PRIYA RAHUL BORUDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41182


                                               *1*                     972revn219o25


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2025
                                 PRIYA RAHUL BORUDE,
                               BEBI RAJENDRA PARBHANE
                                         AND
                              VISHAL RAJENDRA PARBHANE

                                       VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                        AND
                            DATTATRAYA HARIBHAU BORUDE

                                              ...
                Shri Zambare Sudheer R., Advocate for the Applicants.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/ State.
                Shri Bide Dnyaneshwar A., Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                              ...

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 03 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.          By this revision application filed under Section 397

                r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

                applicants seek an exception to the impugned order dated

                21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

                Ahmednagar, below exhibit 14 in Sessions Case No.305/2023

                thereby, rejecting the application exhibit 14 for discharge. The

                said sessions case is in pursuance of the FIR No.617/2021

                registered with the Nagar Taluka Police Station on 04.11.2021 by
                                *2*                       972revn219o25


respondent No.2/ Dattatraya Haribhau Borude, for the offences

punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.


2.          According to the prosecution, applicant No. 1 Priya

is the wife of the deceased Rahul Borude, whose marriage took

place on 21.11.2017. The deceased Rahul Borude was the son of

respondent No.2/ complainant Dattatray Haribhau Borude. It is

alleged that there used to be quarrel between the deceased and

applicant No.1 Priya and therefore, they were residing separately.

It is alleged that prior to one and a half month of the incident,

accused Priya had quarrel with her husband i.e. deceased Rahul,

and left the matrimonial house and went to her paternal home.

She used to come at her in-laws' house and used to physically

and mentally harass the deceased Rahul. When the informant had

asked the deceased Rahul as to why his wife is not coming for

cohabitation, at that time, Rahul appears to have told him that the

accused persons are forcing him to enter the house and

agricultural land in the name of applicant No.1 Priya and they are

also abusing and threatening him from time to time on phone.


3.          It is further alleged that the deceased Rahul
                                *3*                      972revn219o25


informed to the informant on phone that on 03.11.2021 at about

8:00 pm, the accused persons came at the house of deceased

Rahul. They told the deceased that agriculture and house property

should be entered in the name of applicant No.1 Priya, otherwise

they will kill him. They also threatened, abused, and assaulted

him. Thereafter, they left the house.      It is alleged that on

04.11.2021, the deceased Rahul did not come to the house of the

informant for tiffin, and therefore, the informant made phone call

to him. The phone was switched off. Thereafter, the informant

made search of deceased Rahul, but he could not find him. The

informant and his relatives also searched near the well. At that

time, his slipper was found near the well. Therefore, some

persons jumped into the well for searching the deceased Rahul.

The informant and others had been to the house of Rahul and

then there they found one diary. In that diary, they found one

written note in his handwriting mentioning therein that the

accused persons told him that the land and house property be

entered in their names, and they also had given him life threats,

and due to the harassment, he is committing suicide. After

searching in the well, the body of deceased Rahul was found in

the well, and villagers took out him from the well. The deceased
                                   *4*                    972revn219o25


was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar where, the medical

officer declared him as dead on 04.11.2021 prior to 12 PM.

Therefore, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the

applicants/ accused Nos. 1 to 3.


4.           After completion of investigation, the charge sheet

came to be filed and the case is committed to the Sessions Court,

which is registered as Sessions Case No.305/2023. The

applicants have preferred the application (exhibit 14) under

Section 227 of the CrPC for discharging them from the aforesaid

crime.


5.           The learned advocate for the applicants submits that

there is nothing to suggest that they have instigated the deceased

to commit suicide. There is also nothing to suggest that he was

ever humiliated, harassed soon before his death. According to

them, the death of the deceased is accidental one, but due to

anger, the informant lodged the fabricated FIR against the

applicants. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the applicants

that previously the deceased Rahul himself had lodged the

complaint against the informant father, which was registered as

NCR No. 1021 of 2018 on 01.12.2018. In the said complaint, it is
                                *5*                       972revn219o25


reported that there was scuffle between the father and son Rahul

on account of switching off electric supply. There is allegation

that the informant himself had assaulted the deceased and also

threatened to kill him. As such, it is submitted that the impugned

order is erroneous and therefore, same is liable to be quashed and

set aside.


6.           On the other hand, this revision application is

resisted by the learned APP as well as the learned advocate

appearing for respondent No.2/ informant. According to them,

there is sufficient material against the applicants to proceed

further against them. The prosecution has relied upon various

material in the form of suicidal note as well as PM report, spot

panchnama, and the statements of witnesses to suggest that there

was abetment on the part of the applicants, as a result of which,

the deceased committed suicide. According to the prosecution,

there is sufficient material available in the form of chargesheet

against the applicants, as such, the prosecution may be permitted

to conduct a trial against the applicants/ accused persons.


7.           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

going through the material available on record, it is evident that
                                *6*                      972revn219o25


the deceased Rahul was the husband of applicant No.1 Priya.

Their marriage was solemnized on 21.11.2017 and on account of

marital discord, the couple used to live separately. Applicant

Nos.2 and 3/ accused are in-laws of the deceased. The deceased

committed suicide on 04.11.2021.


8.          The law in respect of Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code has been evolved in view of the various landmark

judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this

Court. It is settled that the basic ingredients of Section 306 are

required to be carefully examined. Section 306 of IPC reads as

under:-


                   "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."




9.          The word "suicide" is nowhere defined in the Indian

Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well-known and

requires no explanation. Suicide by itself is not an offence under

either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a

felony in England. In England, the former law was the nature of
                                 *7*                      972revn219o25


being a deterrent to people, as it provided penalties of two types:

one, degradation of corpse by burying it on the highway with a

stake through its chest; and second, forfeiture of property of the

deceased by the state. However, in our country, while suicide

itself is not an offence. Considering that the successful offender

is beyond the reach of the law, the attempt to suicide is an

offence under Section 309 of IPC.


10.          The word "abetment" has been defined under

Section 107 of the IPC and therefore, it is useful to refer the

definition of 107 as under:-


      “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, 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,
                                 *8*                      972revn219o25


             and thereby facilitate the commission thereof,
             is said to aid the doing of that act.”



11.           Thus, it is settled that 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 legislature and the ratio of the cases

decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear that in order to

convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be 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 position that he committed suicide.


12.          In view of the aforesaid legal position, the

allegations in this case are required to be viewed. In this case, it

is alleged that the deceased appears to have written suicide note

in his diary, thereby stating that the applicants have harassed him

for demanding the property to be transferred in their names. A

bare perusal of the said suicide note discloses that the applicants

have also lodged the complaint against the deceased at police
                                   *9*                   972revn219o25


station. The deceased has narrated that in view of the harassment

caused to him, he is committing suicide. It is to be seen here that

applicant No.1 had left the matrimonial house and she was

staying with her parents' house.


13.         In view of the settled position of law, in order to

attract the aforesaid offence of Section 306, the prosecution is

required to establish that the accused persons have actually

abetted the crime in such a manner that there was no other option

available to the deceased than to commit suicide. The material

brought before the learned Sessions Court by the prosecution is

not suggestive of the aforesaid aspect.


14.         On this issue, the learned advocate for the applicants

has vehemently relied on the following judgments :-


      (a)   Manohar s/o. Bakaramji Gabhane & Ors. Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2023 All MR (Cri) 2806.


      (b)   Yuvraj Shinde Versus State of Goa & Anr. reported

in 2022 All MR (Cri) 1434.


      (c)   Vimlesh Alias Poonam Sanjay Sharma Versus State

of Rajasthan Through P.P. reported in 2017 CRI.L. J. 2556 :
                                *10*                     972revn219o25


(2017) 4 CRILR (RAJ)1641.


      (d)   S.S. Chheena Versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.

reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri)3298(S.C.).


      (e)   Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Versus State of

M.P. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998.


      (f)   Madan Mohan Singh Versus State of Gujarat & Anr.

reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3245 (S.C.).


      (g)   M. Mohan Versus State Represented by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court

1238 : 2011 AIR SCW 1601.


      (h)   Bhartendra s/o. Dhanraj Bhoyar Versus The State of

Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2023 ALL MR (Cri)2117.


15.         In the aforesaid cited judgments, it is observed that

the prosecution must establish that the accused persons have

actually abetted the deceased and they have instigated him to

such an extent that that there was no option for the deceased than

to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court

have time and again clarified that what amounts to abetment and
                                  *11*                     972revn219o25


instigation.


16.            The Hon'ble Apex Court in one of the landmark

judgments i.e. Sanju v. State of MP reported in 2002 SSC

Criminal 1141, has observed that deceased has had explicitly

declared his intention to die, upon which the accused therein

asked the deceased to proceed to do so and thereupon, suicide

was committed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Even if one

accepts the prosecution theory that the applicant did tell the

deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the

ingredients of instigation. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement

or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate

or incite. The presence of mens rea, therefore, is concomitant of

instigation i.e. common knowledge that the words uttered in a

quarrel or in a spur of moment cannot be taken to be uttered with

mens rea.” Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court took a view that the

offence under Section 306 cannot be attracted.


17.            The ratio of the aforesaid case is squarely applicable

to the case in hand. In this case, considering the allegations in the

FIR itself and other material brought on record, the deceased has

undoubtedly in ordinary circumstances appears to have
                                 *12*                     972revn219o25


committed suicide owing to his sensibility, hypersensitivity and

quirks. As such, I am of the opinion that the material brought

before the Court in the view of charge-sheet is not sufficient to

attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. In that view of

the matter, the Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed. Hence,

the following order:-


                             ORDER


      (a)    The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.


      (b)    The impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, below exhibit

14 in Sessions Case No.305/2023 rejecting the application for

discharge filed by the applicants, is quashed and set aside.


      (c)    The application (exhibit 14) for discharge filed by

the applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, in Sessions Case No.305/2023, stands allowed.


      (d)    The applicants are discharged from the offences

punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No.617/2021 registered

with the Nagar Taluka Police Station on 04.11.2021 by
                                      *13*                     972revn219o25


      respondent No.2/ Dattatraya Haribhau Borude.


            (e)    Bail bond, if any furnished by the applicants, stands

      cancelled.


            (f)    The surety, if any, stands discharged.




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )