# Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 742
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-19
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 24025 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaudhary-chhatrapal-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49185
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 227 - Discharge -
Framing of charge - Offence u/s 306 was
alleged to be taken place -Interference by
the High Court, when warranted - Held,
learned trial judge framed the charges
against the petitioners-accused under
Section 306 of IPC, so it must be seen that
what
is
the
evidence
against
the
petitioners-accused - Held further, there
is
no
evidence
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer to suggest that the
applicant intended by such act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide - High
Court discharged the applicant from the
offence. (Para 15, 23 and 24)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1973
- Section 306 - Abetment to suicide -
Ingredient of abetment - Explained -
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
743
Held, abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing. There
has to be a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide. If there is no positive act on
behalf of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, offence under Section
306 cannot be said to be made out - Held
further, all ingredients of instigation of
abetment
to
commit
suicide
are
completely
absent
in
the
material
collected
during
the
course
of
investigation and, therefore, it cannot be
said
that
the
accused-applicant
has
committed any offence under Section 306
IPC. (Para 10, 20 and 23)
Application allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,477 of 45,120. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39477 for what follows._

742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
initiated against the deponent of the earlier
counter affidavit but the manner in which
this fact has emerged and that too on the
pointing out of learned counsel for the first
informant is a matter of concern. There
may be a case where the first informant
may not be represented in a Court of law
and thus the Court believing the affidavit
filed by the State / Police authorities to be
true proceeds to hear and decide the matter
but the actual fact about the criminal
history of the accused would not come
before the Court.

With the present digital age where
everything is now possible and available
with the press of a button or a click of a
mouse, it cannot be said that the criminal
history of a person cannot be gathered by
the police agency instantaneously through
a dedicated portal for it for reporting it to
the Courts. If the same is not updated or is
non functional, it is a matter of concern.

31. The Principal Secretary (Home),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
and the Director General of Police,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
are directed to look into this issue and do
the needful and also take up the issue at
their level for having the details of criminal
history of a person at one stroke. Even
responsibility should be fixed for the person
responding in Court(s) through instructions
/ reply / affidavit or otherwise for
disclosing the entire criminal history of the
accused failing which there should be some
deterrent for it to avoid intentional efforts
to shield the accused persons and not
disclose their criminal history before the
concerned courts.

32. The Registrar General of this
Court
and
the
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
are directed to send a copy of this order
within a week from today to the Principal
Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow, the Director General
of Police, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow and the Superintendent of
Police, Banda for necessary compliance
and the needful.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 742
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 24025 of 2021

Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramanuj Yadav, Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Awasthi, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 227 - Discharge -
Framing of charge - Offence u/s 306 was
alleged to be taken place -Interference by
the High Court, when warranted - Held,
learned trial judge framed the charges
against the petitioners-accused under
Section 306 of IPC, so it must be seen that
what
is
the
evidence
against
the
petitioners-accused - Held further, there
is
no
evidence
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer to suggest that the
applicant intended by such act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide - High
Court discharged the applicant from the
offence. (Para 15, 23 and 24)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1973
- Section 306 - Abetment to suicide -
Ingredient of abetment - Explained -
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
743
Held, abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing. There
has to be a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide. If there is no positive act on
behalf of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, offence under Section
306 cannot be said to be made out - Held
further, all ingredients of instigation of
abetment
to
commit
suicide
are
completely
absent
in
the
material
collected
during
the
course
of
investigation and, therefore, it cannot be
said
that
the
accused-applicant
has
committed any offence under Section 306
IPC. (Para 10, 20 and 23)
Application allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs S. Unnikrishnan Nair &
ors.; (2015) 9 SCC 639
2. Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har.; (2019) 17
SCC 301
3. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah. &
ors.; (2021) 2 SCC 427
4. Praveen Pradhan Vs St. of Uttaranchal & anr.;
(2012) 9 SCC 734
5. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.;
(2012) 9 SCC 460
6. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punj., Advocate
Vs Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & ors.; AIR 1990 SC
1962
7. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr.; AIR
1979 SC 366
8. St. of W.B. Vs Orilal Jaiswal; (1994) SCC (Cri)
107
9. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs St. (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi); 2009 (16) SCC 605: (2010)3 SCC (Cri)
367
10. Sanju Vs St. of M.P.; (2002) 5 SCC 371
11. Criminal Appeal No. 93/2019; Rajesh Vs St.
of Har. decided on 18th January, 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
respective parties.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
applicant
to
quash
the
order
dated
08.10.2021 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special
Judge, DAA, Mahoba in Session Case
No.291 of 2021, State versus Chaudhary
Chhatrapal Yadav and other, (Case Crime
No.65 of 2021), under Section 306, 504
and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar
Mahoba), District Mahoba whereby learned
trial
Court
dismissed
the
discharge
application moved by applicant under
Section 227 for discharging him in the
alleged sections and charge has been
directed to be framed under Sections 306,
504 and 506 against the applicant and other
co-accused.

