1. SAGAR @ AMOL DNYANESHWAR PATIL.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

2026:BHC-AUG:43446


                                                                   CriAppeal-326--2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2016

                 1.    Sagar @ Amol Dnyaneshwar Patil
                       Age : 23 years, Occupation : Agriculture,


                 2.    Dhiraj Vijay Patil
                       Age : 23 years, Occupation : Agriculture,

                       Both R/o : Kurukwade, Taluka Shindkheda,
                       District Dhule.                          … Appellant
                                                                (Orig. Accused)
                                    Versus

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Dondaicha Police Station,
                       Dondaicha, Taluka Shindkheda,
                       District Dhule.                             … Respondent

                                                 …..
                          Mr. Azizoddin R. Syed, Advocate for the Appellant.
                            Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                                 .....

                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on        : 23.09.2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 24.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Appellants, who stood convicted for offence under Sections 306

                 and 201 of IPC, respectively, vide judgment and order dated

                 11.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in

                 Session Case No. 193 of 2014, hereby take exception to the same.
                                                     CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -2-




2.    In nutshell, case of prosecution in trial court was that, deceased

Nayana was studying in 10th standard and was put up with her

grandmother while her parents stayed at Surat. According to

prosecution, accused persons were repeatedly making phone calls to

Nayana and they teased her. Precisely getting fed up of the same, she

immolated herself on 07.04.2014. On report of PW2, crime was

registered which was duly investigated and after gathering sufficient

evidence, both accused were chargesheeted and tried vide Session

Case No. 193 of 2014 which ended up in conviction. There is

challenge to the same by instant appeal.



3.    Learned counsel for the appellants would plead innocence and

allege false implication. According to him, prosecution has miserably

failed to establish the charges. He pointed out that going by the

prosecution story, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that

accused persons indulged in abetment to commit suicide or induced

deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel took this Court through

the length and breadth of the prosecution evidence, more particularly

testimonies of PW4, PW5 and PW6. He also took this Court through

the cross faced by these witnesses and would submit that their

testimonies are full of material omissions and contradiction. He would
                                                   CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -3-

emphatically submit that case of prosecution is that, there were

repeated calls to deceased for teasing her but what was the nature

and manner of teasing has not been brought on record by

prosecution. He pointed out that mere CDR is gathered but the exact

teasing has not come on record.



4.    Learned counsel further pointed out that, there are two accused

facing above charge but there is use of only one mobile phone which

is seized, and moreover, the SIM card inserted and used in the said

phone was allegedly standing in the name of PW6 Jitendra Gosavi

and there was no evidence on behalf of prosecution to show that

either the SIM card or mobile phone was used by accused only.

Furthermore, according to him, even otherwise, mere frequent calls

without any specific text or message, is of no consequence and cannot

be applied to attract charge of abetment to commit suicide.



5.    Learned counsel also pointed out that, it is also not sure

whether deceased committed suicide or whether she suffered

accidental burns. He pointed out that, there is no dying declaration

and therefore case of prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. However, according to him, learned trial court has

failed to correctly appreciate the evidence, to apply correct law and
                                                      CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -4-

also erred in convicting the accused. He therefore, urges to allow the

appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.



6.    Per contra, learned APP, while supporting and justifying the

order of conviction, also reiterated the prosecution case in trial court

and would submit that it has come on record that accused persons

were continuously making phone calls to deceased and they teased

her. Repeated and frequent calls to tease forced her to end up her life.

That, there is reliable evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6 to connect the

accused. He would submit that, prosecution has placed on record CDR

to show that there were frequent and repeated calls and the same was

the sole reason for the girl to commit suicide. For above reasons, he

prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.



7.    After hearing both sides and having gone through the record, it

emerges that the case of prosecution is rested on the evidence of as

many as 11 witnesses and their status is as under :



      PW1 is the autopsy surgeon who opined death to be due to

shock due to 100% burns. PW2 has given khabar/intimation to police.

PW3 is pancha to spot panchanama as well as seizure of mobile

phones. PW4 is father of deceased. PW5 is acquaintance of deceased.
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -5-

PW6 is the witness who lent SIM card to accused no.1 Sagar. PW7,

PW8, PW9 and PW10 are Investigating officers who carried out

investigation at respective times. PW11 is the Nodal Officer of Idea

Cellular company who endorsed CDR Exhibit 41.



8.    As stated above, precise charge of prosecution against accused

is that, they abetted suicide of deceased by making her frequent calls

and by teasing her.



9.    After hearing both sides, CDR which demonstrates use of

mobile by accused is the linchpin around which entire story of

prosecution revolves. The same is at Exhibit 41. Case of prosecution is

that, SIM card standing in the name of PW6 was given to accused

no.1 for use.



10.   On this point, testimony of PW6 does go to show that he had

given SIM card to accused no.1 for use, i.e. bearing no. 8380985592.

He deposed that, accused no.1 being his friend, he gave his own

Aadhar Card and photograph to accused no.1, who on the basis of the

same obtained SIM card and as such SIM card is registered in the

name of this witness. In chief itself he denied knowing deceased.
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -6-

      While under cross, he claims to be unaware that SIM card is

non transferrable. He admitted not sending letter to the Idea company

about giving his SIM card to accused no.1 for use. He admitted that

he learnt from Chandrabhan that the said mobile number had come in

talks in connection with death of Nayana, but admitted not going to

police to clarify that said SIM card was not used by him.



      Therefore, this witness merely speaks of lending sim card

standing in his name to accused no.1 for use.



11.   PW9 is the Investigating Officer who applied to the office of

Superintendent of Police to issue CDR of mobile number 8698275317

(used by deceased) and 8380985592 (allegedly used by accused) and

he identified the same to be at Exhibit 41.



      While under cross, he has admitted that Exhibit 41 is for SIM

Card 8698275317 which was inserted in the handset having IMEI No.

351970033210680. He admitted that Article 4 is the mobile handset

having IMEI No. 351970033210682 and he admitted that IMEI is a

unique number and that, IMEI number in CDR Exhibit 41 and IMEI

number mentioned on the seized mobile handset Article 4 are

different. He admitted that, there was no seizure of handset having
                                                  CriAppeal-326--2016
                                -7-

IMEI number 351970033210680. He also admitted that handset

article no.4 which was used by deceased, was received by him in

switched off condition and he did not switch it on for checking the

details of said mobile handset. He also admitted that there are

continuous phone calls at odd times in the night between mobile no.

8698275317 (used by deceased) and mobile number 9421495579

and that, on the day of incident there were conversations as well as

exchange of messages between these two numbers. He admitted that

he did not investigate to whom mobile no. 9421495579 belong to and

he made no inquiry with Ishwarsingh, Rakesh and Yogesh as to with

whom deceased was talking to and sending messages at odd times in

night on mobile no. 9421495579. He also further admitted that from

CDR Exhibit 41, it appeared that there were numerous phone calls

and messages at odd hours and also at 08.06 a.m. on 07.04.2014

between number 8698275317 belonging to deceased and other

number 9637326109. He also admitted that as per Exhibit 41, there

were several messages from 9637326109 on phone no. 8698275317

on 07.04.2014 at 5.29 p.m., but he admitted about not inquiring to

whom mobile no. 9637326109 belong to. He admitted not obtaining

contents of SMSs sent or received on phone no. 8698275317. He

further admitted that there were several calls and SMSs between

mobile no. 8698275317 and 9673658395, but he made no inquiry to
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                  -8-

whom the later number belong to. In para 20 he further admitted

that, on the basis of CDR Exhibit 41 it appeared that mobile no.

8380985592 belong to Jitendra Gosavi and he did not obtain any

document to show that said mobile number was given by Jitendra

Gosavi to accused no.1 for use.



12.   Thus, here, it is emerging that, Exhibit 41 carries CDR of

various other numbers and the mobile possessed by deceased has

received several multiple calls from other numbers than the one

which was allegedly used by accused Sagar. However, the lender of

SIM card, namely, Jitendra, has admitted that there is nothing to

show that he lent Aadhar card and his photograph to accused Sagar

to purchase SIM card in his name and to further use it.



13.   Consequently, as far as CDR is concerned, nothing concrete has

come on record except repeated calls being made and messages being

sent, but from various numbers on the mobile allegedly possessed by

deceased. Admittedly, when it was specific case of prosecution that,

by making repeated calls there was teasing to the deceased which

made her upset and annoyed and she thereby committed suicide only

due to it, then it was incumbent upon prosecution to demonstrate

what was the exact manner and nature of teasing to deceased.
                                                   CriAppeal-326--2016
                                 -9-

However, apparently there is no material with regard to teasing.

Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that mere frequent and

repeated calls amounted to abetment of suicide. The crucial evidence

about manner and nature of teasing has not come on record. It is

further difficult to comprehend that there could be two accused using

one mobile to make calls to deceased and to tease her.



14.   Prosecution seems to be heavily banking on the evidence of

PW5 Rakesh as this witness claimed in his evidence at Exhibit 35 that

on the day of incident, i.e. on 07.04.2014 deceased came to his place

between 9.30 to 10.00 a.m. and she told him that two boys were

continuously teasing her by calling her every now and then and

according to him, she named those boys ad Dhiraj and Sager. He

further claimed that the deceased told him that she was fed up with

the continuous teasing. Around 01.30 p.m. he claims to have received

information about burns suffered by deceased and shifting her to the

hospital in ambulance. He claims that he came to know names of two

boys as Sagar Dnyaneshwar Patil and Dhiraj Vijay Patil but apparently

he seems to have hearsay information to that extent. He deposed that

it was his opinion that deceased bunt herself because of continuous

teasing by two boys and as such, both boys are responsible for her

death. He specifically deposed that deceased showed her list of
                                                   CriAppeal-326--2016
                                 -10-

incoming calls and he claims to have seen calls being received from

phone no. 8380985592 six to seven times and therefore he formed

above opinion. He claims that he passed this information to the father

of deceased after the funeral.



      However, while under cross, in para 11, he answered that when

deceased came to him, she told him full name of Dhiraj and he in turn

passed it on to the police while his statement was recorded. But full

name of Dhiraj is missing in his statement. He also admitted that

deceased told him that accused were teasing her but she had not told

about the exact manner in which she was teased. Omission is also

brought on record regarding six to seven times incoming calls

received by deceased from accused. In further cross at the hands of

accused no.2 he admitted that he happens to be grandfather of

deceased.



      Therefore, the above witness who is crucial witness for

prosecution, though claims to have heard from deceased that she was

receiving repeated phone calls from Sagar and Dhiraj and they teased

her and he formed an opinion that getting fed up by the same,

deceased ended up her life, but in cross, as stated above, he admitted

that she did not inform him what was the manner of teasing.
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                 -11-




15.   Likewise, PW4 father is examined by prosecution, but

admittedly he was at Surat when the incident occurred and he has

directly attended the last rituals and as such he has mere hearsay

information i.e. from relative namely Rakesh (PW5). Even father in

cross has admitted that when he first received phone call, he was not

informed about any teasing to his daughter. He candidly admitted

that even deceased never told him anything about it in spite of

regular conversation with her including the morning of the day of

incident. Therefore his such answers also render prosecution story

about accused persons repeatedly calling her and teasing her

doubtful.



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

IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, 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
                                                          CriAppeal-326--2016
                                   -12-

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

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.



17.     Bearing in mind the above settled law, it is clear that here,

there is nothing to hold that accused abetted suicide or induced

deceased or instigated her to commit suicide. Both accused are

residents of distinct villages. There is no positive act shown to be

played by them which impelled deceased to end up her life. Call

records on 07.04.2014 are up to 9.25 hours, but incident is of

afternoon around 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. What transpired in between has

not come on record and therefore, benefit of the same has to go to the

accused.
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                 -13-




18.    For attracting Section 201 of IPC, there has to be evidence to

show that accused caused disappearance of evidence to screen

themselves. Here, there is only one mobile and there are two accused

and according to prosecution, both accused used it, but who amongst

them indulged in causing disappearance of evidence has not been

demonstrated. Therefore, for above reasons, both charges fail.



19.    Perused the judgment under challenge. It is seen that learned

trial court, in paragraph 87 of the judgment, has formed opinion that

from the entire evidence on record, exact word and sentences uttered

during various calls and SMS have not come on record, but merely on

the strength of frequency of calls, learned trial court seems to have

formed an opinion that accursed no.1 made phone calls frequently

with mala fide intention while he was in the company of accused

no.2. Observations made in paragraphs 88, 89 and 90 are apparently

based on assumptions, presumptions and surmises and therefore, such

judgment cannot be allowed to be sustained and it requires

interference. Hence, the following order :

                               ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
                                                    CriAppeal-326--2016
                                    -14-



II.   The conviction awarded to the appellants Sagar @ Amol
      Dnyaneshwar Patil and Dhiraj Vijay Patil by learned District
      Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Session Case
      No. 193 of 2014 under Section 306 r/w 34 and Section 201 of
      IPC respectively, on 11.05.2016 stands quashed and set aside.


III. The appellant Sagar @ Amol Dnyaneshwar Patil stands acquitted
      of the offence punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 and 201 of
      IPC and the appellant and Dhiraj Vijay Patil stands acquitted of
      the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.


IV. The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.


V.    Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellants
      after the statutory period.


VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
      regarding disposal of muddemal.




                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre