AKIL S/O. LALU SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38128


                                                 {1}          CrAppeal-317-2019


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2019

                 .    Akil S/o. Lalu Shaikh
                      Age: 26 years, Occu.: Driver,
                      R/o Near Tahasil Office, Georai,
                      Tq. Georai, District Beed.
                      Now R/o. Behind Tayabba Masjid, Rahata,
                      Tq.Rahata, District Ahmednagar.         ….Appellant
                                                        (Orig. Informant)

                                  Versus

                 1.   The State of Maharashtra
                      For the Ghansavangi Police Station,
                      Tq.Ghansavangi, District Jalna.

                 2.   Asifa Begum W/o Shaikh Hakim
                      Age: 25 years, Occu.: Household.

                 3.   Shaikh Fatru Shaikh Shakkar Shaha
                      Age: 82 years, Occu.: Business.

                 4.   Husainabee Shaikh Fatru
                      Age: 70 years, Occu.: Business.

                 5.   Shaikh Azar Shaikh Fatru
                      Age: 70 years, Occu.: Business.

                      All R/o. Pirgabwadi, Tq.Ghanasavangi,
                      District : Jalna.                        …..Respondents

                                                …..
                 Mr. Amol S.Gandhi, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mr.S.M.Ganachari, APP for Respondent no.1.
                 Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent nos.2 to 5.
                                                …..
                                {2}            CrAppeal-317-2019


                     CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                    RESERVED ON   : 20 AUGUST, 2026
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 24 AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT :



1.    Original informant challenges judgment and order dated

06-02-2018 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge-2, Jalna in Sessions

Case No.65 of 2017, thereby acquitting present respondent Nos.2 to

5 from offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC).



                     BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     PW1 Akil, who is informant and brother of deceased Shaikh

Hakim, set law into motion alleging abetment of suicide by accused/

respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein by insisting him to come and reside

separately from his family members. That, to compel deceased to do

so, complaint was lodged under Section 498A of the IPC. That, due

to it, deceased Shaikh Hakim was mentally harassed and therefore,

he consumed poison and committed suicide. On report of informant

brother to this extent, crime was registered at Ghansavangi Police

Station vide Crime No.149 of 2016 for offence under Section 306 r/w

Section 34 of the IPC.
                                  {3}            CrAppeal-317-2019


      After being chargesheeted, accused persons were tried vide

above sessions case wherein prosecution based its case on evidence

of in all five witnesses, which was duly appreciated and learned trial

Judge was pleased to acquit the accused persons. Hence, the appeal

by the informant.



                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant/Informant :

3.    Learned counsel for appellant/informant would point out that,

deceased Shaikh Hakim was married to accused no.1 nine years prior

to the incident. That, rest of the accused are his family members i.e.

in-laws of deceased. It is pointed out that, all accused nos.1 to 4

used to insist deceased to come to reside at Pirgabwadi with them. To

pressurize him to do so, a case under Section 498A of the IPC was

also lodged. That, only because of it, deceased was under mental

pressure and finally, he committed suicide.



4.    He further submitted that, apart from evidence of informant

brother, there is also evidence of mother of deceased, which is

consistent and lending support to testimony of informant.            That,

necessary ingredients for attracting the charges were available.
                                   {4}            CrAppeal-317-2019


However, learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same in correct

perspective and erred in acquitting accused.       Hence, he prays to

allow the appeal.

On behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 :

5.      Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, while justifying the

acquittal, would point out that, prosecution has miserably failed to

establish the charges. That, there was no evidence on the point of

abetment and inducement. That, though there were allegations of

consumption of poison, neither bottle/container was seized and even

Chemical Analyzer’s report does not reveal any consumption of

poison and therefore, it is submitted that learned trial Court

committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused.



On behalf of State :

6.      Learned APP also supports informant and adopted submissions

made by learned counsel for appellant/informant.



     BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT AND ITS ANALYSIS

7.      Re-appreciated the evidence.     Prosecution seems to have

adduced evidence of PW1 Akil, who is brother of deceased. PW2

Najira Shaikh seems to be mother of both informant and deceased.
                                 {5}             CrAppeal-317-2019


PW3 Janak Puri, PW4 Arun Lavhare and PW5 Babasaheb Madnure

are police personnel.



8.    On going through testimony of PW1 informant, it is emerging

that, accused persons insisted his deceased brother to come and

reside at Pirgabwadi and to compel him to do so, a false case under

Section 498A of the IPC was lodged, as a result of which, his

deceased brother was suffering from mental tension and harassment

and so he consumed poison.



9.    PW2 mother of deceased also deposed that, accused no.1 was

preventing her deceased son to reside with his own family members.

That, there was harassment to her son and even action was taken

against deceased to compel him to come to stay at Pirgabwadi.



10.   However, in the very examination-in-chief itself, there are mere

general and vague allegations that there was mental and physical

cruelty resulting into stress. There are in all four accused persons.

Roles of each of them are not specified. Alleged suicide is of 28-09-

2016, but apparently complaint is lodged on 07-10-2016 i.e. after

delayed period. As pointed out, what happened prior to alleged
                                   {6}              CrAppeal-317-2019


consumption of poison is not stated by both of these witnesses. No

independent witness or neighbour is examined. What positive act

accused indulged in or in what form there was inducement or

abetment is not demonstrated by prosecution witnesses.



11.   Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306

of the IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, the

Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has reiterated that, apart

from inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has to

be mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is also

time and again clarified while dealing with above provision.


      Few cases that could be named are, Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar

Mahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as well as M. Mohan v. The

State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

MANU/SC/0161/2011,        wherein        standard   of   “instigation”   is

elaborately dealt and discussed.



      Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of

Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Hon’ble Apex
                                  {7}              CrAppeal-317-2019


Court has reinforced “proximate trigger” doctrine emphasizing that

there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the

conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment,

without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the

charge.



12.   Consequentially,   here,    when     necessary    ingredients    for

attracting the charges are patently missing, learned trial Court

committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused. Therefore,

appeal deserves to be dismissed.        Accordingly, following order is

passed :

                                 ORDER

                    Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                  ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                          JUDGE



SPT