# Rachana Devi & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. 1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1255
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5794 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rachana-devi-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1256-indian-law-reports-53868
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a
prosecution under Section 306 IPC was legally
sustainable, when the material collected during
investigation
disclosed
only
allegations
of
matrimonial discord and quarrels, without prima
facie evidence of instigation, mens rea or
abetment as contemplated under Sections 306
and 107 IPC.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.306, 107 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227 -
Abetment of suicide - Discharge - Scope
- Ingredients of offence - Instigation -
Mens rea - Matrimonial discord - Casual
remarks in quarrel - Proximity - No
prima facie case - Discharge justified-
Revision allowed. (E-14)

Held:
At the stage of consideration of discharge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to
examine whether the material on record, if
accepted at its face value, prima
facie
constitutes the alleged offence. Where the basic
ingredients
of
the
offence
are
absent,
continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse
of process. [Paras 18-20]

For constituting an offence under Section 306
IPC, abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC
is a mandatory ingredient. There must be
instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy, coupled
with a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
domestic discord do not satisfy the statutory
requirement. [Paras 23-26]

From
the
statements
recorded
during
investigation, only general allegations of quarrel,
insult and matrimonial discord were disclosed
against the revisionists. Even if the entire
prosecution material is accepted as it is, it does
not disclose that the revisionists instigated or
intentionally aided the deceased to commit
suicide. [Paras 29-31]

The alleged utterance during a quarrel that the
deceased "should die", assuming it to be
correct, was held to be a casual remark made in
the heat of the moment, lacking the requisite
mens rea and proximity to constitute abetment
of suicide. [Paras 35-37]

To attract Section 306 IPC, the alleged conduct
must be of such nature that it leaves the
deceased with no option except to commit
suicide. The material on record did not disclose
such circumstances. [Paras 38-39]

The Sessions Court failed to properly analyse
the legal ingredients of Sections 306 and 107
IPC and the evidentiary material on record.
Rejection of the discharge application suffered
from illegality. Impugned order set aside;
revision allowed. [Paras 40-43]

Case Law Cited
Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain
Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633 -
relied on;Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal
and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 120 - relied
on;
Ramesh
Kumar
v.
State
of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 - relied on;
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995
Supp (3) SCC 438 - followed; Kamaruddin
Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541 - relied on;
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Discharge; Instigation;
Mens
rea;
Matrimonial
discord;
Domestic
quarrel; Words spoken in heat of moment; No
prima facie case.

Case Arising From
Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Sessions Trial No.
828 of 2023 (State v. Rachana Devi and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of
2022, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.
9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1257
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Manoj Kumar Patel
For the Respondent: Sri Kunwar Tejendra
Bahadur, A.G.A.
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Sri Anand Pati
Tiwari

## Text

9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1255
certificate was challenged by the respondentinformant by producing a copy of pariwar
register showing date of birth of juvenile as of
the year 1999 as well as a driving licence
showing the same year of birth. Thereafter, in
rebuttal another copy of pariwar register was
produced on behalf of the juvenile showing his
date of birth as 10.08.2006.

17. From the perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that finding the
school leaving certificate quite doubtful and
finding that there was no underlying document
to record his age at the time of admission in
the concerned institution coupled with the
facts that other documents like copy of
pariwar register and driving licence showed
different age of the juvenile, in my view, the
Juvenile Justice Board and the learned
Appellate Court below rightly embarked on an
inquiry and radiological age was ordered to
be conducted. The courts below cannot be
faulted
for
depending
upon
the
medical/radiological age of the juvenile and
declaring him as an adult on the basis of the
evidence
available
in
the
facts
and
circumstance of the case. Before this Court,
copy of bail order passed in Bail Application
No. 70/2022 dated 15.01.2022 passed by the
Incharge, Sessions Judge, Amroha and copy of
the order passed by this Court on 24.05.2022
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7301
of 2022 moved on behalf of the present
revisionist, who claim himself to be a juvenile,
has been brought on record. In the bail
application moved before the Sessions Judge,
the applicant-revisionist has shown his age as
19 years, which goes against his own claim.

