BIBHUBHUSHAN DILIPKUMAR PARIJAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2017


Bibhushan Dilipkumar Parija                           …Applicant
      Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           …Respondents


Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Counsel i/by Mahendra M. Agavekar for
Applicant.
Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for State.
PI, Chandrakant K. Chaudhari, Kurla Railway Police Station,
present.


                       CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :      28th JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:


1.       Heard Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant

and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the State.



2.       This Criminal Revision Application is placed under the

category of ‘Prioritised Cases’, in view of the directions of the

Supreme Court, to expedite the cases where stay has been granted

to the trial.



3.       By the present Criminal Revision Application, challenge is to

the Order dated 5th May 2017 passed by the learned Judge, City




                               Page 1 of 29
Dusane
Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit-3 in

Session Case No.213 of 2017. The said Exhibit-3 Application has

been filed seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“Cr.PC.”). By the impugned Order, the

learned Judge of the Civil Civil and Sessions Court, Greater

Mumbai rejected the said Application.



4.       It is the submission of Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel

for the Applicant that for proving the offence under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) concerning abetment of

suicide, what is important is intention of the Accused to aid or

instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. He pointed out

statements of various witnesses and submitted that there is no

material concerning intention of the Applicant. He submitted that

the Applicant is serving with H.D.F.C. Bank Limited and at the

relevant time, working on the post of Senior Manager, BPRG

(WBO) at its Corporate Office at Kanjurmarg. The deceased joined

HDFC Bank in March 2015 as a Trainee and in view of the

excellent performance of deceased during contractual period, on

the recommendation of the Applicant being his immediate senior,

the deceased was appointed as permanent bank staff.




                              Page 2 of 29
Dusane
5.       It is submitted that on 31st August 2016, there was some

technical error concerning the account of M/s Hindustan Zinc Co.

and the Applicant being immediate superior supervising the said

work. The said error was detected and rectified by the deceased

after the long efforts and therefore the Applicant patted on the

back of deceased for his remarkable work to appreciate his talent.

The deceased left the office at about 7.17 p.m., and went to

Kanjurmarg Railway Station and after sometime, he jumped before

the running train at about 8.30 p.m. and died by suicide.



6.       Accidental Death Report being No. 257/2016 was lodged at

Kanjurmarg Railway Police Station on 31 st August 2016 and after a

period of 4 months, the Police registered F.I.R. No.520 of 2016 on

20th December 2016, against the Applicant for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The First Informant is the

brother of the deceased.



7.       Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel submitted that although

there is proximity between the incident of suicide and the events

which took place in the office, however, there is no mens rea for

the Applicant to commit the said crime. He therefore submitted




                              Page 3 of 29
Dusane
that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside and the

Applicant be discharged in said criminal case.



8.       Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following

judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate his submission:


         1)   Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
              Pradesh1

         2)   Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of
              NCT of Delhi)2


         3)   Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat
              and Anr.3


         4)   Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka4


9.       On the other hand, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP submitted

that the question whether the Applicant has mens rea to commit

the crime has to be decided at the stage of trial and same has to be

proved in the trial. Learned APP submitted that at this stage i.e. at

the stage of discharge, the said submission cannot be accepted. He

submitted that the material on record clearly shows that there is

proximity between the incidents, which have taken place in the

1 2010 (1) SCC 750
2 2009 (16) SCC 605
3 2010(8) SCC 628
4 (2025) SCC Online SC 1938




                              Page 4 of 29
Dusane
office and time when the deceased died by suicide. He therefore

submitted that no interference in the impugned Order is

warranted.



10.      Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set

out the legal position concerning offence under Section 306 of the

IPC and also legal position concerning the appraoch to consider

applications filed under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge.



11.      The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan (supra)

has discussed various aspects of abetment of suicide. The relevant

discussion is from paragraph nos. 6 to 17. The relevant paragraphs

are 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17, which read as under :-



                      “7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere
                      defined in the Indian Penal Code, however
                      its meaning and import is well known and
                      requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self'
                      and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an
                      act of self-killing. In short a person
                      committing suicide must commit it by
                      himself, irrespective of the means employed
                      by him in achieving his object of killing
                      himself.”


                      “10. “Abetment” has been defined under
                      Section 107 of the Code. We deem it




                                Page 5 of 29
Dusane
         appropriate to reproduce       Section   107,
         which reads 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 oth er 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 2 which has been inserted
         along with Section 107 reads as under:


         “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
         facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
         aid the doing of that act.”


         12. The learned counsel also placed reliance
         on another judgment of this Court in
         Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
         [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] .
         A three-Judge Bench of this Court had an
         occasion to deal with a case of a similar
         nature. In a dispute between the husband
         and wife, the appellant husband uttered
         “you are free to do whatever you wish and
         go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife
         of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed



                   Page 6 of 29
Dusane
         suicide. The Court in para 20 has examined
         different shades of the meaning of
         “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC
         p. 629)


           “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 or emotion without intending the
           consequences to actually follow cannot
           be said to be instigation.”


         “16. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
         State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16
         SCC 605 : (2009) 11 Scale 24] had an
         occasion to deal with this aspect of
         abetment. The Court dealt with the
         dictionary     meaning       of   the    words
         “instigation” and “goading”. The Court
         opined that there should be intention to
         provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
         act by the latter. Each person's suicidability
         pattern is different from the other. Each
         person has his own idea of self-esteem and
         self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay



                   Page 7 of 29
Dusane
                    down any straitjacket formula in dealing
                    with such cases. Each case has to be decided
                    on the basis of its own facts and
                    circumstances.”


                    “17. 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 this 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 this act must have been intended to
                    push the deceased into such a position that
                    he committed suicide.”


                                                (Emphasis added)


Thus, what the Supreme Court has held 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. It has been held 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 wherein the accused created such a




                              Page 8 of 29
Dusane
conduct that the deceased was left with no other option except to

commit suicide. Although, this case i.e. Gangula Reddy (supra) is

arising out of conviction of the Appellant and although, the present

case is at the stage of discharge, what is relevant to note is that, for

the purpose of Section 306 of IPC, the Supreme Court has in clear

terms has held that what is important for the purpose of Section

306 IPC is that 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 other option and this act

must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position

that he committed suicide.



12.      In the case of Chitresh Kumar (supra), the observations of

the Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 15 to 19 are important and

same read as under:



                     “15. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a
                     person who instigates another has to
                     provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of
                     an act by the other by "goading" or "urging
                     forward". The dictionary meaning of the
                     word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates
                     someone into action: provoke to action or
                     reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English
                     Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying
                     somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford



                              Page 9 of 29
Dusane
         Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th
         Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or
         try hard to persuade somebody to do
         something or to make a person to move
         more quickly and or in a particular
         direction, especially by pushing or forcing
         such person. Therefore, a person who
         instigates another has to "goad" or "urge
         forward" the latter with intention to
         provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
         act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh
         Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by
         his acts or by a continued course of conduct
         creates such circumstances that the
         deceased was left with no other option
         except to commit suicide, an "instigation"
         may be inferred. In other words, in order to
         prove that the accused abetted commission
         of suicide by a person, it has to be
         established that: (i) the accused kept on
         irritating or annoying the deceased by
         words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct
         which may even be a wilful silence until the
         deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
         deceased by his deeds, words or wilful
         omission or conduct to make the deceased
         move forward more quickly in a forward
         direction; and (ii) that the accused had the
         intention to provoke, urge or encourage the
         deceased to commit suicide while acting in
         the manner noted above. Undoubtedly,
         presence of mens rea is the necessary
         concomitant of instigation.


         16. In the background of this legal position,
         we may advert to the case at hand. The
         question as to what is the cause of a suicide
         has no easy answers because suicidal
         ideation and behaviours in human beings
         are complex and multifaceted. Different




                  Page 10 of 29
Dusane
         individuals in the same situation react and
         behave differently because of the personal
         meaning they add to each event, thus
         accounting for individual vulnerability to
         suicide. Each individual's suicidability
         pattern depends on his inner subjective
         experience of mental pain, fear and loss of
         self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial
         and exacerbating contributor to an
         individual's vulnerability to end his own life,
         which may either be an attempt for self-
         protection or an escapism from intolerable
         self.


         17. In the present case, the charge against
         the appellant is that he along with other two
         accused "in furtherance of common
         intention", mentally tortured Jitendra
         Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to
         commit suicide by the said act of mental
         torture. It is trite that words uttered on the
         spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without
         something more cannot be taken to have
         been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on
         the prosecution to show the circumstances
         which compelled the deceased to take an
         extreme step to bring an end to his life. In
         the present case, apart from the suicide
         note, extracted above, statements recorded
         by the police during the course of
         investigation, tend to show that on account
         of business transactions with the accused,
         including the appellant herein, the deceased
         was put under tremendous pressure to do
         something which he was perhaps not willing
         to do. Prima facie, it appears that the
         conduct of the appellant and his
         accomplices was such that the deceased was
         left with no other option except to end his
         life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section




                  Page 11 of 29
Dusane
         107 of the IPC was attracted. Briefly dealing
         with the material available on record, in the
         order directing framing of charge against
         the appellant, the learned trial court has
         observed as under:


         "In the present case the evidence shows
         threatening given to the deceased. One
         witness called Kartar Singh says that CK
         Chopra was heard saying to the deceased
         that the deceased had become dishonest
         because he was refusing to sign a paper in
         which the share in some joint property was
         shown to be 10%. On another occasion
         Chopra was heard by this witness to say that
         Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did
         not give up his claim for 25% and did not
         agree to accept 10%. Witness Padam
         Bahadur has stated inter alia that he
         overheard Jahoor and Mahavir telling the
         deceased that Chopra had asked them to say
         that this was the last opportunity to sign the
         document and that if he wanted to live in
         the society he should sign the agreement or
         should die by taking poison. Soon thereafter
         the deceased committed suicide. Thus the
         evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which
         one person told the other go and die
         without actually suggesting that the
         opponent should commit suicide. In the
         present case the evidence collected by the
         investigation suggest that the deceased had
         been actually pushed to the wall and the
         escape by committing suicide was suggested
         by the accused persons."


         18. In the light of the material on record,
         in our judgment, it cannot be said that the
         trial court was in error in drawing an
         inference that the appellant had "instigated"



                  Page 12 of 29
Dusane
         the deceased to commit suicide and,
         therefore, there was ground for presuming
         that the appellant has committed an offence
         punishable under Section 306 read with
         Section 34 IPC. It is trite that at the stage of
         framing of charge, the court is required to
         evaluate the material and documents on
         record with a view to finding out if the facts
         emerging therefrom, taken at their face
         value, disclose the existence of all the
         ingredients constituting the alleged offence
         or offences. For this limited purpose, the
         court may sift the evidence as it cannot be
         expected even at the initial stage to accept
         as gospel truth all that the prosecution
         states. At this stage, the court has to
         consider the material only with a view to
         find out if there is ground for "presuming"
         that the accused has committed an offence
         and not for the purpose of arriving at the
         conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a
         conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam
         Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj
         Bijja & Ors5).


         19. In Som Nath Thapa & Ors. (supra), a
         three-Judge Bench of this Court explained
         the meaning of the word "presume".
         Referring to dictionary meanings of the said
         word, the Court observed thus:


         "...if on the basis of materials on record, a
         court could come to the conclusion that
         commission of the offence is a probable
         consequence, a case for framing of charge
         exists. To put it differently, if the Court were
         to think that the accused might have
         committed the offence it can frame the
         charge, though for conviction the conclusion
         is required to be that the accused has



                  Page 13 of 29
Dusane
                     commuted the offence. It is apparent that at
                     (1990) 4 SCC 76 the stage of framing of
                     charge, probative value of the materials on
                     record cannot be gone into; the materials
                     brought on record by the prosecution has to
                     be accepted as true at that stage.”


                                               (emphasis supplied)


13.      It is also relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra). The said decision is

arising out of Order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, under

Section 482 Cr.PC. The High Court has dismissed the Petition of

the Appellant in which the relief sought is to quash the F.I.R. In

that case, the allegations of the Prosecution was that the deceased

was working as Driver and as Appellant 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, the driver

committed suicide. In view of the said factual aspects, the Supreme

Court set aside the order of Gujarat High Court and quashed the

proceedings. The relevant reasons are stated to be found in

paragraphs 12 and 13, which read as follows:-


                     “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



                               Page 14 of 29
Dusane
         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.
         We are of the clear opinion that there is no
         question of there being any material for
         offence under Section 306 IPC either in the
         FIR or in the so-called suicide note.”
         “13. It is absurd to even think that a
         superior officer like the appellant would
         intend to bring about suicide of his driver
         and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact,
         there is no nexus between the so-called
         suicide (if at all it is one for which also
         there is no material on record) and any of
         the alleged acts on the part of the
         appellant. There is no proximity either. In
         the prosecution under Section 306 IPC,
         much more material is required. The courts
         have to be extremely careful as the main
         person is not available for cross-
         examination by the appellant-accused.
         Unless, therefore, there is specific
         allegation and material of definite nature
         (not imaginary or inferential one), it would
         be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused
         to face the trial. A criminal trial is not
         exactly a pleasant experience. The person
         like the appellant in the present case who
         is serving in a responsible post would
         certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to
         face prosecution on absurd allegations of
         irrelevant    nature.    In    the    similar
         circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v.
         State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005
         SCC (Cri) 543] , this Court had quashed
         the proceedings initiated against the
         accused.”




                  Page 15 of 29
Dusane
                                               (Emphasis added)




Thus, what the Supreme Court has observed that for the purpose

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 out the suicide of the concerned person as a

result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused is

to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a

must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. It has been

observed in the facts of that case that it is absurd to even think that

a superior officer like the Appellant would intend to bring about

suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence.



14.      Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel has also relied on a

recent decision of the Supreme Court, which has been delivered on

9th September 2025 in the case of Geeta (supra). In that case also,

reliance has been placed in the case of Madan Mohan Singh

(supra). The relevant discussion is in Paragraphs 18 to 22, which

reads as under :-




                              Page 16 of 29
Dusane
         “18. Even if we were to assume that
         physical blows were administered, will that
         per se constitute abetment to suicide? This
         Court in a case where the accused told the
         deceased “go and die” and when thereafter,
         the deceased committed suicide, absolved
         the accused of the charge under Section 306
         by holding as under:

            “3. …Those words are casual nature
            which are often employed in the heat
            of the moment between quarrelling
            people. Nothing serious is expected to
            follow thereafter. The said act does
            not reflect the requisite mens rea on
            the assumption that these words
            would be carried out in all events. …”


         19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh v.
         State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held
         that 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. It was further held that the
         intention of the accused to aid or to
         instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
         suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.


         20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State
         of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this
         Court held that the harassment meted out to
         the victim should have left the victim with
         no other alternative but to put an end to
         his/her life.




                  Page 17 of 29
Dusane
               21. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC
               626, this Court followed the dictum in
               Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
               (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as
               under:


               “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
               Kumar has examined different shades of the
               meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as
               under: (SCC p. 629)


               “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 or emotion
               without intending the consequences to
               actually follow cannot be said to be
               instigation.”


         In the said case this Court came to the conclusion
         that there is no evidence and material available on
         record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-
         accused having abetted commission of suicide by
         Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may
         necessarily be drawn.”




                        Page 18 of 29
Dusane
            Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:—


                   45. The intention of the legislature and the
                   ratio of the cases decided by this Court are
                   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 this act must have been intended to
                   push the deceased into such a position that
                   he/she committed suicide.”


                   22. This Court in Mahendra Awase v. The
                   State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76,
                   after analyzing the long line of precedents
                   held as under:—


                   “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy
                   the requirement of instigation the accused
                   by his act or omission or by a continued
                   course of conduct should have created such
                   circumstances that the deceased was left
                   with no other option except to commit
                   suicide. It was also held that a word uttered
                   in a fit of anger and emotion without
                   intending the consequences to actually
                   follow cannot be said to be instigation.”


                                              (Emphasis added)


By applying the test laid down in various Judgments, the Supreme

Court in that case has held that when the appellant's family and

the victim's family had heated exchanges, there was no intention to

abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life.




                            Page 19 of 29
Dusane
These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able

to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the

appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other

option but to commit suicide.



15.      Thus, the following parameters can be culled out from the

above decisions of the Supreme Court:



          i.    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 to be inferred. A word uttered

          in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the

          consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be

          instigation.



          ii.   In order to prove that the accused abetted

          commission of suicide by a person, it has to be inter

          alia established that:




                                   Page 20 of 29
Dusane
         (a) the accused kept on irritating or annoying

         the deceased by words, deeds or willful

         omission or conduct which may even be a

         willful silence until the deceased reacted or

         pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,

         words or willful omission or conduct to make

         the deceased move forward more quickly in a

         forward direction; and



         (b) that the accused had the intention to

         provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to

         commit suicide while acting in the manner

         noted earlier.



         (c) The presence of mens rea is the necessary

         concomitant of instigation.



         (d) Words uttered on the spur of the moment

         or in a quarrel, without something more

         cannot be taken to have been uttered with

         mens rea.




                           Page 21 of 29
Dusane
            (e) The onus is on the prosecution to show the

            circumstances which compelled the deceased

            to take an extreme step to bring an end to his

            life.



         iii.   At the stage of framing of charge, the court is

         required to evaluate the material and documents on

         record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging

         therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the

         existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged

         offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court

         may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at

         the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the

         prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to

         consider the material only with a view to find out if

         there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has

         committed an offence and not for the purpose of

         arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to

         a conviction.




                               Page 22 of 29
Dusane
          iv.   If the Court were to think that the accused might

          have committed the offence it can frame the charge,

          though for conviction the conclusion is required to be

          that the accused has commuted the offence.



16.      Before applying the above parameters to the present case, it

is necessary to set out the prosecution case. The prosecution case is

set out in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned Order dated 5 th

May 2017, and the same reads as under :



         “3. The glimpses of the case is that the deceased was
         working in automation section of HDFC bank at
         Kanjurmarg, East, Mumbai. The accused was Manager of
         Operation Section. The deceased was working under his
         control. On the basis of C.C. T.V. footage, it has
         mentioned in the complaint that on 31/08/2016, at
         about 5.56 pm. the accused proceeded towards the
         deceased. He made gestures towards the deceased and
         shouted on him in the presence of other employees.
         Thereafter, at 6.48 pm. he dealt a blow on his back with
         his hand. At 7.16 pm. the accused again proceeded
         towards the deceased and dealt blow on his head with
         his hand. He beat up the deceased twice in presence of
         other employee of the bank.


         4.     After last incident of beating at 7.16 pm. the
         deceased unable to tolerate humiliation caused to him by
         accused. Thus, deceased walked out from the office at
         7.17 pm. and went to the Kanjurmarg Railway station.
         When is saw train in coming, he fling himself before the
         local railway and committed suicide. It is further alleged




                               Page 23 of 29
Dusane
         that the accused abated the deceased to commit suicide
         by beating the deceased and treating with humiliation.”




17.      Thus, as per the prosecution case, the Applicant made

gestures towards the deceased in the presence of other employees

and thereafter at about 6.48 p.m. he dealt a blow on his back with

his hand and thereafter at 7.16 p.m., he again proceeded towards

the deceased and dealt a blow on his head with his hand.

Thereafter, immediately the deceased left the office, went to

Kanjurmarg Railway Station and died by suicide by jumping on the

track when local train was entering said station.




18.      Thus, as far as the submissions of Mr. Mohite, learned Senior

Counsel that in fact the Applicant gave pat on the back of deceased

for his remarkable work and same was done twice for appreciating

the talent of deceased cannot be accepted at the stage of discharge.




19.      However, it is required to appreciate the material collected

during investigation and produced along with the chargesheet to




                               Page 24 of 29
Dusane
find out whether offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out

for framing the charge.




20.      It is required to be noted that the prosecution has recorded

statement of Prakash Shyam Chandurkar i.e. brother of deceased.

As far as the incident is concerned, the brother of the deceased has

stated as follows :-


         “ lnj vie`R;w izdj.kh iksyhlkauh dsysY;k riklke/;s fnukad
         31&08&2016 jksthps dkatjw ekxZ jsYos LVs”ku o ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/khy
         izkIr dsysys lhlhVhOgh QqVt   s rlsp jkds”k ;kps eksckbZy Qksups dkWy
         fMVsYl iksyhlkauh eyk nk[koys- R;ke/;s fnukad 31&08&2016 jksthps
         iksyhlkauh ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/kwu izkIr dsysY;k QqVt   s e/kwu eyk vls
         fnlwu vkys dh lk;adkGh lqekjs 05@56 ok- ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/khy
         jkds”k ;kps lj foHkwHkq’k.k ikfjtk ¼vkWijs”ku foHkkxkps eWut
                                                                    s j½ gs jkds”k
         clysY;k fBdk.kh ;sowu jkds”k dke dfjr vlysY;k lax.kdkdMs
         gkrokjs d:u jkds”k ;kpsoj lokZle{k vksjMwu R;kpk viekukLin
         okx.kwd fnY;kps fnlwu vkys- R;kuarj lk;adkGh lqekjs 06@48 ok-
         jkds”k ;kps ikBhoj lokZle{k gkrkus ekjys o iqUgk lqekjs 07@16 ok-
         jkds”k ;kps toG ;soqu MksD;kr gkrkus ekjys- R;keqGs jkdsz”k gk
         viekukLin okx.kwd lgu d: “kdyk ukgh- R;keqGs lk;adkGh lqekjs
         07@17 ok- jkds”k gk clysY;k tkxso:u mBwu ,dVkp vkWfQlps ckgsj
         fu?kqu xsyk o dkatjq ekxZ jsYos LVs”ku ;sFks /kkoR;k yksdyxkMhiq<s
         VªWde/;s ;soqu vkRegR;k d:u Lor%pk tho laioyk vkgs-

         rjh ek>k e;r HkkÅ ukes jkds”k panqjdj gk fnukad 31&08&2016
         jksth ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWad] vkWVkseks”ku foHkkx] frljk ekGk] yks<k]
         dkWEisDl] dkatjq ekxZ ¼iwoZ½ ;sFks cWadse/;s uksdjhoj gtj vlrkauk lqekjs
         lk;adkGh lqekjs 05@56 ok- rs 06@16 ok- njE;ku jkds”k ;kps lj
         ukes& foHkwHkq’k.k ;kauh vkWfQle/;s jkds”k ;kal lokZle{k R;kpsoj




                                    Page 25 of 29
Dusane
         vksjMwu gkrkus ikBhoj] MksD;kr ek:u o viekukLin okx.kwd nsowu
         vkRegR;k dj.;kl izo`Rr dsys Eg.kwu ek>h foHkwHkq’k.k ikfjtk] o;&
         34 o’kZs ¼vkWijs”ku foHkkx eWustj½ ;kaps fo:) dk;ns”khj rdzkj vkgs-”


         Thus, the brother of deceased has stated that as the

deceased was humiliated by the Applicant-Accused, he committed

suicide.



21.      The prosecution has also recorded statements of about 13

bank employees. It is admitted position that all these statements

are of identical in nature. Statement of one Manish Nemanna

Kebral shows that said Manish was working as Vice President in

HDFC Bank and the Applicant was working as Bank Manager and

apart from other employees, the deceased was working as per

direction of the Applicant i.e. the Bank Manager. The Applicant in

his capacity as Bank Manager was supervising the work of all the

employees including the deceased. Said statement shows that the

Applicant and the Deceased were discussing the issue regarding

technical error concerning the customer Hindustan Zinc Company

and that the Applicant has patted on the back and head of the

deceased for solving said problem.




                                   Page 26 of 29
Dusane
22.      Although the prosecution case is that the Applicant dealt a

blow on his back with his hand and humiliated him in presence of

the employees and therefore at this stage, the said case need not

be accepted as it is, however, the only question in view of law laid

down by the Supreme Court is whether the Applicant as the

General Manager has mens rea of abetting the suicide of the

deceased who was working under him.



23.      Thus, what is important is the mens rea i.e. the Applicant

should have intention to abet suicide of the deceased. The other

important factor is that the harassment meted out to the victim

should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an

end to his/her life. In this case, admittedly the Appellant at the

relevant time was working as Senior Manager in HDFC Bank at its

Corporate Office at Kanjurmarg and the deceased was working

under him. Even if it is assumed that in the said work, as the

Applicant was supervising the work of the deceased, some

altercation had taken place, by no stretch of imagination, it can be

held that the Appellant created such circumstances that the

deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. As held

by the Supreme Court the words uttered in the hit of anger cannot




                              Page 27 of 29
Dusane
be said to be instigation. The intention of the Accused to aid or

instigate or to abet to commit suicide is a must for this particular

offence under Section 306 IPC. Thus, even if the prosecution case

is accepted as it is, it cannot be said that the Applicant who was

working as Senior Manager in HDFC Bank has intention that the

deceased who was working under his supervision should commit

suicide. There is no material on record to frame charge under

Section 306 of the IPC.



24.      Thus, for the above reasons, impugned Order dated 5 th May

2017 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater

Mumbai below Exhibit-3 in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2017 is

quashed and set aside.



25.      The said Application bearing Exhibit-3 filed by in Sessions

Case No. 213/2017 seeking discharge under 227 of Cr.PC is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the said Application.



26.      Accordingly, the Revision Application is disposed of in above

terms.




                               Page 28 of 29
Dusane
                         [   (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)




         Page 29 of 29
Dusane