HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011

Between:-

1. Chilikuri Mariyadas, S/o Venakateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Chilikuri Pitchayya, S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

...Petitioners

AND

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.

...Respondent

****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2025

2

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO , J

3

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011

% 16.06.2025

# Between:

3. Chilikuri Mariyadas, S/o Venakateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Chilikuri Pitchayya, S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.

...Petitioners

AND

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.

...Respondent

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.Prabhakara Rao

^Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akhila Naidu,

Assistant Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

4

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

? Cases referred:

1) (2002) 6 SCC 650

2) (2010) 12 SCC 190

3) (2010) 1 SCC 707

4) (2011) 3 SCC 626

5) (2019) 17 SCC 301

6) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

7) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

8) (2009) 16 SCC 605

9) (2020) 15 SCC 359

10) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107

11) (2010) 8 SCC 628

12) (2001) 9 SCC 618

13) 2025 INSC 168

14) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091

15) (2019) 3 SCC 315

16) (2005) 2 SCC 659

17) (2021) 19 SCC 144

18) SCC OnLine SC 1387

5

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 44 of 2011

ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging

the judgment dated 21.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 passed by the learned

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam,

confirming the judgment dated 09.03.2009 in S.C.No.300 of 2008 passed by

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama finding the revisionists

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the revisionists under Section 235 (2)

of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only)

each and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months each.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while

reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the judgments of the

learned Courts below are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities

of the case; the learned Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners merely

based on Ex.P8 dying declaration without any support from independent

6

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

sources; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that there is no

investigation or either direct or indirect participation of the petitioners for the

alleged abetting of the offence of suicide within the contemplation of Section

306 of ‘the I.P.C’; the Courts below ought to have seen that non-examination

of the doctor who attended the deceased was fatal to the prosecution case

inasmuch as there was no evidence to show about the mental condition of the

deceased enabling her to make a statement as to the offence; the learned

Courts below ought to have seen that as the post-mortem discloses that the

deceased sustained 100% burn injuries that it is impossible or highly

improbable to make a statement under Ex.A8; the learned Courts below ought

to have seen that P.Ws.1 to 4, who are direct eye witnesses, did not support

the case of the prosecution and this itself creates any amount of doubt on the

case of the prosecution; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that

there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 as

to the recording of the statement of the deceased by the P.W.9; and that

eventually, requested to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the

impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate and Trial Courts.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial

Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence

7

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material

irregularities, miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 dated 21.12.2010

passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge

(F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with

respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any

material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar

1

wherein at Paragraph Nos.12

& 13 it is held as under:

“13.... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in

the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to

interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly

been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to

reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest

illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional

jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.”

8. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second

Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision

case as laid down in the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh. However,

this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments

1

(2002) 6 SCC 650

8

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence

or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are

manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the

correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of

justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and

come to a just conclusion

9. It is the case of the prosecution emanating from the charge sheet that

the deceased-Chilukuri Mariyamma is the wife of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner

No.2 is the younger brother of Petitioner No.1. Marriage of Petitioner No.1 was

performed with deceased about two decades ago. They were blessed with two

daughters and one son. From the very beginning of the marriage, Petitioner

No.1 had been harassing the deceased both physically and mentally

suspecting her fidelity. Frequent quarrels ensued between them. On the night

of 14.02.2008, the Petitioners beat deceased due to suspicion of her fidelity.

As a result, she felt insulted, as she was beaten by Petitioner No.2 with a

chappal, she poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The whole

body was burnt. On 15.02.2008 at about 09.00 a.m., Petitioner No.1 shifted

the body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Nandigama and from

where to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, wherein she succumbed

to injuries on the same day at about 02.30 p.m.

10. Based on Ex.P11 Hospital intimation on 15.02.2008 at about 10.30

a.m., P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station had come

9

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

posthaste to the Government Hospital, Nandigama, recorded the statement of

the deceased vide Ex.P12, basing on which a case in Cr.No.47 of 2008 under

the caption ‘Woman Burns’ was registered and took up investigation. P.W.9

visited the scene of offence, examined it in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.15

Pallepogu China Anandam and seized M.O.1 - ten liters tin of kerosene under

Ex.P5 observation report. P.W.9 also drew Ex.P14 - sketch of scene of

offence. On receipt of death intimation of Chilukuri Mariyamma from

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, P.W.8 altered the section of law

from the caption ‘Woman Burns’ to Section 306 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on

16.02.2008 at about 09.30 a.m. An inquest was conducted over the cadaver of

deceased in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.15 under Ex.P6 – Inquest Report

and forwarded the body of Chilukuri Mariyamma to autopsy.

