# Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 35
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2019
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/melvin-saldanha-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49616
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate, Devika Singh, Harish
Pandey,
Rajendra
Kumar
Dwivedi,
Sarvajeet Dubey, Suyash Bajpai

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 305 & 306-In
the
present
case,
the
Investigating
Agency failed to establish mens rea on the
part
of
the
revisionists
leading
to
commission of suicide by the deceasedthe deceased was only scolded by the
revisionists for getting into road accidentIn fact the deceased was not hit or
slapped by the revisionists-no eye witness
that
the
deceased
was
beaten
by
revisionists-FIR has been lodged with a
motion of vengeance-The Court below has
not discussed the material and no finding
has been recorded, the operative portion
of the Court is non-speaking and no
reason has been assigned-The decision is
taken in mechanical manner-Thus, the
matter is remanded back to the Court
below with a direction to take a fresh
decision.(Para 1 to 89)

B. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under section 107 IPC, the state
of mind to commit a particular crime must
be visible, to determine the culpability. In
order to prove mens rea, there has to be
something on record to establish or show
that the appellant herein had a guilty
mind and in furtherance of that state of
mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
(Para 51)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,831 of 120,544. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39831 for what follows._

1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
deposition does not inspire confidence and
no conviction can be recorded on the basis
of ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and
learned court below has rightly acquitted
the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 6 from
the charges of offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C.

27. In such circumstances, the instant
revision lacks merit and is, accordingly,
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 35
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2019

Melvin Saldanha & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Anurag Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Devika Singh, Harish
Pandey,
Rajendra
Kumar
Dwivedi,
Sarvajeet Dubey, Suyash Bajpai

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 305 & 306-In
the
present
case,
the
Investigating
Agency failed to establish mens rea on the
part
of
the
revisionists
leading
to
commission of suicide by the deceasedthe deceased was only scolded by the
revisionists for getting into road accidentIn fact the deceased was not hit or
slapped by the revisionists-no eye witness
that
the
deceased
was
beaten
by
revisionists-FIR has been lodged with a
motion of vengeance-The Court below has
not discussed the material and no finding
has been recorded, the operative portion
of the Court is non-speaking and no
reason has been assigned-The decision is
taken in mechanical manner-Thus, the
matter is remanded back to the Court
below with a direction to take a fresh
decision.(Para 1 to 89)

B. To prove the offence of abetment, as
specified under section 107 IPC, the state
of mind to commit a particular crime must
be visible, to determine the culpability. In
order to prove mens rea, there has to be
something on record to establish or show
that the appellant herein had a guilty
mind and in furtherance of that state of
mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.
(Para 51)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj. (2021) SCC
Online SC 873

2. St. of Karnataka Lokayukta Vs M.R Hiremath
(2019) 7 SCC 515

3. Sunil Kumar Sen Vs St. of M.P. in Petition No.
11763/2018 (MP HC)

4. P.Rajmohan Vs St.,(2018) 0 Supreme (Mad)
3697

5. Raj Shekhar Paliwal Vs St. of Chhattisgarh &
anr. (2020) SCC Online Chh 37,

6. Gurcharan Singh Vs St. of Punj.(2020) 10
SCC 200

7. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs St. of M.P.
(2002) 5 SCC 371, Pg 13

8. Roop Kishore Madan Vs St. (2001) Cri LJ 1219

9. Dr.J.P. Bhargava & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (Appl.
u/s 482 No. 6195 of 2016)

10. Kanchan Kumar Vs St. of Bih. (2022)
LiveLaw SC 763
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. St. of Karnataka Lokayukta Vs M.R.
Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515

12. Ajay Singh Vs St. of Chhattisgarh & anr.
(2017) 3 SCC 330

13. P.Vijayan Vs St. of Ker. & anr.(2010) 2 SCC
398

14. UOI Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr. (1979)
3 SCC 4

15. Saranya. Vs Bharathi & anr. (2021) 8 SCC 583

16. K.Kala Vs Secy. Edu. Deptt. (2022) Live Law
(Mad) 452

17.
M.E.
Shivalingamurthy.
Vs
CBI,
Bengaluru(2020) 2 SCC 768

18. St. of Bih. Vs Ramesh Singh (2018) AIR
1977

19. UOI Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr. (1979)
AIR 366

20. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Prarishad Vs Dilip
Nathumal Chordia & anr. (1989) SCC 1 715

21. Mahendra Prasad Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar
Tiwari & anr. CRLA No 1216 of 2022

22. St. of Raj. Vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap, CRLA
No. 407 of 2021

23. Mohan Ram Vs St. of Raj. & anr. CRLR No
229 of 2022

24. Rakesh Kumar Pandey & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
& anr. CRLR No. 1116 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag
Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Sarvajeet Dubey learned counsel for O.P.
No.2, learned AGA and perused records.