3. Main Prayer in the application is as
under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow the present
application and set aside the order dated
08.10.2021 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special
Judge, D.D.A., Mahoba in Sessions Case
No.291 of 2021, (State Vs. Chaudhary
Chhatrapal Yadav and others), arising out
of Case Crime No.65 of 2021, under
Sections 306, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District
Mahoba whereby the learned Court below
has rejected the discharge application
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of applicant."

4. Impugned order has been assailed
by the accused-applicant mainly on the
ground that he has been falsely implicated
in the present case due to political rivalry.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He has no concerned with the present
crime. He has committed no offence.
Prosecution story is false and fake. He
neither tortured the victim/deceased nor
demanded/took any money. He never
instigated the victim to commit suicide.
There is no role of the present applicant in
committing suicide of the victim. Accusedapplicant has no concerned at all with the
present case. Learned Counsel contends
that no offence, as alleged, is made out. He
showed some papers as well as statements
in support of his contention and relied upon
the judgments as under :-

i. Jalil Khan and others versus State of
M.P., (2021 Law Suit (MP) 2021).

ii. M. Mohan versus State Represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 626.

iii. Gurcharan Singh versus State of
Punjab, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases
433.

iv.
M.
Arjunan
versus
State
Represented by its Inspector of Police,
(2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315.

5. From the side of opposite parties,
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been opposed by alleging that accusedapplicant is man of criminal antecedents,
number of criminal cases have been
registered against him. He operates a gang
of criminals. Prior to the present incident,
accused-applicant has demanded/ took
some
money
from
the
son
of
victim/deceased who lodged an FIR against
the applicant and some other persons under
Section
386
IPC
in
police
station
concerned. When the police took no action,
victim/deceased has decided to end his life
and committed suicide by way of shooting
himself with his licency rifle, which is
alleged to be used in incident, was found on
spot and suicide note allegedly written by
victim himself was also recovered by the
police from the spot. It is further stated that
the Investigating Officer has collected
credible
evidence
like
suicide
note,
previous
FIR
and
CCTV
clip
and
statements of witnesses who have verified
the prosecution versions. The Investigating
Officer has rightly submitted charge sheet
against the applicant and other accused
persons and no illegality in the same. It was
further alleged that accused-applicant is
habitual offender having long criminal
history of heinous crime like murder,
dacoity, extortion etc. in order to take
goonda tax. He started threatening to the
brother of opposite party no.2 and took
huge
amount
from
him,
when
the
victim/deceased came to know the fact of
goonda tax taken by the accused-applicant,
objected the same and lodged an FIR under
Section 386 IPC bearing case Crime No.52
of 2021 but the local police did not take
any action against such applicant, due to
which victim/deceased reached the position
to commit suicide. Investigating Officer
rightly filed charge sheet under the alleged
section. So far as the criminal history
against the victim/deceased is concerned,
he was implicated by local enemies and
victim was acquitted by the Court. There
was sufficient ground to frame the charge
against the accused-applicant. Trial Court
rightly passed the order of framing charge
which has no illegality or irregularity.