18. In my view, there were enough
of reasons to discard the documented age of
the juvenile and to call for ossification test, the
Board was perfectly justified in seeking
evidence for determination of age and
drawing its own conclusion based on the
evidence available including evidence of
radiological test. The Board as well as
appellate court both have given a concurrent
finding which is not liable to be disturbed by
this Court while exercising revisional powers
under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015, therefore, I do not find any illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order."

9. Upon due consideration of the
aforesaid, this Court finds that impugned order
dated 25.07.2025 directing for ossification test
is justified and no interference in the matter is
required. It is for the reason that there is
discrepancy in the date of birth of the accusedjuvenile and the same is apparent from the
following facts.

(i) The statement, on oath, given by
the father of the accused-juvenile indicates
that accused-juvenile was admitted in the
Government Primary School, Gopiya, and the
School Register/Student Record of this school
produced and proved by the Principal
indicates that the accused-juvenile was born
on 03.07.2006.

(ii) Subsequent documents
i.e.
Parivar register and mark-sheet of the
accused indicate that the accused-juvenile was
born on as 03.08.2010.

10. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The
order of the Appellate Court is upheld. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1255
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5794 of 2023

Rachana Devi & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Manoj Kumar Patel

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anand Pati Tiwari, G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether rejection of the revisionists' application
for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a
prosecution under Section 306 IPC was legally
sustainable, when the material collected during
investigation
disclosed
only
allegations
of
matrimonial discord and quarrels, without prima
facie evidence of instigation, mens rea or
abetment as contemplated under Sections 306
and 107 IPC.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.306, 107 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.227 -
Abetment of suicide - Discharge - Scope
- Ingredients of offence - Instigation -
Mens rea - Matrimonial discord - Casual
remarks in quarrel - Proximity - No
prima facie case - Discharge justified-
Revision allowed. (E-14)

Held:
At the stage of consideration of discharge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to
examine whether the material on record, if
accepted at its face value, prima
facie
constitutes the alleged offence. Where the basic
ingredients
of
the
offence
are
absent,
continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse
of process. [Paras 18-20]

For constituting an offence under Section 306
IPC, abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC
is a mandatory ingredient. There must be
instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy, coupled
with a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
domestic discord do not satisfy the statutory
requirement. [Paras 23-26]

From
the
statements
recorded
during
investigation, only general allegations of quarrel,
insult and matrimonial discord were disclosed
against the revisionists. Even if the entire
prosecution material is accepted as it is, it does
not disclose that the revisionists instigated or
intentionally aided the deceased to commit
suicide. [Paras 29-31]

The alleged utterance during a quarrel that the
deceased "should die", assuming it to be
correct, was held to be a casual remark made in
the heat of the moment, lacking the requisite
mens rea and proximity to constitute abetment
of suicide. [Paras 35-37]

To attract Section 306 IPC, the alleged conduct
must be of such nature that it leaves the
deceased with no option except to commit
suicide. The material on record did not disclose
such circumstances. [Paras 38-39]

The Sessions Court failed to properly analyse
the legal ingredients of Sections 306 and 107
IPC and the evidentiary material on record.
Rejection of the discharge application suffered
from illegality. Impugned order set aside;
revision allowed. [Paras 40-43]

Case Law Cited
Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain
Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633 -
relied on;Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal
and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 120 - relied
on;
Ramesh
Kumar
v.
State
of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 - relied on;
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995
Supp (3) SCC 438 - followed; Kamaruddin
Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541 - relied on;
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Discharge; Instigation;
Mens
rea;
Matrimonial
discord;
Domestic
quarrel; Words spoken in heat of moment; No
prima facie case.

Case Arising From
Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Sessions Trial No.
828 of 2023 (State v. Rachana Devi and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of
2022, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.
9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1257
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Manoj Kumar Patel
For the Respondent: Sri Kunwar Tejendra
Bahadur, A.G.A.
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Sri Anand Pati
Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
revisionists is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Patel,
learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri
Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for O.P.
No.2 and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur,
learned AGA for the State.