2. This criminal revision under
Section 397 CrPC read with 401 CrPC has
been filed by the revisionists with prayer to
set aside the order dated 14.3.2019 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist,
Lucknow in S.T. No.34 of 2019 (State. Vs.
Father Melvin Saldanha and another)
consequently, with further prayer to acquit
the revisionists of the charges levelled
against them under Section 305 IPC after
summoning the lower Court record.

Brief facts of the case:-

3. Brief facts of the case are that FIR
was lodged on 4.12.2016 in Case Crime
No.1121/2016 under Section 306 IPC, PS
Madiyaon, district Lucknow later on,
converted under Section 305 IPC on
21.3.2017.

4. As per FIR, the deceased Lalit
Yadav son of O.P. No.2 was a regular
student of Class-XII in Cathedral Senior
Secondary School, Hazratganj, Lucknow. It
has been stated in the FIR by the father of
the deceased that his son used to attend the
school regularly but he was making regular
complaints to father and mother regarding
the harassment done by the revisionist
No.1, Melvin Saldanha (Father Melvil
Saldanha) and the revisionist No.2 James
John (P.T. Teacher James John). On
3.12.2016 the complainant's son Lalit
Yadav had gone to school and he was
beaten by the revisionist No.1 and 2
andthey threatened to expel him from the
school. There was call on the mobile phone
of the complainant at 7.58 a.m. by the
revisionist No.2 to bring his son from the
school on which he made contact to his
wife and asked her to bring his son from
the school. When the wife of the
complainant reached the school, she came
to know that without waiting for her
arrival, the revisionist No.2 PT Teacher had
dropped his son Lalit Yadav to the home.
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
His wife was told by the children that after
prayer assembly, the revisionist No.1 and 2
had beaten, mentally harassed the deceased
and threatened him to expel from the
school. The wife of the complainant was
coming back to home and she was
informed by the revisionist No.2 P.T.
Teacher that her son was dropped by him to
her home. The wife reached the house and
saw that her son had committed suicide by
licensed revolver which was kept in
almirah. She brought the son to Trauma
Centre with the help of neighbours but her
son died during medical treatment. The
revisionists have challenged the FIR in the
High Court by filing Writ Petition No.5269
(M/B) of 2018 and this Court vide order
dated 20.2.2018, dismissed the writ petition
on the ground that investigation was
completed and chargesheet was likely to be
filed.

5. The revisionists again challenged
the sanctity of investigation by filing Writ
Petition
No.17509
(M/B)
of
2018
requesting for free, fair, truth and logical
investigation and to transfer the case to
some other investigating agency in which
notices were issued on 20.4.2018.

6. Chargesheet was filed in the case
on 14.3.2018 under Section 305 IPC. The
same was challenged by filing Application
U/S 482 being Case U/S 482/378/407 No. -
2653 of 2018 renumbered as Application
U/S 482 No.2653 of 2018 (Melvin
Saldanha & another Vs. State of U.P. &
Another) which was disposed of on
22.5.2018 and liberty was granted to
revisionists
to
move
application
for
discharge.

7. The revisionists approached the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.5071 of 2018 ( Melvin Saldanha
& another. Vs. State of U.P. and others.)
wherein Supreme Court, vide order dated
19.8.2018 was pleased to issue notice and
directed that the revisionists shall not be
arrested.

8. In the meantime, the revisionists
preferred application for discharge under
Section 227 CrPC before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The
District and Sessi9ons Judge, Lucknow
dismissed the application on 14.3.2019 for
discharge moved by the revisionists. The
order dated 14.3.2019 has been challenged
before this Court in the present revision.

9. In the meantime, the SLP (Crl.)
No.5071
of
2018
preferred
by
the
revisionists against the order of High Court
was
disposed
of
vide
order
dated
28.4.2022. Supreme Court observed and
has taken note of the fact that application
for discharge filed by the revisionists
before the Court below was rejected and
the same was under challenge in the High
Court in the present revision. The Supreme
Court has lastly observed that the interim
order dated 6.1.2020 passed in SLP will
operate and the same will continue for a
period of six months and the order of High
Court will be final. Further direction is
issued that contention raised by the parties
are left open to be decided in accordance
with law.

Submissions of the Revisionists:-

The revisionists have made their
following submissions before this Court:-

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists has submitted that on the basis
of FIR bearing case no.1121 of 2016 under
section 306 IPC (converted to section 305
by Additional Sessions Judge) filed by the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Opposite Party No.2, who is the father
deceased Late Lalit Yadav the Investigating
Agency Police has filed its completion of
Investigation Report (Chargesheet) under
Section 173 of the CrPC before Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Lucknow.

11. In accordance with liberty given
to the Revisionists by Hon'ble High Court,
Lucknow vide order dated 22.05.2018 in
Case under Section 482/378/407 No.2653
of 2018, the present Revisionists had filed
Discharge Application under Section 227 of
CrPC bearing No.34/2019, State. Vs.
Father Melvin Saldanha & another before
Additional Sessions Judge-I and the same
has been dismissed vide order dated
14.03.2019 by the Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Lucknow.

12. That the Revisionists have filed
the present Criminal Revision against
above order dated 14.3.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge-I dismissing the
Discharge Application filed by the present
Revisionist.

13. That the case of the Investigating
Agency (Prosecution) proceeds on the
premise that the Revisionists Melvin
Saldahna and James John are responsible
for the commissioning of suicide by Lalit
Yadav as they had humiliated the deceased
after mercilessly thrashing him alongwith
Anshul Gupta in consequence of road
accident caused by the deceased Lalit
Yadav while Anshul Gupta was the pillion
rider of the motorcycle driven by deceased.

14. For better understanding, Section
305 of IPC is reproduced hereinbelow:-

305. Abetment of suicide of
child or insane person.--If any person
under eighteen years of age, any insane
person, any delirious person, any idiot, or
any person in a state of intoxication,
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with death or [imprisonment for
life], or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

From the perusal of the above it
is apparent that the person abetting the
commission
of
suicide
would
be
prosecuted and punished as per provision
of section 305 of Indian Penal Code,
meaning thereby that the person who
abets any other person under 18 years of
age in the commissioning of suicide by
such person shall be held responsible for
the commissioning of suicide and shall be
punished
accordingly.
The
essential
condition to charge and prosecute a
person is abetment by such person to the
commission of suicide.

15. The provision of abetment as
contained under Section 107 of Indian
Penal Code and for better understanding
same is reproduced hereinbelow:

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
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
39
thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.

16. That from the conjoint reading of
above two sections it is evident that
abetment under section 107 is sine qua non
before prosecuting a person under section
305 and in the absence of the necessary
ingredients of abetment as provided under
section 107 IPC, the accused cannot be
charged under section 305 IPC. The
Investigating Agency is therefore, under
obligation to investigate and establish that
the persons against whom FIR has been
lodged
under
section
305
IPC
is
responsible for the commissioning of
suicide by abating the person to do so.

17. That the essential three conditions
that are necessarily required to be present
individually in the sequence leading to the
commissioning of suicide by a person are
as below:

i. Instigation to commit suicide.

ii. Conspiracy leading to person
committing suicide

iii. Intentionally aiding by an act
or omission to commit suicide.

18. That if any of the condition is
found present against the person sought to
be prosecuted under Section 305 IPC, such
person shall be held responsible for
abetting commissioning of suicide. Per
contra in the absence of the any of the
above 3 conditions, a person cannot be held
responsible for committing crime under
section 305 IPC.

19. That in all three cases of
institution, conspiracy or aid, direct and
active involvement of the accused is
essential to convict him for abetment of
suicide. The term ''instigation' is not
defined in IPC. The instigation on the part
of the accused should be active and
proximate to the incident. It has been held
in number of cases that to constitute
"instigation", the person who instigates
another person has to provoke, incite, urge
or encourage doing of an act by the other
by "goading" or "urging forward". A mere
statement of suggesting the deceased to end
his life without any mens rea would not
come under the purview of abetment to
suicide. Mens rea is a necessary ingredient
of instigation and the abetmentn to suicide
would be constituted only when such
abetment is found intentional.