11. P.W.6 – the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama, on requisition

under Ex.P7 hospital intimation, had visited Government Hospital, Nandigama

and recorded Ex.P8 dying declaration of Chilukuri Mariyamma. P.W.7

conducted autopsy over the cadaver of deceased and issued Ex.P9 –

Postmortem certificate, certifying that the cause of death of Chilukuri

Mariyamma was due to burns and its complications. P.W.9 arrested Petitioner

No.1 on 19.02.2008 and Petitioner No.2 on 22.08.2008 and forwarded them to

the learned jurisdictional magistrate for judicial remand. On completion of

investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

10

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

12. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama took cognizance

of the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ against the

Petitioners and registered the case as P.R.C.No.25 of 2008. In this case it is

expedient to examine whether there was any instigation either direct or

indirect on the part of the Petitioners driving Chilukuri Mariyamma for taking

extreme step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set

herself ablaze. The doctor, who attended the deceased, was not examined by

the prosecution to speak about the mental condition of the deceased while

giving her dying declaration. The deceased received 100% burn injuries as

seen from the evidence of P.W.7, the doctor who conducted autopsy. P.Ws.1

to 4 deposed ignorance about the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court

based on the evidence of panch witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandigama, inquest report and the dying declaration of the deceased,

convicted and sentenced the Petitioners.

13. P.W.6 the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Nandigama who recorded the

dying declaration of the deceased deposed that he had commenced recording

of dying declaration at 10.45 a.m., and concluded at 10.55 a.m. He admitted

that there were no other persons present at the time of recording of dying

declaration expect the duty doctor and his attender. Whereas the evidence of

P.W.9 – the Sub-Inspector of Police is that he recorded the statement of the

deceased at about 10.50 a.m., and 11.00 a.m., on the same day of recording

of dying declaration by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate

11

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

recorded dying declaration of Chilukuri Mariyamma in her own words

(translated into English) as under:

“My husband and his brother (my brother-in-law) Pitchayya

beat me yesternight. They stated that why should I lead this life

and why should not I die. Hence I poured kerosene and set

myself fire. My mother-in-law brought me to the hospital.”

14. In this context, it is apposite to refer the landmark decisions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court about the principles and ratios to decide whether there

are adequate ingredients to determine about commission of abetment of

suicide by the petitioners.

15. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

2

, at Paragraph No.25 it is

held as under:

25. “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive

act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing

suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the

legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by 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.”

16. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal

3

, at Paragraph No.12 it is

held as under:

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

2

(2010) 12 SCC 190

3

(2010) 1 SCC 707

12

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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.”

17. In M. Mohan v. State

4

, at Paragraph Nos.44 and 45 it is held as under:

“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.”

18. In Ude Singh v. State of Haryana

5

, at Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 it is

held as under:

“15. Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating

a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing

when:

(i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or

(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the

doing of that thing; or

(iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing.

These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word

“instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about

by persuasion to do anything.

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

4

(2011) 3 SCC 626

5

(2019) 17 SCC 301

13

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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 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,

14

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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.”

19. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh

6

, at Paragraph

Nos.2 and 3 it is held as under:

“2. The impugned order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

is in confirmation of the order of the Court of Session, whereby, the

appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial for offence under

Section 306 IPC. The said order has been passed in this

background:

Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is alleged to have had

two paramours, one was the deceased and the other is the

appellant. It is alleged that there was sexual jealousy between the

two. The deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges

that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her heart was

with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6-1992, all the three had a

quarrel while sharing their morning tea. During that course, the

appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to go and die.

The prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went home in

a dejected mood, whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide has

been termed as the direct cause for the treatment meted out to the

deceased by the appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone

stands committed to the Court of Session to face trial because of

her preferential treatment to the appellant.

3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it

appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused

because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just

on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in

summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult,

in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view

that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the

deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature

which are often employed in the heat of the moment between

quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.