3.
By
way
of
instant
revision
following prayer has been made:-

" It is therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very
kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 19.10.2023
passed by Sessions Judge Auraiya rejecting
the discharge application under section
227 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 828 of
2023 (State Vs. Rachana Devi and others)
arising out of case crime no. 683 of 2022
under section 306 I.P.C. Police StationDibiyapur District-Auraiya., so that justice
may done otherwise the revisionist shall
suffer irreparably. It is further prayed that
his Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
stay
the
entire
criminal
proceeding
initiated against the revisionists in Sessions
Trial No. 828 of 2023 (State Vs. Rachana
Devi and others) arising out of case
crime no. 683 of 2022 under section 306
I.P.C. Police Station-Dibiyapur DistrictAuraiya, pending before District and
Session
Judge
Auraiya,
during
the
pendency
of
the
present
Revision,
otherwise the revisionists shall suffer an
Irreparable loss and injury."

Factual matrix of the case

4. FIR of the present case was lodged
on 14.11.2022 against revisionists and one
another under Section 306 IPC and
according to FIR, marriage of the son of
O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with revisionist
no.1 about 7 years before and after
marriage revisionists used to insult his son.
It is further mentioned in the FIR that
revisionist no.1 lodged a false case against
O.P. No.2 and others under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and
thereafter she had left her matrimonial
home and started leaving with revisionist
nos. 2 and 3 but subsequently both the
parties
settled
the
dispute,
however,
revisionist no.1 did not drop the case.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR,
on 20.06.2022 revisionist no.1 turned out
O.P. No.2 and his wife from her
matrimonial home but subsequently she
permitted them to live in her matrimonial
home. As per FIR, on 08.11.2022,
revisionist no.1 called revisionist nos. 2 and
3 and her brother in her matrimonial home
and badly insulted O.P. No.2 and thereafter
O.P. No.2 and his wife again left the house
and on 12.11.2022, O.P. No.2 received
information that revisionist no.1 is making
quarrel with his son and on 13.11.2022, he
received information about the death of his
son. According to FIR, son of O.P. No.2
committed suicide due to the abetment of
revisionists.

6. After registration of the FIR,
investigation was conducted and after
investigation charge-sheet has been filed
against revisionists and after submission of
charge sheet, court concerned took the
cognizance
and
thereafter
case
was
committed to the court of sessions. Before
trial court, revisionists filed discharge
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application but their discharge application
has been dismissed vide impugned order
dated 19.10.2023. Hence, instant revision.

Submission advanced on behalf of
revisionists

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that revisionist no.1 is the wife
of the deceased while revisionist nos. 2 and
3 are his mother-in-law and father-in-law
respectively. He further submitted that as
per allegation, due to abetment of the
revisionists, son of O.P. No.2 i.e. husband
of revisionist no.1 committed suicide by
hanging himself but allegation of abetment
levelled against them is totally false.

8. He further submitted that actually
O.P. No.2 and his family members
including the deceased used to torture the
revisionist no.1 and due to this reason, she
had to lodge a case against them under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4
D.P. Act and however, on the request of
O.P. No.2 and his son, revisionist no.1
started living in her matrimonial home but
they again started torturing her and due to
this
reason
sometimes
dispute
arose
between husband and wife. He further
submitted that due to bad behaviour of O.P.
No.2 and his family members including
deceased, revisionist nos. 2 and 3 being
parents of revisionist no.1 raised objection
but they never insulted the son of O.P. No.2
and due to matrimonial dispute deceased
committed suicide by handing himself and
it cannot be reflected, due to the abetment
of revisionists, he committed suicide.

9. He further submitted that there is no
evidence on record, which can suggest that
due to abetment of the revisionists,
deceased committed suicide and bald
allegation of torture and insult made
against the revisionists does not constitute
offence of Section 306 IPC but court
concerned failed to consider this fact and
wrongly
dismissed
the
discharge
application filed by the revisionists.

10. He further submitted that during
investigation
I.O.
also
recorded
the
statements of independent witnesses, who
were neighbours and however, from their
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., it reflects, some dispute very often
arose between husband and wife i.e.
revisionist no.1 and deceased but merely on
the basis of such routine matrimonial
dispute, it cannot be said that revisionist
no.1 abated the deceased to commit
suicide.

11. He further submitted that from the
statements of independent witnesses, it also
reflects on 8.11.2022 revisionists nos. 2 and
3 came at the matrimonial home of
revisionist no.1 and serious alteration took
place between them and deceased and
thereafter they said that "why he not die"
but even considering this fact, it cannot be
said that due to abetment of revisionist nos.
2 and 3, deceased committed suicide.