20. That Supreme Court in Geo
Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021
SCC Online SC 873, while dealing with
the matter wherein a 9th standard student
committed suicide and left a note alleging
that his PTI teacher harassed and insulted
him in front of everyone. The court
emphasised two essentials for conviction
under Sec. 306. Firstly, there should be a
direct or indirect act of incitement. A mere
allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another would not be sufficient. Secondly,
there must be reasonableness. If the
deceased was hypersensitive and if the
allegations imposed upon the accused are
not otherwise sufficient to induce another
person in similar circumstances to commit
suicide, it would not be fair to hold the
accused guilty for abetment of suicide.
Thus, Supreme Court quashed the FIR in
the lack of any specific allegation and
material on record as the essentials to prove
the allegation under Section 306 were not
satisfied.

21. That in the case of Sanju alias
Sanjai Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. 2002
AIR SC 1998, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
acquitted the person and quashed the
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
chargesheet filed under section 306 of IPC
inter alia holding therein that mere say of
the prosecution version will not subserve
the purpose for slapping the charges under
section 306 of IPC. The presence of mens
rea is vital and indefeasible ingredient for
to swing the criminal proceeding into the
motion. It is a common knowledge that
some of the words uttered during the
altercation or scuffle cannot be assumed to
have been uttered with with mens rea.

22. That the Delhi High court has
quashed FIR filed under Section 306 IPC in
Roop Kishore Madan v. State, while
mentioning that even though the suicide
note clearly mentions that the deceased
committed suicide because of the accused
but there is no material on record to show
that the ingredients of the offence of
abetment had been satisfied and, therefore
the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot
be said to have been committed. The
instigation when not direct has to be
gathered from the circumstances of the
case.

23. That in the present case, it is most
respectfully
submitted
that
the
Investigating Agency has failed to establish
mens rea on the part of the Revisionists
leading to the commissioning of suicide by
the deceased Lalit Yadav.

24. That in the present case deceased
was only scolded by the Revisionists for
getting into road accident while riding bike
that too without helmet and valid driving
license, which was against the Code of
Conduct of the Cathedral Sr. Secondary
School where Revisionists are posted as
Principal and P.T. Teacher. It is bounded
duty of the revisionist to ensure proper
discipline of students in and outside the
school premises.

25. That Code of Conduct of the
Cathedral Sr. Secondary School provides
that students who misconducts and breaks
the rules will be suspended from attending
classed/school
and
may
be
expelled/rusticated from the school.

26. The above fact is also evident
from the Statement Anshul Gupta who was
the pillion rider on the bike of the deceased
when the deceased got into accident and
eye witness of the same. In fact Anshul
Gupta I his Statement recorded u/s 161
CrPC had categorically stated that on the
fateful day he was slapped by the Principal
viz. Melvin Saldahna, the Revisionist after
he tried to explain the reasons and the
aftermath incidents of the

27. That from the reading of the
statement of Anshul Gupta it is also clear
that deceased was afraid of his father and
was assuming that he would be scolded
once his father gets to know that he has
been suspended from the School. It is
further clarified from the statement of
Anshul Gupta that the deceased was further
afraid that due to the above incident he may
get expelled from the school or may be
barred from writing the exams which
further indicated that the deceased was
hypersensitive.

28. That in the present case FIR has
been filed by the complainant who happens
to be the father of the deceased and is
serving as Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police and
is
in
a
position
to
influence
the
investigation against the Revisionists. The
trial court while considering the discharge
application has completely overlooked this
particular fact.

29. That in the present case there is no
eye witness corroborating that the deceased
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
41
was mercilessly beaten by the Revisionists.
Simultaneous consideration of the First
Information Report as well as the statement
of the Father of deceased Amar Nath Yadav
made under section 161 of the CrPC shows
that FIR has been lodged with a motion of
vengeance.

30. That an unsuccessful attempt has
been made to create a fictitious grievance
about the harsh behaviour of revisionist
towards the deceased however not even a
single complaint was ever made not even a
personal approach was made nor even any
letter was sent to the authorities in this
regard. Therefore, the alleged allegations
are nothing but reveals the vengeant
behaviour of the father of deceased against
the Revisionists.

31. That Burden of proof always lies on
the prosecution and it never shifts. In view of
the crux of the judgments of Hn'ble the Apex
court as well as various High Courts if in the
present matter the prosecution version even if
accepted for a while (though not conceded)
does not whisper any component of mental
intention of crime pertaining to abetment to
commit suicide by the deceased. Nor there
happens to be any active or passive motive
for the Revisionists for doing so because they
are the Principal and Teacher and every
teacher wants to see his pupil to reach peak of
success.

32. That Section 227 of CrPC
provides that the Court should be satisfied
that the accusation made against the
accused person is not frivolous and there is
some material for proceeding against him.
Section 227 statutorily binds the trial Judge
to
discharge
an
accused
in
cases
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions
after
making
compliance
of
undermentioned four mandatory requirements;

(1)Consideration of the record of
the case and the documents submitted
therewith;

(2) Hearing the submissions of
the accused and the prosecution in that
behalf;

(3) Consideration that there is no
ground for proceeding against the accused;

(4)
Recording
reasons
for
discharge

For better understanding Section
227 of CrPC is reproduced hereinbelow:

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.

33. That the parameters that govern
the exercise of this jurisdiction (Discharge
Application) have found expression in
several decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (State of
Karnataka
Lokayukta
Vs.
M.R.
Hiremath, 2019 (7) SCC 515, have
observed that at the stage of considering an
application for discharge, the Court must
proceed on the assumption that the material
which has been brought on record by the
prosecution should be true and the Court
should evaluate the material in order to
determine whether the facts emerging from
the material taken on its face value
discloses the existence of the ingredients
necessary to constitute the offence.

34. That Free, Fair and Transparent
justice is inevitable & happens to be a
fundamental
right
of
every
citizen
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This issue is well
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settled that free and fair investigation
happens to be the integral part of free trial.
Here I n the present matter the investigating
officer has not been able to collect or
demonstrate an iota of evidence which may
even prima facie show that there was any
mental intention of either of the revisionists
in commissioning of the offence.

Learned counsel for the revisionists
has relied on various judgments. They
are:-

35. That Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case of
Sunil Kumar Sen. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh in Writ Petition No.11763/2018
(MP HC) has held that:

"10. From the narrative in the
petition, it appears that the deceased was
leaving school before the end of school
hours and upon being so discovered in the
act by the Respondent No.4, was allegedly
slapped and admonished by the Respondent
No.4. However, to hold that there must be
an investigation against the Respondent
No.4 for an offence u/s. 306 IPC based
upon the above allegations is uncalled for.
Such an investigation would expose the
Respondent No.4 to an arrest and would
send a loud message to all those involved
in the imparting of education that there are
perils of personal inconvenience and legal
proceedings to be faced if students are
admonished and chastised.

11. Thus, looking at the nature of
the allegations, where there is a subsequent
improvisation that the deceased was taken
back to the school, in a van by the respondent
No. 4, where she was again beaten is of
suspicious authenticity and credence on
account of the fact, that the first complaint
that 10 was preferred by the same petitioner
to
the police
authority,
this
fact
is
conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, this
court is of the opinion that it would be a
travesty of justice to hang the proverbial
sword of Damocles over the Respondent No.
4, who is the Principal of Government Higher
Secondary School and imperil him with
police
investigation,
where
even
the
allegations levelled by the petitioner herein,
do not disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence much less one under
Section 306 of the IPC. Under the
circumstances, the petition is dismissed."

36. That Hon'ble Madras High Court in
P. Rajamohan Versus State & others in
Cri. O.P.(MD) No.19293/2014 vide order
dated 28.09.2018 while dealing with similar
issue related to section 306 IPC has held that:

"13. The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
The presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
necessary concomitant of instigation. It is
common knowledge that the words uttered in
a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot
be taken to be uttered with mens rea.
Secondly, the said abusive words is said to
have been uttered to the deceased by the
Petitioners, when they had come to know that
the deceased had stolen the money from the
bag of the Anganvadi Teacher and money
was also recovered from her. Thirdly, the
deceased had her lunch in the School and
attended the post lunch session classes and
left the School only after it was over and she
had committed suicide only after reaching the
home. All these factors would clearly point
out that it could not be a direct result of the
utterances made by the Petitioners.

14. ...........................

15. One important thing to be
noted in this case is that the Petitioners
being the Teachers of the Government
School in the interest of the Institution
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
43
correct any mistake done by the student in
order to cultivate good habits and get rid of
bad habits, such as stealing money. In fact,
the father of the deceased girl had been
summoned and it is stated that he gave a
letter of apology for the conduct of his
daughter and also undertook that the same
would not recur again. In such view of the
matter, the act of the petitioners cannot be
said that it would amount to abetment of
suicide.

16. In the case of Sashi Prabha
Devi Vs. State of Assam [2006-Cri.LJ1762], the allegation is that the accused, a
Head Mistress of a School wrongly struck
off the name of the deceased from the
Register of the Students in Class X, which
induced the deceased to commit suicide
and the High Court of Gujarat has held
that there was no evidence showing that the
accused had acted at any point of time,
suggested or hinted for commission of
suicide and when the accused was entitled
to correct any wrong order, as in fact
deceased had not passed her class IX
examination, no case of instigation or
abetment of suicide was made out against
the accused.

17. In the case of Nettai Dutta Vs.
State of will be [2005-2-SCC-659], the
Honourable Supreme Court upholding the
order of the High Court, quashed the
charge sheet filed under Section 306 of IPC
on the ground that the offence under
Section would stand only if there is an
abetment for the commission of crime.

18. In a very recent decision
rendered in the case of Sonti Ramakrishna
Vs. Sonti Shanthi Shree and another [20091- SCC-554], the Honourable Supreme
Court has held that though normally
threshold interference should not be made
under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure, quashing of the complaint on
facts was just and necessary. It has also
held that words uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without any intention cannot be
termed as instigation.

12.By applying the above said
well settled principles guided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a
catena of decisions cited supra to the
present case, on looking into the words
uttered
by
the
petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in cannot be said to be
instigation. In the said circumstances,
certainly it cannot be said that the
petitioner had in any way instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or was
responsible for the commission of suicide
by the deceased boy.

13.Taking into consideration of
the totality of the materials on record and
facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner
cannot
be
held
responsible
for
the
commission of suicide committed by the
deceased boy as there was no instigation or
abetment on the part of the petitioner in the
commission of suicide by the deceased boy.

37. That Hon'ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Raj
Shekhar
Paliwal
Vs.
State
of
Chhattisgarh & another, reported in 2020
SCC Online CHH 37 while dealing with
similar issue related to Section 306 IPC has
held that:-

"14. On perusal of the statement
of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
it is found that there had been occasions
and reasons for which the deceased was
taken to task by the applicants, it does not
appear that the applicants had acted on any
false pretext, there had been reasons for
their acting or reacting with respect to the
activity or any failure on the part of the
deceased which is mentioned in the
statements of the witnesses- Karambir
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shashtri and Sukanti Shashtri. It appears
that the deceased was very much sensitive
and she used to become upset after such
occasions when she taken to task by the
applicants. By taking into consideration,
the whole circumstances that occurred
before the deceased committed suicide, it
can be said that the applicants have acted
when they found some kind of fault on the
part of the deceased. Being Principal and
teacher of the school, the applicants have
authority to keep their students under
discipline. Imparting education is a serious
business and the Principal and the teachers
cannot overlook the mistakes or lapses
committed by any student and they have to
be straight forward and show strictness so
that the students takes care to remain in
discipline and obey the command of the
Principal and teacher. I am of this view that
the applicants have not done anything
otherwise than what was required to be
done.

15.....................

16.....................

17......................

18. In this particular case, this
applicant have acted when they had reasons
to do so. The deceased used to become
upset because of these incidents, there is
nothing to suggest that the applicants had
intended that the deceased would go and
commit suicide, hence, it cannot be said
that there had been any mens-rea on their
part, neither it can be said that the
applicants had created any circumstance
from which the deceased could not come
out and she was compelled to commit
suicide.

19. Apart from that, the other
things that are present in the evidence of
this case are these, that the date written on
the suicide note is 10.02.2018 and the
suicide has been committed by the
deceased on 20.02.2018. The acts alleged
against the applicants are of previous dates
and the last date mentioned
is of
16.01.2018, which is about one month prior
to the date of incident. Therefore, there
appears to be difficulty in connecting all
the incidents that have taken place between
the applicants and the deceased with the
incident of commission of suicide. Hence, I
am of this view that in this case, the
allegations
are
though
against
the
applicants but there is nothing to suggest
that these applicants have given any kind of
abetment to the deceased to commit
suicide. Hence, the framing of charge
against these applicants under Section 306
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is erroneous
which is liable to be set aside. Hence, the
revision petition is allowed and the
impugned order framing charge against the
applicant is set aside. The applicants are
discharged."

38. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 01.10.2020 in the case of
Gurcharan Singh. Vs. The State of
Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011)
while dealing with the issue related to
section 306 IPC has held that:

13. Section 107 IPC defines
"abetment" and in this case, the following
part of the section will bear consideration:
-

"107. Abetment of a thing - A
person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First-Instigates any person to do that thing;
or **** **** **** **** **** Thirdly -
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing."

14. The definition quoted above
makes it clear that whenever a person
instigates or intentionally aids by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a
person can be said to have abetted in doing
that thing.
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
45

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has
to be established. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the
IPC the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove
mens rea, there has to be something on
record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted
the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient
of mens rea cannot be assumed to be
ostensibly present but has to be visible and
conspicuous. However, what transpires in
the present matter is that both the Trial
Court as well as the High Court never
examined whether appellant had the mens
rea for the crime, he is held to have
committed. The conviction of Appellant by
the Trial Court as well as the High Court
on the theory that the woman with two
young kids might have committed suicide,
possibly because of the harassment faced
by her in the matrimonial house, is not at
all borne out by the evidence in the case.
Testimonies of the PWs do not show that
the wife was unhappy because of the
appellant and she was forced to take such a
step on his account.

16. The necessary ingredients for
the offence under section 306 IPC was
considered in the case SS Chheena Vs.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan1 where explaining
the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer
Bhandari wrote as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental
process
of
instigating
a
person
or
intentionally aiding a 1 (2010) 12 SCC 190
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."

17. While dealing with a case of
abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal2, Dr.
Justice M.K. Sharma writing for the
Division Bench explained the parameters of
Section 306 IPC in the following terms:

"12.
Thus,
this
Court
has
consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the court must
scrupulously
examine
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and also assess
the evidence adduced before it in order to
find
out
whether
the
cruelty
and
harassment meted out to the victim had left
the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to her life. 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."

39. That Allahabad High Court at
Lucknow Bench in the case of Dr. J.P.
Bhargava and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
(Application u/s 482 No.6195 of 2016)
vide order dated 06.07.2022, while dealing
with the abetment to suicide under Section
306 IPC has held that:

"18. 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
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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/she commit suicide. In the
suicide-note, only allegation is that the
deceased was being frequently transferred
and he was being harassed by the
applicants. For demanding bribe, the
deceased never made any complaint to any
authority and the same could not be
believed. The facts disclose that the
deceased himself was not handing over the
charge despite numerous reminders and he
was not joining the place of his transfer.
The deceased himself was guilty of
dereliction of duty. For performing official
acts, without there being any intention to
push the deceased to commit suicide, the
offence under Section 306 IPC against the
applicants 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.

19................

20................

21................

22................

23.
From
the
aforesaid
discussions, it is evident that the deceased
perceived harassment by the applicants as
he was transferred in frequent successions
on administrative grounds. There is nothing
on record to suggest any mens-rea for
instigating or abetting the suicide by the
applicants. The suicide-note, as has been
extracted herein above even does not
remotely
suggest
that
the
accusedapplicants had any intention to aid,
instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. Transferring the deceased, asking
him to handover the charge and not
sanctioning earned leave by itself would
not constitute the offence of abetment to
commit suicide. There is no evidence
collected by the CBI to suggest that the
applicants intended by such act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide. This Court
is of the view that 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-applicants have committed any
offence under Section 306 IPC. There is no
offending action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the applicants,
which would have led or compelled the
deceased to commit suicide. Perceived of
harassment by the deceased in the hands of
the accused-applicants cannot be a ground
for invoking the offence under Section 306
IPC as it cannot be said that the accusedapplicants have abetted the commission of
suicide by playing any active role or by an
act of instigation or doing certain acts to
facilitate commission of suicide."

40. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kanchan Kumar. Vs. State of
Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.1562 of
2022 vide order dated 14.09.2022 has held
that:

"13. The threshold of scrutiny
required to adjudicate an application under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to consider
the broad probabilities of the case and the
total effect of the material on record,
including examination of any infirmities
appearing in the case. In Prafulla Kumar
Samal (supra), it was noted that: (1) That
the Judge while considering the question of
1 All. Melvin Saldanha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
47
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.