IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

<>

ON THE 19

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 13 of 2023

<>

RINKU LODHA

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Manvardhan Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vikram Pippal - PP appearing on behalf of State.

ORDER

<>

The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Guna in ST No.241/2022, whereby charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed

against the petitioner.

2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2022 around 9 PM,

one Bhagwan Singh committed suicide by hanging himself at cement pillar

situated in Mata Temple, Guna. On 14.09.2022 at 1:53 AM "merg intimation

no.96/2022" regarding un-natural death of Bhagwan Singh was recorded at P.S.,

Guna by Devendra Singh Lodha (brother of the deceased) inter-alia stating that

reason for suicide is unknown to him. No suicide note was recovered from the

spot.

3. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of five relatives

of the deceased and two other persons. The relatives of the deceased in their

statements levelled allegations against the petitioner that deceased Bhagwan Singh

borrowed Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner and he harassed the deceased for

1 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119

demanding repayment of the loan amount. On the date of incident i.e. on

13.09.2022 the petitioner kept the motorcycle of the deceased and due to the said

harassment he committed suicide. After investigation charge-sheet (annexure P/2)

was filed. The charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed by the Court below

vide order dated 08.12.2022 which is under challenge in the present revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Court below

framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC without considering the fact that the

essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 of IPC of

abatement by the accused person are missing. In the present case there is no such

abetment on the part of petitioner to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the demand of repayment of

loan amount or the alleged threatening in connection with the demand of money

cannot be said to be a provocation for committing suicide under Section 107 of

IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

order of this Court passed in CRR No.3155/2019 dated 09.07.2019 (Rajesh s/o

<>

Mathuradas Advani vs. State of M.P.).

<>

Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that on the spot no suicide note was recovered and the charges have been

framed only on the basis of statements of relatives. If statements of all the

relatives of deceased, taken in toto, even then they do not constitute offence of

abetment to commit suicide.

5. Per contra, prosecution has opposed the prayer and submitted that the

wife of deceased disclosed before the police the reason of suicide and other

witnesses have supported her statement, therefore, prima facie sufficient evidence

is available on record for framing charges. From the statements it has come on

record that on account of harassment by the petitioner for demand of money, the

2 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119

deceased has committed suicide, thus, it cannot be said that necessary factors for

invoking Section 306 of IPC are absent and prayed for dismissal of the present

revision.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. The moot question in the present case is that even if the entire allegations

are accepted as they are, then whether it can be said that the petitioner has

committed an offence of abetment of suicide.

Before dealing with the matter, it would be apt to consider relevant

provisions and judgments on the point.

8. For ready reference Section 306 of IPC is quoted herein below:-

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.

9. "Abetment" defined under Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-

107. Abetment of a thing.—

<>

A person abets the doing of a thing,

who.

(i)-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(ii)- 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

(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of

that thing.

10. Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and

establish the elements of instigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State of M.P

<>

reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998

<>

in para 13 of its judgment opined as under:-

"13..................... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the

appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not

constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate'

3 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119

denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable

action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is

the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge

that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment

cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger

and emotional."

(Emphasis Supplied)

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs

<>

State Of A.P

<>

reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750

<>

in para 17 has held as under:-

"17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person

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 means 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

committed suicide.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

12. The principle following from the judgment cited above is that the overt

act of the accused person must be of the nature which lead the victim/deceased

with no option, but to commit suicide. If the facts of the present case are

considered, the only allegation against the petitioner that he was demanding the

money back from the deceased and he kept the motor cycle with him. Whether

such an act can be said as an overt act of the petitioner is in the nature which led

the victim/deceased with no option, but to commit suicide.

13. This Court in the case of Rajesh s/o Mathruadas Advani (supra)

<>

in para

15 has held as under:-

"15. On considering the above submissions, I find that there is no

other evidence on record to indicate that the accused in any way

abetted suicide. Besides documentary evidence has been produced

4 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119

by the police; clearly indicated that the deceased Shailendra @

Sonu Sharma used to borrow money then under the

circumstances, it cannot be said that the demanding money back

was an act of harassment to the deceased. In the matter

of Devendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 2007 (III) MPWN 95 suicide

note contains the name of the accused petitioner undoubtedly,

however the Court held that it cannot be demand of money or loan

amount or the alleged threatening in connection with the demand

of money cannot be said to be a provocation for committing

suicide under Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of

thing and involvement of instigating or intentionally aided by any

act of illegal omission and, therefore, there must willful

misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact

which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures for a

thing to be done."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. In the instant case, if story of prosecution is read and believed as such

that petitioner was demanding the money back, even then also there was no

element of incitement or instigation on behalf of petitioner so as to compel the

deceased to take some drastic or unadvisable action.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan vs State Of

<>

Uttranchal & Anr

<>

reported in 2012 (9) SCC 734

<>

in para 17 has held as under:-

"17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the

intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is

done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by

instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided

under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of

anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as

instigation."

(Emphasis Supplied)

16. In the light of said judgment, it is clear that the offence of abetment by

instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets. A demand for

return of money cannot by itself be construed as an act to be done with intention to

instigate or provoke the commission of suicide, as a mere demand of money does

5 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119

(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)

<>

JUDGE

<>

not ordinarily drive a person to take such an extreme step. On the contrary, if a

person commit suicide, the very purpose of seeking refund of money would stand

frustrated, since in such an event the money cannot be recovered at all. Therefore,

act of the petitioner i.e. demanding the money back or keeping the motorcycle of

the deceased with him cannot be said as an overt act in the nature which led the

victim/deceased with no option, but to commit suicide.

17. As a result, I do pursue merit in the present petition. The act of the

petitioner doesn't attract Section 306 of IPC and he cannot be compelled to face

the trial unnecessarily.

18. In view of the above analysis, the learned Court below has committed

an error in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner vide

impugned order dated 08.12.2022. As a consequence, the revision petition is

allowed

<>

and the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 is hereby set aside.

Chandni

6 CRR-13-2023NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3119