12. He further submitted that during
investigation I.O. failed to collect any
cogent and admissible evidence, which
can suggest that due to abetment of
revisionists deceased committed suicide
and, therefore, impugned order dated
19.10.2023 is illegal.

13.
He
further
submitted
that
therefore, impugned order is illegal and
after setting aside the impugned order dated
19.10.2023, revisionists may be discharged.

Submission advanced on behalf of
State and O.P. No.2
9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1259

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as
learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposed the
prayer and submitted that revisionist no.1 is
the wife of deceased while revisionist nos.
2 and 3 are her parents and there are ample
evidences,
which
can
suggest
that
revisionists used to torture and insult the
deceased and therefore, it cannot be said,
there is no evidence of abetment against
them.

15. They further submitted that even as
per statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation, it reflect, revisionist nos. 2 and
3 also insulted the deceased and on
08.11.2022, they also instigated him to die.

16.
They
further
submitted
that
therefore, from the material available on
record, it is apparent that prima facie
offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
against the revisionists and, therefore, by
rejecting
discharge
application
of
revisionists, trial court did not commit any
illegality and instant revision is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Analysis and conclusion

17. By way of instant revision
revisionists challenged the impugned order
dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial court,
by which their discharge application has
been dismissed.

18. Law with regard to discharge is
settled, if material available on record
prima face does not constitute the alleged
offence then accused should be discharged
and not otherwise.

19. The Apex Court in case of
Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain
Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 in
paragraph no. 11 has already observed as:-

"11. The law on issue as to what
is to be considered at the time of discharge
of an accused is well settled. It is a case in
which the Trial Court had not yet framed
the charges. Immediately after filing of
charge sheet, application for discharge was
filed. The settled proposition of law is that at
the stage of hearing on the charges entire
evidence produced by the prosecution is to be
believed. In case no offence is made out then
only an accused can be discharged.
Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of
the material produced can be done only at
the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the
Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is
made out against the accused persons.
Interference of the Court at that stage is
required only if there is strong reasons to
hold that in case the trial is allowed to
proceed, the same would amount to abuse of
process of the Court."

20. Therefore, from the material
available on record, it is to see, whether
offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
against the revisionists or not.

21. In case at hand, revisionist no.1 is
the wife of the deceased while revisionist
nos. 2 and 3 are his in-laws and according
to the prosecution, due to their abetment
deceased committed suicide and thus they
committed
offence
punishable
under
Section 306 IPC.

22. Before delving into the matter, it is
necessary to go through the Section 306
IPC, which reads 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."
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. From perusal of Section 306 IPC,
it reflects, abetement to commit suicide is
one of the essential ingredient to constitute
offence under Section 306 IPC.

24. Abetement has been defined under
Section 107 IPC, which reads as follows:-

"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."

25. The Apex Court in case of Laxmi
Das vs. State of West Bengal and others
2025 SCC OnLine SC 120 in paragraph
no. 8 held as:-

"8. When Section 306 IPC is read
with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there
must be (i) direct or indirect instigation;
(ii) in close proximity to the commission of
suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to
abet the commission of suicide."

26. Therefore, it is apparent that to
constitute offence under Section 306 IPC
instigation
is
one
of
the
essential
ingredients. Instigation means to provoke,
incite or encourage a person to do an act.

27. The Apex Court in case of
Ramesh
Kumar
vs.
State
of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, on which
reliance was placed by Apex Court in case
of Laxmi Das(supra) in paragraph no. 20
observed as:-

"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."

28. Therefore, in the light of principle
laid down by the Apex Court, it is to
analyse, whether from the material placed
before the trial court offence under Section
306 IPC is made out or not.

29. In case at hand, from the material
available
on
record
including
the
statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation, it appears, there are general
allegations of harassment and insult against
the revisionists and as per statements of
witnesses, it reflects, revisionist no.1 used
to quarrel with the deceased but from their
statements, it could not be reflected that
revisionists in any manner instigated the
deceased to commit suicide.

30. Mens rea to abet the commission
of
suicide
is
essential
for
offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC. Mens
9 All. Rachana Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1261
rea is the mental state, which shows the
intention and, therefore, if wife or husband
or their relatives are being either harassed
or tortured but without any intention to
commit suicide, then it cannot be said that
there was abetment to commit suicide.

31. In the present case, however, as
per prosecution, revisionists used to torture
and insult O.P. No.2 but even if entire
material
collected
by
I.O.
during
investigation are accepted as it is then also
it could not be reflected that revisionists
were having mens rea to abet the deceased
for suicide.

32. Further, however, from the record,
it reflects, due to matrimonial dispute arose
between revisionist no.1, the wife and
deceased, the husband, wife i.e. revisionist
no.1 lodged a case against him and his
family members under Section 498-A, 323,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. but
matrimonial discord and differences in
domestic life are quite common and if due
to this reason either husband or wife
commits suicide then it cannot be held that
due to their abetment deceased committed
suicide.

33. The Apex Court in case of
Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of
Karnataka through SHO Kakati 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3541 also observed that
discord and differences in domestic life are
quite common in the society. Commission
of suicide largely depends upon the mental
status of the victim. Unless & until some
guilty intention on the part of accused is
apparent, it is ordinarily not possible to
show
accused
committed
offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC.

34. As already observed, from perusal of
the material available on record, it could not
be reflected that revisionists were having
mens rea or any intention that deceased
committed suicide, therefore, prima facie, it
reflects, allegations levelled against the
revisionists are not sufficient to constitute
offence under Section 306 IPC.

35.
Further,
however,
from
the
statements of witnesses recorded during
investigation, it reflects, on 8.11.2022,
revisionists nos. 2 and 3, the in-laws of the
deceased i.e. parents of revisionist no.1 came
at the house of the deceased and during
quarrel told him "he should die" and
thereafter deceased committed suicide on
13.11.2022 but in view of this Court, it does
not constitute offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC as it cannot be said that due
to their abetment deceased committed
suicide.

36. In case of Swamy Prahaladdas vs.
State of M.P. and another 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438:1995 SCC (Cri) 943 the accused
remarked to the deceased that go and die and
thereafter deceased committed suicide, the
Apex Court in paragraph no. 3 observed as:-

"3. ...... Those words are casual in
nature which are often employed in the heat of
moment between quarrelling people. Nothing
serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite means
rea on the assumption that these words would
be carried out in all events."

37. Therefore, it is apparent that if any
words uttered in heat of the moment during
quarrel and thereafter deceased committed
suicide then also it cannot be held that due
to abetment of accused deceased committed
suicide.

38. Further, to constitute offence under
Section 306 IPC, it is necessary that the
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alleged harassment was of such nature,
which left no other option for the deceased
except to commit suicide.[See: Amalendu
Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
(2010) 1 SCC 707].

39. In case at hand, however, as per
prosecution, due to matrimonial dispute
revisionists used to harass the deceased but
from the entire evidence available on
record, it could not be reflected that except
to commit suicide, he was not having any
other option, therefore, from this point of
view also offence under Section 306 IPC is
not made out.

40. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, it reflects, no prima facie
offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
against the revisionists and court concerned
without properly analyzing the evidence
available on record dismissed the discharge
application filed by revisionists and,
therefore, committed illegality.

41. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in considered view of this Court
while dismissing the discharge application
of the revisionists trial court committed
illegality
and
impugned
order
dated
19.10.2023 is illegal.

42. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 19.10.2023 passed by the court
concerned is hereby set aside.

43.
The
instant
revision
stands
allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1262
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6662 of 2024

Juvenile-X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the
Appellate Court erred in holding that the
offences alleged against the revisionist under
Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
constituted
"heinous
offences"
under
the
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection
of
Children) Act, 2015, thereby justifying trial of
the juvenile as an adult under Section 15 of the
Act, notwithstanding the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of
Delhi).

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - ss.2(33), 14, 15, 19
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss.363, 366 -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
s.3(2)(v) - Juvenile in conflict with law -
Heinous offence - Minimum sentence of
seven years - "Fourth category" of
offences - Serious offence - Trial as
adult - Orders set aside.

Held:
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, an offence can be
categorised as a "heinous offence" only if it
prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years
or more. Offences which provide for a maximum
sentence exceeding seven years but do not
prescribe a minimum sentence, or prescribe a
minimum sentence of less than seven years, fall
in the "fourth category" identified by the
Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of