SHAKIL AHEMAD SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41240


                                                *1*                       934revn35o24


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2024
                               SHAKIL AHEMAD SIDDIQUI
                                             AND
                                 AMIR SHAKIL SIDDIQUI
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Vishal Amritlal
                Bagdiya, Advocate for the Applicants/ accused.
                Shri A.A. A. Khan, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                               ...

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 03 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.          By this revision application, the applicants/ accused

                challenge the impugned order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the

                learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, below exhibit 17 in

                Sessions Case No.26/2019 thereby, rejecting the application

                exhibit 17 for discharge. The said sessions case is in pursuance of

                FIR No.331/2017 registered with the Gangapur Police Station on

                14.08.2017 by the informant Vedvikas Lalbahadursingh Gautam,

                for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w 34

                of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 39 of the

                Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
                                *2*                      934revn35o24


2.          According to the prosecution, the informant, namely,

Vedvikas Lalbahadursingh Gautam lodged the report on

14.08.2017 alleging that the applicants/ accused Nos.1 and 2

along with other accused persons have given loan amount to the

tune of Rs.1 crore approximately to the informant (Vedvikas

Gautam) and his brother, namely, Vedprakash Gautam. The

accused persons have started demanding the said amount,

however, the informant and his brother faced too many hardships

in their life and they could not repay the said amount. Due to the

said non-payment, the applicants along with other accused

persons alleged to have harassed the informant and his brother

mentally and physically. It is alleged that the amount was spent

by them towards the expenditure of their father's health.

Subsequently, they also tried to repay the loan amount by selling

the godown and office premises. However, despite aforesaid

arrangement, the amount could not be repaid and therefore, the

applicants along with other accused used to harass them mentally

and physically. It is alleged that on 09.08.2017, both the

informant and his brother were proceeding to Pune in Tavera car.

Their car stopped on the Godavari bridge at Kaygaon Toka. In

view of the mental harassment, both the brothers i.e. the
                                *3*                       934revn35o24


informant and his brother Vedprakash, jumped into the river.

Though the fisherman brought them out of the river, however, the

informant's brother Vedprakash died due to drowning, whereas

the informant survived.


3.            On the basis of aforesaid statement, the aforesaid

crime was registered and the criminal law was set into motion.

After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed

against four persons and the case is committed to the Sessions

Court and registered as Sessions Case No.26/2019. The

applicants/ accused filed the application exhibit 17 for discharge,

however, same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated

01.01.2024.


4.            Shri Sapkal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing

for the applicants/ accused, submits that the report discloses that

the transaction took place in the years 2013 and 2014 and the

deceased committed suicide in the year 2017. The date of

transaction as well as the date of incident speaks volumes

regarding how the applicants/ accused have been implicated.

There is no instigation and abetment in the instant case and

according to the learned Senior Advocate, the allegations in the
                               *4*                      934revn35o24


complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable and

unworthy of acceptance.


5.          The learned Senior Advocate submitted that

applicant No.1 has purchased residential house property at MIDC

Waluj industrial area by way of registered deed of assignment

dated 04.01.2016. At the time of said deed of assignment, the

complainant and his deceased brother has attested the said deed

of assignment as witnesses. Despite the aforesaid fact, the sale

deed copy was not handed over to the present applicants by the

vendor. In spite of payment of all consideration amount by way

of cheque, applicant No.1 considering the humanity, allowed the

vendor to stay in the premises till April 2016. The mother of the

complainant, namely, Champadevi was not vacating the said

premises, therefore, applicant No.1 had requested the mother of

the complainant to vacate the house. However, instead of

vacating the house, the mother of the informant and her family

members threatened the applicant that they will indulge the

applicants in false case. Therefore, applicant No.1 has

immediately filed the complaint in respect of the said incident

with MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, on 09.06.2016.
                                *5*                       934revn35o24


6.          According to the learned Senior Advocate Shri

Sapkal, the incident of suicide took place on 09.08.2017,

however, the FIR came to be lodged on 14.08.2017. Thus, the

delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint has not at all been

explained by the complainant. He further submitted that on

careful perusal of the entire charge-sheet, no criminal offence

whatsoever is made out against applicant Nos.1 and 2. The

charge-sheet is filed in absence of the basic facts and ingredients

to constitute the criminal offence and that is clearly an abuse of

process of criminal law. The informant has lodged the complaint

with an ulterior motive. The allegations are totally fabricated and

concocted with a view to harass and humiliate the applicants. The

applicants are not having any concern with any transaction as

alleged in the complaint. The applicants have also never stated to

have approached to the complainant or his brother for any type of

demand of interest or principal amount as alleged in the

complaint. Thus, according to Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel,

from bare perusal of the entire charge-sheet, there is no material

to proceed against the applicants for the charges leveled against

them and therefore, he prayed for quashing and setting aside the

impugned order of rejection of their discharge and further prayed
                                 *6*                        934revn35o24


for discharging the applicants from the instant offences/crime.


7.           On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed

the instant revision application. He submits that there is sufficient

material so as to prosecute the applicants. The applicants have

alleged to have harassed the informant and his brother to such an

extent that no option was left for the informant as well as the

deceased other than to commit suicide. The record in the form of

statements as well as other incriminating material goes to suggest

that the applicants are guilty of the offences leveled against them.

There is sufficient material against the applicants and therefore,

the prosecution may be permitted to try the sessions trial. The

learned APP also submitted that the supplementary statement of

the informant came to be recorded wherein it came to be stated

that the applicants along with other accused persons started

pressurizing the informant and his family members and also used

to give threats. The statement of witnesses, including family

members of the deceased, specifically stated that the accused No.

1 and 2 have harassed and threatened the informant and deceased

for money. It is also contended that the informant and his brother

attempted to commit suicide due to the harassment of the
                                 *7*                      934revn35o24


accused. The learned APP, therefore, prayed for rejection of the

instant criminal revision application.


8.           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

going through the charge-sheet, it is found that the applicants are

facing charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money

Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The informant has lodged the

report on 14.08.2017 stating therein about money transactions

between the parties. It is found that the complainant Vedvikas

stated that all relatives were staying jointly. On 09.08.2017, in

view of the mental pressure and continuous demand of money by

the accused persons and also threats extended by them, the

informant and the deceased had jumped into the Godavari river at

Kaygaon Toka, Gangapur. The fishermen could save the

complainant Vedvikas, however, in the said incident, his brother

Vedprakash expired. It is stated that the applicants are known to

the complainant and his deceased brother since last 13 years. It is

further pointed out that the father of the complainant has medical

issues and in order to overcome those medical expenses, they

spent all their earnings and as such, in the said treatment they
                                *8*                       934revn35o24


spent everything which they had. In order to overcome the

financial difficulties, they obtained loans from the accused

persons i.e. Shakil Ahmed, Amir Shakil, Rajesh More, Ranjana

Satam and Reshma Patil. The amount is directly credited to their

bank account. It is alleged that the accused demanded 8% interest

on the said loan amount. In order to repay the aforesaid loan

amount of different creditors, the complainant and his deceased

brother stated to have sold their household properties and also

had sold their ancestral properties which was in Uttar Pradesh.


9.          According to the complainant, despite paying all the

dues, the accused persons used to harass and used to

continuously demand the interest amount of the said loan

amount. On 08.08.2017, just before one date of the incident of

suicide, the accused persons had come to complainant’s house.

Thereafter, after having talk with the said accused persons, the

deceased brother of the complainant was silent and did not speak

anything and went to his room and slept. On next date, on

09.08.2017, his brother informed the complainant that they are

unable to sustain the pressure of the accused persons and

therefore, they took the driver named Shinde with them and went
                                *9*                        934revn35o24


towards the Godavari bridge in Tavera car. Both the brothers

stated to have jumped into the river. The fisherman tried to save

them, however, they could save the complainant, but his brother

died in the said incident due to drowning. Therefore, the

informant lodged the report against the accused persons.


10.         It is pertinent to note here that the incident in

question took place on 09.08.2017, however, the informant

lodged the very first report on 14.08.2017. His supplementary

statement also came to be recorded on 16.08.2017. However, the

said FIR is conspicuously silent as to why it took almost six days

to register the report after the incident. The original report is

handwritten report by Vedvikas dated 14.08.2017. The body of

the deceased was forwarded for the post-mortem report. In the

column of post-mortem report, it is written that the deceased had

fallen from Kaygaon Bridge into the river and was found in the

river and was declared dead in SDH Gangapur. The post-mortem

examination was requested by the PSI, PS Gangapur to know the

exact cause of death on 09.08.2017. The cause of death as per the

post-mortem report is death due to drowning. In such

circumstances, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Sapkal has
                                 *10*                     934revn35o24


attacked such evidence of the prosecution by contending that

when the police report accompanying the requisition for post-

mortem report states that the deceased had fallen from the bridge,

itself goes to show that the deceased has not committed the

suicide. In this respect, the presence of brother (informant) along

with the deceased is crucial and he is not coming forward telling

the actual truth before the police. There is thus strong doubt as

regards the truthfulness of the statement of the informant. The

delay took place in registering the FIR, therefore, itself creates

doubt whether the deceased had fallen down in the bridge or he

has committed suicide. The false implication of the accused

persons, therefore, cannot be ruled out.


11.         The aforesaid submission assumes significance as

the informant himself has not clearly stated actually what had

happened on the date of incident. Naturally, the police reports

were the first to record the statements of the brother of the

deceased who was very much present at the time of incident. The

police have written that the deceased was fallen from the bridge.

The said remark of fallen from bridge in the post-mortem report,

therefore, creates doubts about the prosecution case, particularly
                                *11*                      934revn35o24


when the brother of the deceased, who was very much present at

the time of incident and he is the first person to report the

incident to the police, has lodged the report after delay of about

six days. Therefore, whatever the brother of the deceased i.e.

informant had stated to the police, is reflected in the post-mortem

report. This fact assumes significance for the reason that the

informant took almost six days to lodge the report against

accused persons after the date of incident. There is no

explanation in the report as regards why it took six days to report

the incident to the police.


12.          In order to attract the offence under Section 306,

specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of Indian

Penal Code on the part of accused, is required. The intention of

accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit

suicide is must for this particular offence under Section 306. The

aspect of abetment has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in various judgments. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra

versus State Government of NCT reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there should be intention to

provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
                                *12*                     934revn35o24


Each person's suicidal pattern is different from other. Each

person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.

Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket

formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided

on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the very same judgment further observed 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. Thus, from

the intention of legislature and the ratio of cases decided by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that in order to convict a person

under Section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the

offence. It 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. The aforesaid proposition has been

continuously followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Madan Mohan Singh versus State of Gujarat reported at (2010) 8

SCC 628, S. S. Chheena versus Vijay Kumar reported at (2010)

12 SCC 190 and then by this Hon'ble Court in various judgments.
                                 *13*                       934revn35o24


13.          In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is

necessary to scrutinize the case of the prosecution to find out

whether the offence punishable under Section 306 can be said to

be made out against the accused persons. In order to prove the

charges under Section 306 of IPC, it is necessary for the

prosecution to at least, prima facie, establish that the accused had

an intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit

suicide. In the absence of availability of such material, the

accused cannot be compelled to face trial for the offence

punishable under Section 306.


14.          After considering the aforesaid aspect, it is clear that

the person can be said to have committed offence under Section

306 if he had abetted the commission of such suicide. The

definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 of Indian

Penal Code is reproduced 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
                                 *14*                       934revn35o24


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

15.          Thus, the offence of abetment is separate and

distinct offence. The word instigate literally means to provoke,

incite, urge or bring about persuasion to do anything. The

abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as

provided in three clauses of Section 107. In case of abetment of

suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act of inciting to

the commission of suicide. On careful perusal of the entire

material on record together with law relied in the judgments

delivered by the Apex Court as well as this court, it can be safely

arrived at a conclusion that the applicants are not even remotely

connected with the offence punishable under Section 306 of

Indian Penal Code. From the circumstances, it is clearly found

that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant

case for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
                                *15*                     934revn35o24


16.         In such circumstances, the proceedings of trial

against the accused persons for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code cannot be proceeded further

for the reason that the prosecution failed to establish that the

accused had an intention to aid the deceased to commit suicide.

In absence of aforesaid material, the applicants cannot be

compelled to face trial for any action for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code as there is absolutely no

any positive act on the part of applicants in the present case

involving suicidal death of the deceased. It is necessary for the

prosecution at least prima facie establish that the accused had an

intention to aid the deceased to commit suicide.


17.         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 01.01.2024 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, below exhibit 17 in

Sessions Case No.26/2019 thereby, rejecting the application
                                       *16*                    934revn35o24


      exhibit 17 for discharge, is quashed and set aside.


            (c)    The application (exhibit 17) for discharge filed by

      the applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal

      Procedure, 1973, in Sessions Case No.26/2019, stands allowed.


            (d)    The applicants are discharged from the offences

      charged in Sessions Case No.26/2019.


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

      cancelled.


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




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )