Cr.M.P./3652/2025 of ARJUN SAO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 16 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.3652 of 2025

------

Arjun Sao, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Yugal Kishore Sao, resident of Durga Mandap, P.O.-Balumath, P.S.-Balumath, District-Latehar, (Jharkhand).

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

… Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.

------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No.56 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.155 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in occupying the land belonging to the informant and because of such occupation, the deceased son of the informant was under tension, and the petitioner threatened to do maar-pit and ultimately the deceased son of the informant committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024 INSC 149, and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ has been discussed in paragraph-20 of which reads as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India next relied upon its own judgment in the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, paragraph-25 of which reads 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein inter alia it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained and to the same effect is the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Arjunan vs. State reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, paragraph-7 of which reads 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had dealt with the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ude Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 and held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability by observing thus in para-16 & 16.1 which reads as under:- “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 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.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that, in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own judgment in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno & Another vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 by observing thus in context of culpability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in paragraph-44 of the said judgement, which reads 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Kashibai & Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575, paragraph-19 of which reads as under:-

19. This Court in Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 575, Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) decided on 28th February, 2023, observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law in no uncertain manner that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must instigate the deceased to commit the suicide and the instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.

12. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner urged forward, provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to fight with him or anyone else. Nor there is any allegation against the petitioner that the acts of the petitioner were of such a nature which left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No.56 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.155 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, be quashed and set aside.

14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of G.R. Case No.56 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.155 of 2020 including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of December, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 03/01/2026