6. In response to the ground taken by
the opposite parties, from the side of
accused-applicant, it has been stated that
statement of informant and other witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are
contradictory and Investigating Officer
without conducting fair and impartial
investigation
and
collecting
credible
evidence, submitted charge sheet in the
matter and trial Court illegally rejected the
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
745
discharge application. There was nothing
on record to frame the charge against the
applicant and in all the cases previously
registered against the applicant, either the
applicant has been acquitted by the Court
or the cases have been withdrawn by the
State Government or accused-applicant on
bail. All the cases registered against him
are totally false due to political rivalry as
he is in active politics. Photo copy of
counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are
on record.

7. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is
as under:-

Informant
moved
an
application
before In-charge Officer police station
concerned alleging that his father Mukesh
Kumar Pathak has committed suicide by
shooting himself with his licency rifle on
13.02.2021 at about 10:45 PM in the night
due to threatening of accused-applicant
Chhatrapal Yadav and his other companion
Ravi and others. It is also stated in written
tehreer that on 13.02.2021 at about 05:00
PM in RRC Hotel situated at Gandhi
Nagar, victim / deceased and complainant
were
called,
where
accused-applicant
threatened him to see in the future. After
the death of his father, Additional SP
recovered a suicide note written by victim
himself which was taken by police. Dying
declaration itself reveals that in FIR dated
07.02.2021 against accused-applicant and
his other companion, namely, Vikram,
Anand Mohan, Ravi, Manish, Ankit and
Abhay Pratap, no action was taken by the
police, resultantly due to indifference and
negligence of police officer, threat of
killing and false implication in criminal
case, victim/deceased committed suicide.
On the basis of this written tehreer
submitted by informant, an FIR bearing
case crime no.65 of 2021 has been
registered against the applicant and six
others under Section 306 IPC in Police
Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba. Matter was
investigated by police who submitted the
charge sheet against the applicant and other
persons in the alleged section.

8. Suicide note, as alleged to be
written by deceased, on English translation
would read as under:-

"I, Mukesh Kumar Pathak, Chattrapal
Chaudhary and his other companion Ravi,
Vikram, Manish Chaubey, Anand Mohan
Yadav took about Rs.60,00000/- (sixty lacs)
from my son and assaulted him. On being
complaint made by me, I was being
continuously threatened to implicate under
Section 376 IPC by them. Mahoba police,
SP, CO colluded him. He was being
threatened of life. He is committing suicide
out of compulsion, responsibility thereof
would be on Chattrapal and others. My
children, wife to forgive me, I am leaving
you in the middle. Salute to my both elder
brothers and good bye to younger Ramesh.

Sd/-

Dt:13.02.2021

Time: 08:00 PM"

9. FIR Crime No.65 of 2021 of the
present case, lodged by informant Rahul
Pathak depicts that on 13.02.2021 at about
10:45 PM in the night, his father Mukesh
Kumar Pathak committed suicide by
shooting himself with his licency rifle due
to threat and terror of applicant and his
companion. It further speaks that on the
same day in the evening at 05:00 PM, he
(informant) and his father (deceased) were
called in RRC Hotel situated at Gandhi
Nagar, Mahoba where accused Chattrapal
and his other companion threatened to see
in future. After the death of his father
Additional SP got a suicide note written by
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his father to which police took with him
and photostat copy whereof is annexed
with the tehreer. It has also been mentioned
in the FIR that dying declaration of
deceased clarifies that due inaction of
police officers in respect of FIR dated
07.02.2021 against the accused persons and
threat of killing and false implication in
criminal cases by accused person, his father
committed suicide. From the perusal of FIR
itself reveals that Additional SP along-with
other police officers reached on spot before
registration of the case and got alleged
suicide note. It is not clear from the record
how the police officer got information of
the incident and how they reached on spot.
On one place informant Rahul Pathak
stated in his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that original copy of suicide note
has got received to investigator at the time
of statement, thus recovery of suicide note,
as alleged to be written by deceased,
himself is surrounded by high suspicion
and according to suicide note itself, if there
is any reason of suicide, it may be the
negligence of Police Officer who have been
given a clean chit in investigation.

10. Abetment involves a mental
process
of
instigating
a
person
or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. There has to be a positive act on the
part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide. If there is no positive
act on behalf of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, offence under
Section 306 cannot be said to be made out.
In order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. There should be an
active act or direct act, which led the
deceased to commit suicide. The overt act
must be such a nature that the deceased
must find himself having no option but to
an end to his life. That act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he commit suicide. In the
suicide-note,
only
allegation
is
that
deceased was threatened to see in future
and he was being harassed by the applicant
to which deceased could have complained
to the authority concerned but it was not a
ground to commit suicide. Without there
being any intention to push the deceased to
commit suicide, the offence under Section
306 IPC against the applicant cannot be
said to be attracted. On a plain reading of
the suicide-note itself reflects that there
was no abetment on the part of the
applicants for committing suicide by the
deceased.

11. In State of Kerala and others Vs.
S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others, (2015)
9 SCC 639, observed as under:-

13. In Netai Dutta [(2005) 2 SCC 659
: 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , a two-Judge
Bench, while dealing with the concept of
abetment under Section 107 IPC and,
especially, in the context of suicide note,
had to say this: (SCC p. 661, paras 6-7)

"6. In the suicide note, except
referring to the name of the appellant at
two places, there is no reference of any act
or incidence whereby the appellant herein
is alleged to have committed any wilful act
or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag
in committing the act of suicide. There is no
case that the appellant has played any part
or any role in any conspiracy, which
ultimately instigated or resulted in the
commission of suicide by deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag.

7. Apart from the suicide note, there is
no allegation made by the complainant that
the appellant herein in any way was
harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag.
The case registered against the appellant is
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
747
without
any
factual
foundation.
The
contents of the alleged suicide note do not
in any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against
the appellant would only result in sheer
harassment to the appellant without any
fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned
Single Judge seriously erred in holding that
the first information report against the
appellant disclosed the elements of a
cognizable offence. There was absolutely
no ground to proceed against the appellant
herein. We find that this is a fit case where
the extraordinary power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be
invoked.
We
quash
the
criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellant
and accordingly allow the appeal."

14. In M. Mohan [(2011) 3 SCC 626 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , while dealing with
abetment, the Court has observed thus:
(SCC p. 638, paras 44-45)

"44. 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.

45. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court
are 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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he/she committed
suicide."
15. As far as Praveen Pradhan [(2012) 9
SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] , is
concerned, Mr Rao, has emphatically relied
on it for the purpose that the Court had
declined to quash the FIR as there was a
suicide note. Mr Rao has drawn our
attention to para 10 of the judgment,
wherein
the
suicide
note
has
been
reproduced. The Court in the said case has
referred to certain authorities with regard
to Section 107 IPC and opined as under:
(SCC p. 741, paras 18-19)

"18. In fact, from the above discussion
it is apparent that instigation has to be
gathered from the circumstances of a
particular case. No straitjacket formula
can be laid down to find out as to whether
in a particular case there has been
instigation which forced the person to
commit suicide. In a particular case, there
may not be direct evidence in regard to
instigation which may have direct nexus to
suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an
inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined
whether circumstances had been such
which in fact had created the situation that
a person felt totally frustrated and
committed suicide. More so, while dealing
with an application for quashing of the
proceedings, a court cannot form a firm
opinion, rather a tentative view that would
evoke the presumption referred to under
Section 228 CrPC.

19. Thus, the case is required to be
considered in the light of the aforesaid
settled legal propositions. In the instant
case, alleged harassment had not been a
casual feature, rather remained a matter of
persistent harassment. It is not a case of a
driver; or a man having an illicit
relationship
with
a
married
woman,
knowing that she also had another
paramour;
and
therefore,
cannot
be
compared to the situation of the deceased
in the instant case, who was a qualified
graduate
engineer
and
still
suffered
persistent harassment and humiliation and
additionally, also had to endure continuous
illegal demands made by the appellant,
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon non-fulfilment of which, he would be
mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a
prolonged period of time. He had also been
forced to work continuously for a long
durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other
employees which often even entered to 1617 hours at a stretch. Such harassment,
coupled with the utterance of words to the
effect, that, ''had there been any other
person in his place, he would have
certainly committed suicide' is what makes
the
present
case
distinct
from
the
aforementioned cases. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the present case,
we do not think it is a case which requires
any interference by this Court as regards
the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court."