The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the

assumption that these words would be carried out in all events.

Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and

cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be

said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the

words uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is

6

1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

15

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

The orders of the High Court and that of the Court of Session are

thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge.”

20. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab

7

, at Paragraph No.15 it is held

as under:

“15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. 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. 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 the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to

have committed. The conviction of the 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.”

21. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)

8

, at Paragraph

No.13 it is held as under:

“13. As per the section, a person can be said to have

abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful

misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which

he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of

“abetment”. It is manifest that under all the three situations,

direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the

7

1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

8

(2009) 16 SCC 605

16

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the

offence under Section 306 IPC.”

22. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana

9

, at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under:

“9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. In order to

bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a

case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the

person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must

have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing

certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act

of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be

proved and established by the prosecution before he could be

convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

23. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya

Pradesh

10

wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 it is held as under:

“18…As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement

of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a

continued course of conduct should have created such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option

except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered

in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the

consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be

instigation.

19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present

case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame

charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is

so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and

at its highest, a reading of the suicide note reveals that the

appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan

guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar.

9

(2020) 15 SCC 359

10

2025 SCC OnLine SC 107

17

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of

realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can

be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions

emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be

said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of

suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his

acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no

other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the

armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased,

albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no

other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we

draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the

situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged

after a delay of two months and twenty days.

20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly

reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section

306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however

seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC

appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the

police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the

threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should

not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the

immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.

The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their

interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate

death of the deceased should be approached from a practical

point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.

Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without

anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide.

It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law

laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are

not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable

prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution

and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe

syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the

investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter

disregard for the ingredients of Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C’.

18

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

24. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat

11

, it is held that in order to

bring out an offence under Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ specific abetment as

contemplated by Section 107 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ on the part of the accused with an

intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that

abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to

aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for

attracting Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C’.

25. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

12

the Hon’ble Apex Court

while examining different shades of the meaning of “instigation” at Paragraph

No.20 reads as under:

“20... Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or

encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation

though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt

out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his

acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such

circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except

to commit suicide in which case 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."

26. In Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh

13

the Hon’ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.19 and 21 held as under:

“19…By a long line of judgments, this Court has

reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section

306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107

11

(2010) 8 SCC 628

12

(2001) 9 SCC 618

13

2025 INSC 168

19

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about

the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that

abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention

of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to

commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See

Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010)

8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out

should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put

an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide

there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to

commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of

West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State,

(2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of

Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make

out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely

mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the

material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants

assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as

to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put

an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly

the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the

family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does

indicate an element of desperation on the part of the

respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants.

Reliance of the statements recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022,

only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and

inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding

with the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed

will be a gross abuse of process.”

27. In Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh

14

the Hon’ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 held as under:

“19…This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC

301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of

the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be

visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as

under:-

14

2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091

20

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

"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 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 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

21

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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."

21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of

the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is

committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming

encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to

commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing

suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological

imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two

broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental

ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category

would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused

in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category

sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may

result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently

creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the

person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give

temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is

relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister,

sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental

tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second

category the tie is on account of official relations, where the

expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for

such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in

law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie

cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being

different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former

category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category,

by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by

law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to

make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on

record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that

the accused intended the consequences of the act, l.e., suicide.

Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention

can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The

problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and

nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of

the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence &

22

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common

intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a

full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as

regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the

weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in

cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things

clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The

Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law

governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the

inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the

correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which

leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and

appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of

the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they

decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However,

it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the

matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have

been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to

trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. (a) On the date of the meeting, l.e., 03.11.2006, did the

appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture,

leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To

ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the

deceased referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional

vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or

underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences,

such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that

he believed suicide was the only way out?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged

the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to

public humiliation & loss of dignity.

24. The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as

abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given

case."

23

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

28. In Arjunan v. State

15

the Hon’ble Apex Court, while explaining the

necessary ingredients of Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ in detail, at Paragraph

No.7 it is held as under:

“7... The essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the

accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit

suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the

deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,

constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence

capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act

to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the

ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are

satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306

IPC."

