2026 INSC 867 SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 1 of 20

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 17179 of 2025)

VINOD SHIVAKUMAR …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present appeal is arising out of impugned judgment

dated 24.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.

24 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.

2. The facts of the case reveal that a Forest Range Officer,

Harisal Range, has committed suicide on 25.03.2021, leaving

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 2 of 20

behind three suicide notes. These suicide notes were addressed to

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Amaravati –

Mr. Reddy, her mother and her husband. The deceased Forest

Range Officer who shot dead herself by the official weapon

assigned to her, levelled allegations against the Appellant and

stated that because of the Appellant, she is committing suicide.

The record of the case further reveals that the First Information

Report (hereinafter “FIR”) was registered against the present

Appellant – Vinod Shivakumar and one Mr. Reddy. FIR against

Mr. Reddy has already been quashed by the High Court of

Bombay vide order dated 13.08.2021. It is noteworthy to

mention that the Appellant has earlier approached the High Court

of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur for quashing the criminal

proceedings and setting aside the charge-sheet filed for the

offences punishable under Sections 306, 312, 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, “IPC”), however, he restricted

his claim to the extent of Section 312 IPC with the liberty to raise

all his contentions at an appropriate stage before the High Court.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur, quashed the FIR to the extent of Section 312 IPC vide

order dated 30.06.2023.

3. The Appellant thereafter preferred an application in

Sessions Case No. 52/2021 for discharge under Section 227 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) and the

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 3 of 20

said application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Achalpur, vide order dated 24.10.2024. The Appellant being

aggrieved by the order rejecting the discharge application

preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 2025 which

has been dismissed by the impugned order before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

Appellant was the senior officer in the Forest Department and

had assigned various duties to the deceased. She has applied for

grant of leave on number of occasions and the Appellant being

the senior officer was having the authority to forward the leave

application to the other senior officers and out of eight occasions,

the deceased was granted leave on six occasions and the deceased

remained absent for more than a month. Learned counsel has

vehemently argued before this Court that there has to be

proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct

consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate

incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of

taking one’s life. He has stated that there was no proximate act

by the Appellant which allegedly drove the Forest Range Officer

to commit suicide. He has read out the suicide note dated

25.03.2021 addressed to Mr. Reddy, Additional PCCCF and

Area Director, Melghat Tiger Reserve, Amravati, wherein it

refers to an incident dated 17.03.2020 where she was ordered by

the present Appellant to remove encroachment and to arrest the

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 4 of 20

accused persons. Reference has been made to certain

conversations between the Appellant and the deceased, however,

the fact remains that the incident was dated 17.03.2020. In the

same suicide note, it has been stated that the A.C.F. and D.C.F.

forced her to trek on a dirty road for three consecutive days,

which resulted in her abortion. However, so far as Section 312

IPC (voluntarily causing miscarriage), the FIR has already been

quashed to that extent. In the suicide note, it has been further

stated that her pay has been stopped and the same should be

released and it is Vinod Shivakumar – the present Appellant and

the DCF, who is solely responsible for her to commit suicide.

She has also stated that she was mentally harassed by her superior

officer.

5. The next suicide note, which is at page 41 of the Paper

Book, states that her immediate boss has made her mad and her

hard disc is now full. In the same suicide note, allegations have

been made against one Manisha Uike to the effect that she is

ruining the life of the deceased and again it has been stated that

the Appellant is responsible for her death.

6. The suicide note which is addressed to her mother at page

42 of the Paper Book, states that the Appellant used to scold her

and because of that she is mentally disturbed and she wanted to

leave the job, however, she has left the idea of leaving the job. It

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 5 of 20

has been stated inter alia that she has already lodged a complaint

with the Area Director – Mr. Reddy, however, no action was

initiated against the present Appellant by Mr. Reddy.

7. The main suicide note dated 25.03.2021, addressed to

Mr. Reddy, Addl. P.C.C.F and Area Director, reads as under:

Dated: 25.03.2021

To,

Shri. Reddy Sir,

Addl. P.C.C.F, & Area Director,

Melghat Tiger Reserve,

Amravati

Sir,

Sir, when I was transferred to Harisal from

Dhulghat, I was very happy as you took me under

your control, even though an enquiry was initiated

against me. Then I learned that Shivkumar sir is

DCF, became happier, as I liked the work of sir.

