2025 INSC 76 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 11868 OF 2023)

MAHENDRA AWASE APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order

dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. By the said judgment, the High

Court declined the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the

offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

(‘IPC’ for short) and maintained the charges as framed by the Trial

Court on 28.02.2023.

2

Brief Facts:

3. On 31.12.2022 a First Information Report was registered at PS

Maingaon on the information of Dharmendra. The informant stated

that his brother Bhagwan Singh was residing near his house along

with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on 11.10.2022 Ranjeet had left

home around 10 AM on his Motorcycle to go to the farm; that when

he did not return home till around 2 PM, he called him, but he got no

response; that his nephews - Shivam Chauhan and Kuldeep Chauhan

started searching for Ranjeet and while searching they went towards

Rangaon. There they found a Motorcycle parked on the side of the

road and when they searched nearby, around 6 PM in the evening,

they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose from a tree on the bank of

Borgaon drain about 100 mtrs. away from the Motorcycle. The

informant further stated that he informed Bhagwan Singh - father of

Ranjeet Singh.

4. That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicide-

note and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about the

deceased being harassed by the appellant - Mahendra Awase.

3

Statements of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be filed

on 21.01.2023. The chargesheet mentioned that the appellant had

committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

5. The suicide note reads as under:-

“I Ranjeet Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Chauhan

"illegible" taking my life on my own because life will

help me in taking my problems for which I have to take

this step.

I did loan for one Ritesh Malakar in which as witness

my cheques were attached for reason of which Awase,

person who give and take loan is harassing much for

this reason I have to take this step.

Sd/-

Ranjeet Singh

10.10.2022”

[Emphasis supplied]

Apart from the suicide note, it further transpires that statements of

witnesses were recorded to the effect that the deceased was staying

disturbed for the past few months and when asked he had mentioned

to them that Mahendra Awase, the appellant was harassing him with

respect to repayment of a loan which one Ritesh Malakar had taken

from Shree Saakh Cooperative Society Limited, Khargone.

4

6. It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed

certain audio recordings of the conversation between the deceased and

the appellant. Transcripts of the conversation were also produced.

7. The transcripts are extracted hereinbelow, as is available from

the Panchnama:-

“Speaker 1: Deceased Shumbam @ Ranjit son of

Bhagwan Singh Chauhan, caste Rajput, aged 26 years,

resident of Temla.

Speaker 2: Mahender Awasey, resident of Janki Nagar,

Khargone.

The data of mobile obtained from the Cyber Forensic

Unit, Khargone is perused and protected in aforesaid

Pen Drive (DGNET 24 GB, F22) in a Lab Case

80-22>2022-12-05. 16-22-36>Lab Case 80-22 Exbt. A>

files>recorded Audio in the file being AUD-20221010-

WA0007 which is prepared on 10.10.2022 at 07:26 AM

being of 151 KB before the aforementioned Panchas

and transcripted thereof as under:

Speaker- 1 Sir in the evening, in the evening, let

me go at least.

Speaker- 2 Let’s go. (*********) abusive

language. Now let me know whether

we are to go in the evening? Yes, we

are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since

when you are to go. When I made a

phone call only then you realized that

we are to go in the evening.

5

Speaker- 1 No, he has met me two times while on

the way. Now, I may go to his home

and only there I may convince him.

What else can I do I also told him that

I have nothing more. Dear I have only

30-35 thousand rupees. You may give

him and get freed.

Speaker- 2 What are you narrating me. From

where you may give money,

(*******) abusive language.

Speaker- 1 Yes, Sir.

Speaker- 2 Tell him I have no concern with it.

Speaker- 1 You have got it and now you may

return. That is all.

Speaker- 2 Listen, if you are not giving today then

you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with

penalty in the office at 11:00 AM. If

you cannot, I am not in your favour. If

you don’t want to talk then I will tell

my authority.

Speaker- 1 No, No. Sir it is our duty.

Speaker- 2 You will pay money tomorrow

because you had committed it.

Speaker- 1 Yes, Sir.

Speaker- 2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump.

You can run up to when you can.

[Emphasis supplied]

Specimen Transcript

Speaker-2-Name of suspect/accused Mahender son of

Ghanshyam Awasey, aged 27 years, resident of Janki

Nagar, Khargone.

6

Speaker-2 Let's go. (****) abusive language.

Now let me know whether we are to

go in the evening? Yes, we are to go

in the evening. Bhaiya since when

you are to go. When I made a phone

call only then you realized that we

are to go in the evening.

Speaker-2 What are you narrating me? From

where you may give money, (***)

abusive language.

Speaker-2 Tell him I have no concern with it.

Speaker-2 Listen, if you are not giving today

then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/-

with penalty in the office at 11:00

A.M. If you cannot, I am not in your

favour. If you don't want to talk then

I will tell my authority.

Speaker-2 You will pay money tomorrow

because you had committed it.

Speaker-2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump.

You can run up to when you can.

Speaker-2 Thereafter, I will come home. The

neighbourers will hear the story. I

will put banners at your house. That’s

it.

Speaker-2 You have signed the file indicating

that this person has obtained the loan

and now is not traceable. You may

come and meet me and see that some

people have written. If I may get it

written which will not be right. The

modesty of your parents will also

hurt.

7

Speaker-2 Then, you may make payment of

money. (****) abusive language.

You may return my money. That’s

all. You go and arrange.

[Emphasis supplied]

8. The appellant prayed for discharge from the proceedings.

However, based on the material available, on 28.02.2023, the First

Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone framed the following charges.

“On 11.10.2022 between about 10:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs

and before that, you mentally tortured the deceased

Ranjit Chauhan at Rangaon Road, on the banks of

Borgaon drain, Temla, under District Khargone, Police

Station Maingaon, and forced him to commit suicide

due to which he committed suicide by hanging himself.

Your said act is punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code.”

9. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the appellant

approached the High Court by filing a revision but the same has been

dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before

us.

10. We have heard Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for

the appellant and Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the records of the case.

8

11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-

“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.”

12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-

“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.”

As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the

ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the

commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who

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

9

Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of

that thing.

13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995

Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go

and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court

held that:-

"3. ...Those words are casual 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. …"

14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another,

(2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence

under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section

107 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 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.

10

15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010)

1 SCC 707, this Court 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 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.

[Emphasis supplied]

16. 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

11

convicted under Section 306 IPC.

17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh

Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was

held as under:-

41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar

has examined different shades of the meaning of

"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)

“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."

In the said case this Court came to the conclusion

that there is no evidence and material available on

record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-

accused having abetted commission of suicide by

Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily

be drawn.”

12

Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-

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.”

[Emphasis supplied]

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

13

repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh

Malakar. 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

14

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.

15

21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the

appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306.

Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case

No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge,

Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set aside the said

proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated

25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1142

of 2023 is set aside.

………........................J.

[ABHAY S. OKA]

……….........................J.

[K. V. VISWANATHAN ]

New Delhi;

17

th January, 2025.