12. The Supreme Court in (2019) 17
SCC 301 (Ude Singh and others Vs. State
of
Haryana),
extensively
surveyed
essentials of offence of abetment of suicide,
as defined under Section 306 IPC, and
summarized the principles. It has been held
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide,
there must be cogent and convincing proof
of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to
the commission of suicide. Mere allegation
of harassment of the deceased by any
person would not be sufficient to attract the
offence of abetment of suicide unless there
is such action on the part of accused which
compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
It is also relevant that such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. It has been further held that
psyche, sensitivity / hypersensitivity of
victim
are
relevant
and
material
considerations. Each case is required to be
examined on its own facts and taking note
of all the surrounding factors, having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased. The Court in
para-16 of Ude Singh and others Vs. State
of Haryana's case (supra) has explained the
essentials of abetment of suicide which
read as under:

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect
act(s)
of
incitement
to
the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour and
responses/reactions.
In
the
case
of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not
suffice unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if
a person has abetted commission of suicide
by another, the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in
the decisions above referred, instigation
means to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the
accused
is
otherwise
not
ordinarily
expected
to
induce
a
similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty
of abetment of suicide. But, on the other
hand, if the accused by his acts and by his
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
749
continuous course of conduct creates a
situation
which
leads
the
deceased
perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing
the self-esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question
of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap
show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating
or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its
own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human
mind could be affected and could react in
myriad ways; and impact of one's action on
the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt
with differently by different persons; and so
far a particular person's reaction to any
other human's action is concerned, there is
no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate
or assess the same. Even in regard to the
factors related with the question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered
like
age,
personality,
upbringing,
rural
or
urban
set-ups,
education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a
young girl could also vary for a variety of
factors, including those of background,
self-confidence and upbringing. Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its
own facts and circumstances."

13. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, the Supreme
Court has held that a person, who is said to
have abetted commission of suicide, must
have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain acts to
facilitate the commission of suicide. Paras
50 and 51 of the said judgment read as
under:-

"50. The first segment of Section 107
defines abetment as the instigation of a
person to do a particular thing. The second
segment defines it with reference to
engaging in a conspiracy with one or more
other persons for the doing of a thing, and
an act or illegal omission in pursuance of
the conspiracy. Under the third segment,
abetment is founded on intentionally aiding
the doing of a thing either by an act or
omission. These provisions have been
construed specifically in the context of
Section 306 to which a reference is
necessary in order to furnish the legal
foundation for assessing the contents of the
FIR. These provisions have been construed
in the earlier judgments of this Court in
State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of
W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 107] , Randhir Singh v.
State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.
[Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10
SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701]
("Kishori Lal") and Kishangiri Mangalgiri
Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri
Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat,
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62] .
In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.
[Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1
SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] ,
Mukundakam Sharma, J., speaking for a
two-Judge Bench of this Court and having
adverted to the earlier decisions, observed
: (SCC p. 712, para 12)

"12. ... It is also to be borne in mind
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment
without
there
being
any
positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."

51. The Court noted that before a
person may be said to have abetted the
commission of suicide, they "must have
played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide".
Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori
Lal [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10
SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] ,
"literally means to provoke, incite, urge on
or bring about by persuasion to do
anything". In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 465] , a two-Judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through Dalveer Bhandari,
J., observed : (SCC p. 197, para 25)

"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 this
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."

14. Learned AGA for the State has,
placing reliance upon judgment of Supreme
Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 734
(Praveen
Pradhan
Vs.
State
of
Uttaranchal and another) submitted that
offence of abetment by instigation depends
upon intention of the person who abets and
it is not dependent upon act which is done
by the person who has abetted. Instigation
has to be gathered from the circumstances
of a particular case and in the present case
from the circumstances it is clear that the
deceased was harassed in the hands of the
applicant
and,
therefore,
deceased
committed suicide. AGA further submitted
that impugned order of framing charge does
not suffer from illegality and not to be
quashed. He has also placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit
Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another,
(2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein it is observed
that the Court is required to consider record
of the case and documents submitted
therewith to find out whether strong
suspicion for commission of offence by the
accused would arise and proof him guilty.

15. It is evident from the record that
learned trial judge framed the charges
against
the
petitioners-accused
under
Section 306 of IPC, so it must be seen that
what is the evidence against the petitionersaccused. Before entering into merits of the
matter, I would prefer read the relevant
Sections under the Code regarding framing
of charges. Section 227 of Code Of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
751

"227.
Discharge.
If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and
after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing"

Section 228 of Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 also reads as under:

"228. Framing of charge.(1) If, after
such
consideration
and
hearing
as
aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence which-(a) is not
exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
he may, frame a charge against the accused
and, by order, transfer the case for trial to
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
and
thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate
shall try the offence in accordance with the
procedure for the trial of warrant- cases
instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court,
he shall frame in writing a charge against
the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames
any charge under clause (b) of sub- section
(1), the charge shall be read and explained
to the accused and the accused shall be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the
offence charged or claims to be tried."

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh
Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 has
held as under:-

"7. Again in Supdt. & Remembrancer
of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar
Bhunja & Ors., [1979] 4 SCC 274 this
Court observed in paragraph 18 of the
Judgment as under: "The standard of test,
proof and judgment which is to be applied
finally before finding, the accused guilty or
otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at
the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage,
even a very strong suspicion rounded upon
materials before the Magistrate which
leads him to form a presumptive opinion as
to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged, may justify
the framing of charge against the accused
in respect of the commission of that
offence".

From the above discussion it seems
well-settled that at the Sections 227-228
stage the Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a
view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face-value disclose
the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. The Court
may for this limited purpose sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at
that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it
is opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case."

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366 has
held as under:-

"Thus, on a consideration of the
authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while
considering the question of framing the
charges under section 227 of the Code has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out:

(2) Where the materials placed before
the Court disclose grave suspicion against
the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be, fully justified
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in framing a charge and proceeding with
the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie
case would naturally depend upon the facts
of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. By and large
however if two views are equally possible
and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within
his right to discharge the accused.
(4)
That in exercising his jurisdiction under
section 227 of the Code the Judge which
under the present Code is a senior and
experienced Judge cannot act merely as a
Post office or a mouth-piece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

18. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal
Jaiswal, (1994) SCC (Cri) 107, Court has
cautioned that the Court should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end the life by committing suicide. If
it appears to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and difference
in domestic life, quite common to the
society, to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and difference were
not
expected
to
induce
a
similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society
to commit suicide, the conscience of the
Court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found
guilty.

19. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC
605: (2010)3 SCC (Cri) 367, Court had an
occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The court dealt with the
dictionary
meaning
of
the
word
"instigation" and "goading". The court
opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. Each person's
suicidability pattern is different from the
others. Each person has his own idea of
self- esteem and self-respect.Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straight-jacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its
own facts and circumstances.

20. 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.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing
with the similar issue in the case of Sanju
Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 371 observed as under:-

"8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of
M.P. & Anr . , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438:
1995 SCC (Cri) 943, the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306
I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant
during the quarrel is said to have remarked
the deceased 'to go and die' . This Court
was of the view that mere words uttered by
the accused to the deceased 'to go and die'
1 All. Chaudhary Chhatrapal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
753
were not even prima facie enough to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.,
1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731: 1995 SCC (Cri)
1157, the appellant was charged for an
offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically
based upon the dying declaration of the
deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p.
731, para 1) "My mother-in-law and
husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder
brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me
and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because
of these reasons and being harassed I want
to die by burning."

10. This Court, considering the
definition of 'abetment' under Section 107
I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction
of the appellant for an offence under
Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the
allegation of harassment to the deceased.
This Court further held that neither of the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
statement of the deceased.

11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court
while considering the charge framed and
the conviction for an offence under Section
306 I.P.C.