the issue of dowry which was being informed by informant's daughter. The informant had pacified the dispute on one or two occasions. It was alleged that on June 16, 2023 on the issue of going outside in connection with livelihood, informant's daughter has been killed by the appellant and others at about 10 PM regarding which he got information on June 17, 2023 at 6 AM. He reached the house of his son-in-law where he found that his daughter was lying dead. On the basis of written statement given by the informant/PW-2, Chenari P.S. case dated June 17, 2023 was registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Section 304(B) of the IPC. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance. The trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 304(B)/34 and 302/34 of the IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home guilt of accused person/appellant, prosecution examined altogether four witnesses.
Justice Pandey relied on judgment of Supreme Court passed in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 in which at para 25 of the said judgment reference of Section 113-
A has been given which reads as under:-
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman-when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, meaning as in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860."
In para 26 of the said judgment, it observed:"26. Section 113-A only deals with a presumption which the court may draw in a particular fact situation which may arise when necessary Ingredients in order to attract that provision are established. Criminal law amendment and the rule of procedure was necessitated so as to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives, demanding dowry. Legislative mandate of the section is that when a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty as per the terms defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide has been abetted by the husband or such person. Though, a presumption could be drawn, the burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498-A IPC is on the prosecution. On facts, we have already found that the prosecution has not discharged the burden that A-1 had instigated conspired or intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that the alleged extramarital affair was of such a degree which was likely to drive the wife to commit suicide."
Justice Pandey observed: "19. On the facts, I have already found that prosecution has not discharged the burden in the present case."
He also relied on Supreme Court's judgement passed in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Appeal No. ....... of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024) in which at paragraphs no. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, it has been held as follows:-
16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107 of the IPC which defines the act of 'abetment'. The provisions read as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea-the intention to abet the act-is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, wherein it was observed that:
“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." 19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, defined the word "instigate as under:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are:
i. the abetment;
ii. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused's behavior and the tragic establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this court in several judgments, such as:
i. M. Mohan v. State;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal;
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.
24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing
proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's
conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the
threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim
The Court in Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana held that to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability.
The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of the Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide."
22. In the present case, there was no evidence that the appellant has instigated, conspired , intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide and there was no evidence of direct triggering act that left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. Neither informant nor any other witness has stated that appellant was instigating or intentionally aiding in the commission of suicide by the victim/deceased. Merely allegation without any positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding cannot attract Section 306 of the IPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment