ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1031 : 2024 INSC 519

                    Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde
                                  v.
                   The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2877 of 2024)
                                  10 July 2024
           [Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature
       of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased
       who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased resided
       in house jointly purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due
       to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s.
       306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of
       harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand
       of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name –
       Appellant allegedly also sent vulgar messages on mobile
       phone of deceased and would insist on him not visiting his
       parents and giving them money – Statement of colleague of
       deceased recorded wherein she referred to an incident when
       the appellant visited deceased and created a ruckus in the
       office by rushing towards him and being abusive – Chargesheet
       against appellant under section 306 of IPC – As per the
       chargesheet, offence took place at dwelling house where
       appellant harassed the deceased on account of money and
       for transfer of house in her name, inducing the deceased for
       attempt of suicide – Appellant preferred a discharge application
       before Trial Court – Trial Court rejected appellant’s discharge
       application – High Court dismissed the revision application
       against the Trial Court’s order.
       Held: S.306 IPC must be read with s.107 IPC that explains the
       meaning of “abetment” – s.107 IPC lays down three criteria for
       abetment: there must be either an instigation, or an engagement
       or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’ – Applying these criteria to
       s.306 means the accused must have encouraged the person to

* Author
1032                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage
    the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally
    to aid the person to commit suicide – Without a positive act on
    part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
    cannot be sustained – There must be clear mens rea to commit
    the offence – There must be an active/direct act leading 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 – Court must scrupulously examine facts
    and circumstances of the case and assess evidence adduced
    before it to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted
    out left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to
    life – Mere allegation of harassment without any positive action
    proximate to time of occurrence which led or compelled the person
    to commit suicide not enough to sustain conviction under s.306
    IPC – For requirement of “instigation”, not necessary that actual
    words be used to that effect, yet a reasonable certainty to incite
    the consequence must be capable of being spelt out – In a case
    where accused has, by acts or omission or by a continued course
    of conduct, created such circumstances that deceased was left
    with no other option except to commit suicide, “instigation” may
    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 – On facts, court found the three ingredients of
    s.306 r/w s.107 IPC not present – No proximate link between
    marital dispute of deceased with appellant and the commission of
    suicide – No active role or positive or direct act to instigate or aid
    the deceased in committing suicide – No allegation of suggesting
    the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to commission
    of suicide. [Paras 7-14]

                             Case Law Cited
    S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : [2010]
    12 SCC 190; Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [2009] 15 SCR 836 :
    [2010] 1 SCC 707; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001]
    Supp. 4 SCR 247 : [2001] 9 SCC 618 – relied on
    Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [2020] 8 SCR 741 : [2020]
    10 SCC 200 – referred to

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1033

     Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


                                 List of Keywords
       Penal Code, 1860; S.306 IPC; S.107 IPC; Abetment of suicide;
       Abetment; Instigation; Proximate link; Marital dispute; Harassment;
       mens rea.
                                Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2877
       of 2024
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2023 of the High
       Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLRA No. 410 of 2022
                              Appearances for Parties
       Anand Dilip Landge, Paras Yadav, Mrs. Sangeeta. S. Pahune. Patil,
       Advs. for the Appellant.
       Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
       Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S.
       Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, K.K.L. Gautam, Ms. Vaishali Nariyala, Manoj
       Sharma, Madan Sagar, Rajbeer, Sanjeev Malhotra, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment
       Vikram Nath, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     This appeal is preferred by the accused Appellant-Rohini Sudarshan
       Gangurde challenging the impugned order of Bombay High Court
       dated 05.09.2023 in Criminal Revision Application No. 410 of 2022.
       By this order the High Court has dismissed the Revision Application
       filed by the Appellant against the order of the Trial Court dated
       24.02.2022. The Trial Court had rejected the discharge application
       of Appellant for her discharge from the offence under Section 306
       of Indian Penal Code, 1860.1
3.     Facts of the case are summarised as follows:



1    In short, ‘IPC’
1034                                                   [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                   Digital Supreme Court Reports


    3.1 Appellant is the wife of deceased Sudarshan Gangurde, who
        hanged himself to death on 17.02.2020 in his house. The
        appellant wife is accused of abetment to suicide and was thus
        charged under Section 306 of IPC. The complaint was filed by
        Smt. Usha Gangurde, mother of deceased alleging physical
        and mental harassment by the accused.
    3.2 Appellant Rohini and deceased Sudarshan had a love affair
        which turned into marriage on 09.03.2015 against the will of
        family members of both of them. The couple started residing
        separately at Shingnapur in Kolhapur. From the wedlock one
        male child Shoren was born on 27.05.2017. The couple had
        jointly purchased a Row House flat at Shingnapur where they
        were residing when the incident took place. The parents and
        family members of the deceased were residing at Mumbai.
        The deceased was serving in CPR Hospital at Kolhapur as
        Social Service Superintendent. He was on visiting terms with
        his parents.
    3.3 On 17.02.2020, the deceased aged 38 years, was found in
        hanging position by the accused wife in the balcony of common
        house they were residing at in Shingnapur. The neighbors
        informed the police. No suicide note was found. The post mortem
        report found no signs of injuries on the body of deceased. The
        cause of death is noted to be ‘due to hanging’.
    3.4 On the same day, First Information Report bearing No. 74/2020
        was lodged by the mother of deceased- Smt. Usha Gangurde
        against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC, alleging that
        her son committed suicide due to harassment and beating by
        his wife Rohini on account of demand of money and for transfer
        of the dwelling house at Shingapur in her name. She further
        stated that when her son visited her, he also told her that his
        wife was abusing and beating him, insisting on him not to visit
        his parents and not to give them money. When her husband-
        Ashok Gangurde stayed at the house of deceased in May 2019,
        he told her that accused Rohni was beating and abusing her
        son for money and transfer of house in her name. Due to these
        disputes, Rohini was residing separately from the deceased in
        her parent’s house at Sangali. The complainant further stated
        that accused was sending vulgar messages on mobile phone
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1035

     Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


           of the deceased. All this allegedly resulted in commission of
           suicide by the deceased.
      3.5 Apart from the complainant, statement of one of the colleagues
          of the deceased Ujwala Sawant was also recorded. She
          referred to an incident dated 17.10.2019 when the appellant
          visited deceased and created a ruckus in the office by rushing
          towards him on being abusive. The incidence was corroborated
          by another colleague Mr. Bajirao Apte.
      3.6 On the other hand, as per the statement of Appellant Rohini,
          her husband was addicted to liquor and there were quarrels
          between them on that ground. They tried to patch up as the
          deceased had assured to give up his habit to consume liquor.
          On this condition they resumed co-habitation. However, the
          deceased could not overcome the habit and started to drink
          more. It is argued by the counsel for Appellant that the deceased
          may have committed suicide out of frustration.
      3.7 On 04.11.2020, the police filed the Charge-sheet against
          appellant under section 306 of IPC. As per the Charge-sheet,
          the offence took place on 17.02.2020 between 7.00 to 7.30
          AM at the dwelling house in Shinganapur, where the accused
          harassed the deceased on account of money and for transfer
          of house in her name, inducing the deceased for attempt of
          suicide.
4.    Based on the charge-sheet, the Sessions Case No. 100 of 2021 is
      registered and pending for adjudication before the Sessions Court
      at Kolhapur. On 02.12.2021, the Appellant-accused preferred a
      discharge application before Trial Court. On 24.02.2022, the Trial
      Court rejected the application. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred
      Criminal Revision Application before the High Court. The High Court,
      by the impugned order, has dismissed the Revision and thus effectively
      dismissed the discharge application. Therefore, the Appellant has
      challenged it before us.
5.    The appellant has filed the present appeal on several grounds inter
      alia, that there is no evidence showing an active role played by
      Appellant which has abetted the commission of suicide. Further,
      the dwelling house was jointly purchased by the Appellant and the
      deceased and therefore there was no question of insisting to transfer
      the house in the name of Appellant. Neither the deceased, nor his
1036                                                       [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     family members have raised the grievance against alleged harassment
     before the authorities, until the suicide. Thus, the appellant states
     that all allegations are fake and frivolous.
6.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
     the ingredients essential for the offence under Section 306 IPC were
     clearly made out from the evidence collected during the investigation
     and as such the High Court has rightly dismissed the petition.
7.   Having heard the arguments of both the counsels and after perusing
     the record, we find that the only question that needs to be determined
     in the instant case is whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-
     accused prima facie attracts Section 306 of IPC, to continue the
     proceedings of Trial Court against the appellant.
     Section 306 and Section 107 of IPC read as:
          “306. Abetment of suicide-
          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.
          It must be read with Section 107 of IPC which explains
          the meaning of Abetment, which reads as:
          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.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1037

     Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


             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.”
8.    Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be
      either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing
      of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306,
      it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to
      commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage
      the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally
      to aid the person to commit suicide.
9.    In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,2 this court explained
      the concept of abetment along with necessary ingredient for offence
      under Section 306 of IPC as under:
             “25. 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 that act must have been
             intended to push the deceased into such a position that
             he committed suicide.”
10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., 3 this court explained the
    parameters of Section 306 in following words:
             “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
             before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
             Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
             facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
             evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether



2    [2010] 9 SCR 1111 : (2010) 12 SCC 190
3    [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1 SCC 707
1038                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


            the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had
            left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end
            to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
            alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct
            or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
            Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being
            any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
            the part of the accused which led or compelled the person
            to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC
            is not sustainable.
            13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
            306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
            commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
            have abetted the commission of suicide must have played
            an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act
            to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act
            of abetment by the person charged with the said offence
            must be proved and established by the prosecution before
            he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,4 while explaining the
    meaning of ‘Instigation’, this court stated that:
            “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. 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.”


4   [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1039

    Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107
    of Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarized by this court
    in recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab.5
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the
    courts below and the legal position established through statutory
    and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
    proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased
    with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has
    failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against
    the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any
    positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing
    suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the
    colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer
    during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant
    to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the
    appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time
    prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.
14. Thus, none of the three essentials of Section 107 read with Section
    306 IPC are existing.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the High Court
    is set aside. The application for discharge is allowed.

     Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.)




5   [2020] 8 SCR 741 : (2020) 10 SCC 200