29. In Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal

16

the Hon’ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.5, 6, and 7 held as under:

“Where an employee of a company was transferred from one

place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he

sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance against

stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company

accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee

committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging

therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh Chatterjee

engaged him in several wrong doings. The same was alleged

as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint,

against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the IPC.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined

to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while

quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as

under:

"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note

that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was

in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased

Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very

much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work

place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his

15

(2019) 3 SCC 315

16

(2005) 2 SCC 659

24

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha

Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two

years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot

be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated

the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the

suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306.

IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the

commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment"

have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who

instigates any person to do that thing: or engages with one or

more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing

of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in

pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have

intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation

to. Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful

concealment of a material-fact which he is bound to disclose,

may also come within the contours of "abetment"

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 where by the appellant herein is alleged to have,

committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or

instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to 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. 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."

30. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan

17

the Hon’ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 held as under:

“15...The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is

to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This

Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9

SCC 618, has defined the word 'instigate' as under:"20.

17

(2021) 19 SCC 144

25

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or

encourage to do "an act"."

16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-

relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly

by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person

in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part

of the accused to instigate or aid in committing

suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The

intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases

decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order

to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has

to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also

requires an active act or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and

that act must have been intended to push the

deceased into such a position that he committed

suicide”.

31. In Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police

18

the Hon’ble Apex

Court at Paragraph No.44 held as under:

“44… 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 their 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."

32. On a careful analysis and scrutiny of the dying declaration of Chilukuri

Mariyamma, it can be easily discerned that there was no instigation done by

any of the Petitioners goading Chilukuri Mariyamma to commit suicide. There

is no evidence that they had intentionally aided her to commit suicide. There is

18

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387

26

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

no evidence that the Petitioners committed abetment of suicide by criminal

conspiracy. On a scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances of

the case, especially dying declaration of the deceased, there was no positive

action proximate to the time of suicide on the part of the Petitioners which lead

or compelled the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.

Therefore, the conviction under Section 306 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ sustained by the

learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court are not valid

and legally acceptable inasmuch as there was no positive act on the part of

the Petitioners to instigate or intentionally aided Chilukuri Mariyamma to

commit suicide.

33. None of the witnesses of the prosecution had spoken that the

Petitioners had entertained a clear mens rea to cause the deceased to commit

suicide. There was neither an active act of direct or indirect on the part of the

Petitioners which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option.

Beating the deceased by the Petitioners on yester-night cannot be

presumable that they intended to push the deceased into such position that

she should commit suicide. As the Petitioners suspected the fidelity of the

deceased, they beat her yester-night of the death of Chilukuri Mariyamma, but

she had felt insulted and resorted to the extreme step.

34. There was no evidence that the Petitioners instigated Chilukuri

Mariyamma to commit suicide. There was no evidence to the effect that the

27

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

Petitioners either goaded or provoked or instigated or encouraged her to

commit suicide. Therefore, it may not be right to hold that the Petitioners were

guilty of abetment of suicide. The deceased felt insulted or humiliated as her

brother-in-law and husband beat her on the pretext that she had not kept her

matrimonial piousness. The action of the Petitioners is otherwise not ordinarily

expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, the

deceased was hypersensitive, as such, it would not be appropriate and proper

to convict the Petitioners for abetment of suicide.

35. The prosecution could not establish the guilty mind of the Petitioners

and in furtherance of that state of mind they abetted Chilukuri Mariyamma to

commit suicide. There was no visible and conspicuous presence of element of

mens rea in the case. The act and words of the petitioners, however, insulting

or humiliating the deceased by stating that why should she live, as she was

leading an immoral life, will not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The

words of the petitioners spoken to the deceased only once, a single instance

i.e., on the preceding night of committing suicide, cannot constitute the

petitioners exploiting the vulnerability of the deceased, making her feel

worthless or undeserving of life, leading her to commit suicide. The

persecution failed to establish that the petitioners, by their acts and their

continuous course of conduct, created a situation which led Chilukuri

Mariyamma to perceive no other option except committing suicide.

28

Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

36. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the

impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court dated 21.12.2010 in

Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions

Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam. Consequently, the judgment of the

learned Trial Court in S.C.No.300 of 2008 dated 09.03.2009 on the file of the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, is also set aside. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO , J

Dt: 16.06.2025

Note: LR copy to be marked

B/o

KMS