However, when I joined Gugamal, I came to know

about his real nature. Earlier he used to treat me

nicely. I used to complete work of my range before

everybody. But, when our range outclassed other

ranges, then the employees of other ranges started

to poison his ears and the sir, believing in it, started

issuing notices to me. He started to suspend and

issue charge-sheet he feels anything wrong. I am in-

charge of rehabilitation of 2-3 villages, but the sir

never held any meeting in the villages, instead, if the

villagers met during tour, he abused me in their

presence. He never supported me in rehabilitation.

He always forced me to do illegal work and he

always in search of reasons to belittle me. On 17

th

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 6 of 20

March, 2020 he called in the afternoon about

encroachment of Mangiya and ordered me on

phone to remove the encroachment and to arrest the

accused. I reached on the spot with my staff. When

I conveyed him, on phone and wireless, that people

here are abusing her and they have detained us, he

said, "'You are lying creating a drama and when I

informed him that the villagers are threatening to

file charges of atrocity against me, he said, "I will

tell SP to charge under Atrocity Act, see how it feels

to stay in jail for four months. I have it recorded in

my mobile. The said recording is also heard by MR

Navneetji Raja madam. You all know that I was on

leave as I could not secure bail In the said case of

atrocity. I had informed you about the decision of

court from time to time. But Shivkumar refused to

allowed to join and recommended to reject my

leave. You also rejected my leave and did not pay

me the salary. During your visit to Amzari, I told

Piyusha madam and I am pregnant and hence I

cannot take part In trekking and went home. But,

thereafter A.C.F and D.C.F forced me to trek on dirt

roads for 3 consecutive days, which resulted in my

abortion, but I was also rejected leave for the same.

My matrimonial home is at Amravati, but I cannot

go to home even for a day in a month. We work for

our family, but cannot spend a single with them. He

ask me to come anywhere in the dead of night and

talks in vulgar language. I had filed a complaint to

you about this. However, I knew that you will favour

your IFS officer and hence I was thinking of

transfer. Melghat is such swampy place, where one

can come on his own will, but cannot leave without

your consent and I am going deep in this swamp.

The posts of Vanpal and Forest Guard of my circle

are still vacant. Shivkumar sir never guided us how

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 7 of 20

to correct the mistakes, but always cause financial

and mental harassment to me. I was not going to

join my duty after medical leave, but as you assured

me that you will talk to D.C.F. sir, but there is no

change in his behaviour, which is increasing day by

day. He abuses me in presence of my staff and other

villagers, which I cannot tolerate now and therefore

telling you all this. He is punishing me as I did not

succumb to his whims and wishes, when he called

me at Sankul, Akot phata and tried to take

advantage of me. I know that you will not take any

action, because he is your protege.

I request you to please release my stopped pay and

give all financial benefits to my mother after my

death. You receive many complaints about Vinod

Shivkumar, take it seriously, because your name is

also getting tarnished because of him. You check the

CCTV, he harasses people on field and abuse in

vulgar language.

He is frequently visiting Harisal since last week and

is behaving in wrong way with me. I am mentally

harassed by this and all my stall is aware of this.

Vinod Shivkumar, Dy. Conservator of Forest, Wild

Animals Division, Jugamal, Chikhaldara is solely

responsible for my suicide.

Sir, till now you supported me a lot, I thank you from

my heart. Please help my mother to reach her town

safely and take action against Vinod Shivkumar.

This is my last wish. Whatever happened with me

should not be repeated with others.”

8. The deceased Forest Range Officer committed suicide on

25.03.2021. A detailed investigation was carried out in the matter. In

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 8 of 20

the statement of various witnesses given to the police, the statement

of one witness, namely, Smt. Piyusha Pramod Jagtap revealed that

on 08.10.2020, when the entire group was trekking, the deceased told

her that she could not trek as she was pregnant, however, she has

categorically stated that she has not told about her pregnancy to

APCCF - Mr. Reddy and DCF - the present Appellant, during trek or

afterwards. She has stated that DCF-Vinod Shivakumar, the present

Appellant, was told by her immediate superior APCCF Mr. Reddy to

control his anger and behave nicely with colleagues. The statement

of this witness which also refers to certain incidents which took place

in the past, reveals that the Appellant was a strict officer. However,

there is no incident immediately preceding the suicide which states

that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous

harassment at the hands of the present Appellant which finally driven

the deceased to the extreme act of taking her own life. Another

important aspect is that Manisha Uike against whom the allegations

have also been levelled by the deceased to the effect that she ruined

her life, has not been made a co-accused and the FIR against another

senior officer has already been quashed by the High Court.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also strenuously argued

before this Court that for charging a person for abetment to suicide,

there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide

was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, or

instigation or provocation or intend to abet. Learned counsel pointed

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 9 of 20

out that the incidents mentioned by the deceased against the

Appellant were the incidents which took place at least one year prior

to the commission of the alleged suicide and in the charge-sheet also,

it has been stated that on account of rude, cruel and obnoxious

behaviour of the Appellant, the deceased allegedly committed

suicide. The factors taken into account for charging the Appellant

includes the order given by the Appellant for removal of

encroachment, registration of First Information Report under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 against the deceased, at the behest of Manisha Uike,

issuance of show cause notice to her and by forcing her to trek in the

forest which caused miscarriage of pregnancy.

10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has supported the

impugned order passed by the High Court and has argued before this

Court that there was enough material against the Appellant to charge

the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. He

has vehemently argued that the suicide note details about the

continuous abuse at the hands of the Appellant during field visits and

the Appellant insulting the deceased in front of other officers. The

State has also referred to a complaint lodged against the Appellant

by a forest peon and the consequent registration of FIR No. 30/2018

dated 29.01.2018 in respect of the averment that the behaviour of the

Appellant towards his subordinate staff was cruel. Learned

Government Advocate has vehemently submitted that the Appellant

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 10 of 20

repeatedly insulted the deceased on different occasions which drove

her to commit suicide.

11. We have carefully perused the record and heard the Learned

counsels for the Appellant and the State.

12. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference:

“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.”

13. We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which

defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:

“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,

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 11 of 20

voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause

or procure, 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to

aid the doing of that act.”

14. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear

that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation (ii) in close

proximity to the commission of suicide, along with (iii) clear mens

rea to abet the commission of suicide.

15. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has further been

explained in Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC

301, as follows:

“14.1……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

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 12 of 20

or emotion without intending the consequences to

actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

16. In Prakash & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2026) 6

SCC 251, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below:

“18. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic

ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person

and second, the abetment to the said act by another

person(s). In order to sustain a charge under

Section 306 IPC, it must necessarily be proved that

the accused person has contributed to the suicide by

the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To

prove such contribution or involvement, one of the

three conditions outlined in Section 107 IPC has to

be satisfied.

19. Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, has been

interpreted, time and again, and its principles are

well established. To attract the offence of abetment

to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct

or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of

suicide by the accused, which must be in close

proximity to the commission of suicide by the

deceased. Such instigation or incitement should

reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of

suicide and should put the victim in such a position

that he/she would have no other option but to

commit suicide.”

17. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.,

2017 (7) SCC 780 wherein the Supreme Court held:

“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position,

we are required to address whether there has been

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 13 of 20

abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated

that mere allegation of harassment without any

positive action in proximity to the time of

occurrence on the part of the accused that led a

person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of

Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark

that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course

of things will not come within the purview of

instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of

anger will not earn the status of abetment. There

has to be positive action that creates a situation for

the victim to put an end to life.”

18. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat &

Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628, the driver of the accused had alleged in his

suicide note that the accused had driven him to the extent of

committing suicide. Despite such an allegation in the suicide note,

this Court found that there was absolutely nothing in the suicide note

or the FIR which could be viewed as an offence, much less under

Section 306 of the IPC. It was observed as under:

“10. We are convinced that there is absolutely

nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would

even distantly be viewed as an offence much less

under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything

in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which

could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide.

In such matters there must be an allegation that the

accused had instigated the deceased to commit

suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other

person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused

had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to

bring about the suicide.

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 14 of 20

11. …Even if it is accepted that the accused changed

the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him

not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys

of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that

the accused intended or knew that the driver should

commit suicide because of this.

12. 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.

The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or

to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for

this particular offence under Section 306, IPC...”

19. Recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors., (2026) 6 SCC 233 this Court has interpreted

Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:

“25. …even if there is allegation of constant

harassment, continued over a long period; to bring

in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section

107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to

clearly find that the suicide was the direct

consequence of such continuous harassment, the

last proximate incident having finally driven the

subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life.

Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s

back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned

a larger, sudden impact resulting in the

unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim

to that extreme act, often depends on individual

predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively

and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 15 of 20

the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim

was continuously harassed and at one point, he or

she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life

cannot by itself result in finding a positive

instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot

be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of

the victim.

26. The victim may have felt that there was no

alternative or option, but to take his life, because of

what another person did or said; which cannot lead

to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on

that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the

intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as

discernible from the conscious acts or words and

the attendant circumstances, which in all

probability could lead to such an end. The real

intention of the accused and whether he intended by

his action to at least possibly drive the victim to

suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading

the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the

accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts

and circumstances arising in the case, as the true

test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each

case. The social status, the community setting, the

relationship between the parties and other myriad

factors would distinguish one case from another.

However harsh or severe the harassment, unless

there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea,

to drive another person to suicidal death, there

cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.”

20. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707,

also it was observed that:

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 16 of 20

“12. …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.”

21. Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial

pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the High

Court and the Trial Court.

22. We have carefully examined the suicide notes as well as the

statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. A perusal

of the said material reveals that the allegations levelled against the

Appellant essentially pertain to: (a) official reprimands and show

cause notices issued in the course of discharge of duties; (b)

assignment of work relating to removal of encroachments and

rehabilitation of villages; (c) registration of an FIR under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act against the deceased, allegedly in connivance with one Manisha

Uike; and (d) forcing the deceased to trek in the forest which caused

her miscarriage.

23. Even if the aforesaid allegations are accepted at their face

value, they do not, in our considered opinion, disclose the essential

ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

There is a complete absence of any proximate act of instigation

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 17 of 20

immediately preceding the suicide that could be said to have driven

the deceased to take the extreme step. All the incidents relied upon

by the prosecution are remote in point of time. The alleged

miscarriage occurred in October 2020 and the charge founded

thereon under Section 312 of the IPC already stands quashed by the

High Court by its order dated 30.06.2023, whereas the suicide took

place after over five months, on 25.03.2021. Similarly, the

allegations regarding removal of encroachments and the registration

of the FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act pertain to March 2020, while the

rehabilitation work concerning Village Malur had been undertaken

over several months during the year 2020. The material on record

does not disclose any overt act of instigation, goading or intentional

aid on the part of the Appellant immediately preceding the

commission of suicide.

24. Further allegations against the Appellant principally arise out

of the discharge of his official functions as the superior officer of the

deceased. It has been alleged that on 22/23.03.2021 the Appellant

reprimanded the deceased for watering of a water hole and

engagement of a JCB driver for official work. However, ordinary

administrative directions, disciplinary supervision, adverse remarks

regarding official performance, or even stern behaviour on the part

of a superior officer, however unpleasant they may have been

perceived by the deceased, cannot, in the absence of additional

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 18 of 20

material demonstrating a conscious intention to drive a subordinate

to commit suicide, be elevated to the status of abetment under Section

306 IPC. As observed by this Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar

(supra), merely because the victim was continuously harassed and, at

one stage, succumbed to the extreme act of taking his or her own life,

cannot by itself lead to a finding of positive instigation constituting

abetment. There must exist a proximate act amounting to instigation

or intentional aid which creates such circumstances as would drive

the victim to commit suicide.

25. We further find that the prosecution has failed to prima facie

establish that the Appellant had any intention to instigate, aid or abet

the deceased to commit suicide. The suicide notes undoubtedly

reflect the anguish of the deceased, however, they do not disclose any

act on the part of the Appellant from which the requisite mens rea

can reasonably be inferred. There is also no material to suggest that

the Appellant, by his words or conduct, intended to push the deceased

into such a position that she was left with no reasonable alternative

except to take her own life. No doubt, a young Range Forest Officer

lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, criminal liability

under Section 306 IPC cannot rest upon the tragedy of the outcome

alone; it must be founded upon the statutory ingredients of Section

306, which are absent in the present case.

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 19 of 20

26. We are, therefore, satisfied that even if the entire prosecution

material is accepted at its face value, the ingredients of the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC are not made out. The continuation

of the criminal proceedings against the Appellant would, in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, amount to an abuse of the

process of law.

27. We also find that no prima facie case is made out for the

offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The material

on record does not disclose any intentional insult of such a nature as

was likely to provoke a breach of the peace, nor does it reveal any

criminal intimidation within the meaning of Section 503 IPC. The

allegations against the Appellant pertain primarily to acts performed

in his official capacity as the superior officer of the deceased. Insofar

as the alleged threats of suspension are concerned, it is not in dispute

that the Appellant was not the competent authority to suspend the

deceased and could not have done so without the approval of the

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. In these

circumstances, the essential ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 IPC

are also not attracted.

28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned

judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,

Nagpur Bench, Nagpur passed on 24.09.2025 in

Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 2025 and the

order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur dated 24.10.2024

SLP(Crl.) No.17179/2025 Page 20 of 20

in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2021 are set aside. The Appellant is

discharged from Sessions Case No. 52 of 2021. The bail bonds, if

any, shall stand cancelled.

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.……………… ……………………………….J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

.……………… ……………………………….J.

[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH ]

NEW DELHI

August 14, 2026.