2024 INSC 519 SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 1 of 12

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ SLP (Crl.) No.13246 OF 2023)

ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDE …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

& ANR. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred by the accused

Appellant-Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde

challenging the impugned order of Bombay High

Court dated 05.09.2023 in Criminal Revision

Application No. 410 of 2022. By this order the

High Court has dismissed the Revision

Application filed by the Appellant against the

order of the Trial Court dated 24.02.2022. The

Trial Court had rejected the discharge

application of Appellant for her discharge from

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 2 of 12

the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860

1.

3. Facts of the case are summarised as follows:

3.1 Appellant is the wife of deceased Sudarshan

Gangurde, who hanged himself to death on

17.02.2020 in his house. The appellant wife

is accused of abetment to suicide and was

thus charged under Section 306 of IPC. The

complaint was filed by Smt. Usha

Gangurde, mother of deceased alleging

physical and mental harassment by the

accused.

3.2 Appellant Rohini and deceased Sudarshan

had a love affair which turned into marriage

on 09.03.2015 against the will of family

members of both of them. The couple

started residing separately at Shingnapur

in Kolhapur. From the wedlock one male

child Shoren was born on 27.05.2017. The

couple had jointly purchased a Row House

flat at Shingnapur where they were residing

when the incident took place. The parents

and family members of the deceased were

residing at Mumbai. The deceased was

serving in CPR Hospital at Kolhapur as

1

In short, ‘IPC’

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 3 of 12

Social Service Superintendent. He was on

visiting terms with his parents.

3.3 On 17.02.2020, the deceased aged 38

years, was found in hanging position by the

accused wife in the balcony of common

house they were residing at in Shingnapur.

The neighbors informed the police. No

suicide note was found. The post mortem

report found no signs of injuries on the body

of deceased. The cause of death is noted to

be ‘due to hanging’.

3.4 On the same day, First Information Report

bearing No. 74/2020 was lodged by the

mother of deceased- Smt. Usha Gangurde

against the appellant under Section 306 of

IPC, alleging that her son committed suicide

due to harassment and beating by his wife

Rohini on account of demand of money and

for transfer of the dwelling house at

Shingapur in her name. She further stated

that when her son visited her, he also told

her that his wife was abusing and beating

him, insisting on him not to visit his parents

and not to give them money. When her

husband-Ashok Gangurde stayed at the

house of deceased in May 2019, he told her

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 4 of 12

that accused Rohni was beating and

abusing her son for money and transfer of

house in her name. Due to these disputes,

Rohini was residing separately from the

deceased in her parent’s house at Sangali.

The complainant further stated that

accused was sending vulgar messages on

mobile phone of the deceased. All this

allegedly resulted in commission of suicide

by the deceased.

3.5 Apart from the complainant, statement of

one of the colleagues of the deceased Ujwala

Sawant was also recorded. She referred to

an incident dated 17.10.2019 when the

appellant visited deceased and created a

ruckus in the office by rushing towards him

on being abusive. The incidence was

corroborated by another colleague Mr.

Bajirao Apte.

3.6 On the other hand, as per the statement of

Appellant Rohini, her husband was

addicted to liquor and there were quarrels

between them on that ground. They tried to

patch up as the deceased had assured to

give up his habit to consume liquor. On this

condition they resumed co -habitation.

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 5 of 12

However, the deceased could not overcome

the habit and started to drink more. It is

argued by the counsel for Appellant that the

deceased may have committed suicide out

of frustration.

3.7 On 04.11.2020, the police filed the Charge-

sheet against appellant under section 306

of IPC. As per the Charge-sheet, the offence

took place on 17.02.2020 between 7.00 to

7.30 AM at the dwelling house in

Shinganapur, where the accused harassed

the deceased on account of money and for

transfer of house in her name, inducing the

deceased for attempt of suicide.

4. Based on the charge-sheet, the Sessions Case

No. 100 of 2021 is registered and pending for

adjudication before the Sessions Court at

Kolhapur. On 02.12.2021, the Appellant -

accused preferred a discharge application before

Trial Court. On 24.02.2022, the Trial Court

rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant

preferred Criminal Revision Application before

the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned

order, has dismissed the Revision and thus

effectively dismissed the discharge application.

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 6 of 12

Therefore, the Appellant has challenged it before

us.

5. The appellant has filed the present appeal on

several grounds inter alia, that there is no

evidence showing an active role played by

Appellant which has abated the commission of

suicide. Further, the dwelling house was jointly

purchased by the Appellant and the deceased

and therefore there was no question of insisting

to transfer the house in the name of Appellant.

Neither the deceased, nor his family members

have raised the grievance against alleged

harassment before the authorities, until the

suicide. Thus, the appellant states that all

allegations are fake and frivolous.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the ingredients

essential for the offence under Section 306 IPC

were clearly made out from the evidence collected

during the investigation and as such the High

Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of both the counsels

and after perusing the record, we find that the

only question that needs to be determined in the

instant case is whether the alleged conduct of the

appellant-accused prima facie attracts Section

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 7 of 12

306 of IPC, to continue the proceedings of Trial

Court against the appellant.

Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC read as:

“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.

It must be read with Section 107 of IPC

which explains the meaning of

Abetment, which reads as:

107. Abetment of a thing-

A person abets the doing of a thing,

who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that

thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more

other person or persons in any conspiracy

for the doing of that thing, if an act or

illegal omission takes place in pursuance

of that conspiracy, and in order to the

doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or

illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful

misrepresentation, or by wilful

concealment of a material fact which he is

bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or

procures, or attempts to cause or procure,

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 8 of 12

a thing to be done, is said to instigate the

doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to

or at the time of the commission of an act,

does anything in order to facilitate the

commission of that act, and thereby

facilitates the commission thereof, is said

to aid the doing of that act.”

8. Reading these sections together would indicate

that there must be either an instigation, or an

engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a

thing’. When we apply these three criteria to

Section 306, it means that the accused must

have encouraged the person to commit suicide or

engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage

the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed

to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit

suicide.

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

2, this

court explained the concept of abetment along

with necessary ingredient for offence under

Section 306 of IPC 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

2

(2010) 12 SCC 190

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 9 of 12

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.”

10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B .

3, this court

explained the parameters of Section 306 in

following words:

“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

3

(2010) 1 SCC 707

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 10 of 12

accused which led or compelled the

person to commit suicide, conviction in

terms of Section 306 IPC is not

sustainable.

13. 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.”

11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

4,

while explaining the meaning of ‘Instigation’, this

court stated that:

“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. Where the accused had, by his

acts or omission or by a continued

4

(2001) 9 SCC 618.

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 11 of 12

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 to be inferred. A word uttered

in a fit of anger or emotion without

intending the consequences to actually

follow, cannot be said to be instigation.”

12. These principles and necessary ingredients of

Section 306 and 107 of Indian Penal Code were

reiterated and summarized by this court in

recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of

Punjab

5.

13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence

recorded by the courts below and the legal

position established through statutory and

judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that

there is no proximate link between the marital

dispute in the marriage of deceased with

appellant and the commission of suicide. The

prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to

substantiate the allegations against the

appellant. The appellant has not played any

active role or any positive or direct act to instigate

or aid the deceased in committing suicide.

Neither the statement of the complainant nor

5

(2020) 10 SCC 200.

SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 Page 12 of 12

that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded

by the Investigating Officer during investigation

suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant

to abet the commission of suicide. There is no

allegation against the appellant of suggesting the

deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to

the commission of suicide by her husband.

14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section 107

read with Section 306 IPC are existing.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned

order of the High Court is set aside. The

application for discharge is allowed.

………………………………..……J

(VIKRAM NATH)

………………………………..……J

(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI

JULY 10, 2024