Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chilikuri Mariyadas, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 16 June, 2025

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011

Between:-

1. Chilikuri Mariyadas, S/o Venakateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,
Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Chilikuri Pitchayya, S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,
Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.
...Petitioners
AND

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent

****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2025
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011
Dated 16.06.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011
Dated 16.06.2025

* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.44 OF 2011

% 16.06.2025
# Between:

3. Chilikuri Mariyadas, S/o Venakateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,
Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Chilikuri Pitchayya, S/o Venkateswarlu, R/o Somavaram Village,
Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.
...Petitioners

AND

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,.
...Respondent

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.Prabhakara Rao

^Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. P.Akhila Naidu,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist:

> Head Note:
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011
Dated 16.06.2025

? Cases referred:

1) (2002) 6 SCC 650
2) (2010) 12 SCC 190
3) (2010) 1 SCC 707
4) (2011) 3 SCC 626
5) (2019) 17 SCC 301
6) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
7) 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
8) (2009) 16 SCC 605
9) (2020) 15 SCC 359
10) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107
11) (2010) 8 SCC 628
12) (2001) 9 SCC 618
13) 2025 INSC 168
14) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091
15) (2019) 3 SCC 315
16) (2005) 2 SCC 659
17) (2021) 19 SCC 144
18) SCC OnLine SC 1387
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011
Dated 16.06.2025

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 44 of 2011

ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under
Sections 397
and
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the
Cr.P.C
') challenging

the judgment dated 21.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 passed by the learned

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam,

confirming the judgment dated 09.03.2009 in S.C.No.300 of 2008 passed by

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama finding the revisionists

guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'the
I.P.C
') and convicted the revisionists under
Section 235 (2)

of 'the
Cr.P.C
.,' and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only)

each and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months each.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while

reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the judgments of the

learned Courts below are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities

of the case; the learned Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners merely

based on Ex.P8 dying declaration without any support from independent
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

sources; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that there is no

investigation or either direct or indirect participation of the petitioners for the

alleged abetting of the offence of suicide within the contemplation of
Section
of 'the
I.P.C
'; the Courts below ought to have seen that non-examination

of the doctor who attended the deceased was fatal to the prosecution case

inasmuch as there was no evidence to show about the mental condition of the

deceased enabling her to make a statement as to the offence; the learned

Courts below ought to have seen that as the post-mortem discloses that the

deceased sustained 100% burn injuries that it is impossible or highly

improbable to make a statement under Ex.A8; the learned Courts below ought

to have seen that P.Ws.1 to 4, who are direct eye witnesses, did not support

the case of the prosecution and this itself creates any amount of doubt on the

case of the prosecution; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that

there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 as

to the recording of the statement of the deceased by the P.W.9; and that

eventually, requested to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the

impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate and Trial Courts.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial

Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material

irregularities, miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 dated 21.12.2010
passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge
(F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam, is correct, legal, and proper with
respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any
material irregularities? And to what relief?"

7. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1
wherein at Paragraph Nos.12

& 13 it is held as under:

"13.... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in
the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to
interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly
been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to
reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest
illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted."

8. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 397
read with

Section 401
of 'the
Cr.P.C
.,' cannot invoke it's revisional power as a Second

Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision

case as
laid down in
the decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh. However,

this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments
(2002) 6 SCC 650
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence

or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are

manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the

correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of

justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and

come to a just conclusion

9. It is the case of the prosecution emanating from the charge sheet that

the deceased-Chilukuri Mariyamma is the wife of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner

No.2 is the younger brother of Petitioner No.1. Marriage of Petitioner No.1 was

performed with deceased about two decades ago. They were blessed with two

daughters and one son. From the very beginning of the marriage, Petitioner

No.1 had been harassing the deceased both physically and mentally

suspecting her fidelity. Frequent quarrels ensued between them. On the night

of 14.02.2008, the Petitioners beat deceased due to suspicion of her fidelity.

As a result, she felt insulted, as she was beaten by Petitioner No.2 with a

chappal, she poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. The whole

body was burnt. On 15.02.2008 at about 09.00 a.m., Petitioner No.1 shifted

the body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Nandigama and from

where to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, wherein she succumbed

to injuries on the same day at about 02.30 p.m.

10. Based on Ex.P11 Hospital intimation on 15.02.2008 at about 10.30

a.m., P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station had come
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

posthaste to the Government Hospital, Nandigama, recorded the statement of

the deceased vide Ex.P12, basing on which a case in Cr.No.47 of 2008 under

the caption 'Woman Burns' was registered and took up investigation. P.W.9

visited the scene of offence, examined it in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.15

Pallepogu China Anandam and seized M.O.1 - ten liters tin of kerosene under

Ex.P5 observation report. P.W.9 also drew Ex.P14 - sketch of scene of

offence. On receipt of death intimation of Chilukuri Mariyamma from

Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, P.W.8 altered the section of law

from the caption 'Woman Burns' to
Section 306
read with 34 of 'the
I.P.C
.,' on

16.02.2008 at about 09.30 a.m. An inquest was conducted over the cadaver of

deceased in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.15 under Ex.P6 - Inquest Report

and forwarded the body of Chilukuri Mariyamma to autopsy.

11. P.W.6 - the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama, on requisition

under Ex.P7 hospital intimation, had visited Government Hospital, Nandigama

and recorded Ex.P8 dying declaration of Chilukuri Mariyamma. P.W.7

conducted autopsy over the cadaver of deceased and issued Ex.P9 -

Postmortem certificate, certifying that the cause of death of Chilukuri

Mariyamma was due to burns and its complications. P.W.9 arrested Petitioner

No.1 on 19.02.2008 and Petitioner No.2 on 22.08.2008 and forwarded them to

the learned jurisdictional magistrate for judicial remand. On completion of

investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

12. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama took cognizance

of the offence under
Section 306
read with 34 of 'the
I.P.C
.,' against the

Petitioners and registered the case as P.R.C.No.25 of 2008. In this case it is

expedient to examine whether there was any instigation either direct or

indirect on the part of the Petitioners driving Chilukuri Mariyamma for taking

extreme step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set

herself ablaze. The doctor, who attended the deceased, was not examined by

the prosecution to speak about the mental condition of the deceased while

giving her dying declaration. The deceased received 100% burn injuries as

seen from the evidence of P.W.7, the doctor who conducted autopsy. P.Ws.1

to 4 deposed ignorance about the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court

based on the evidence of panch witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandigama, inquest report and the dying declaration of the deceased,

convicted and sentenced the Petitioners.

13. P.W.6 the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Nandigama who recorded the

dying declaration of the deceased deposed that he had commenced recording

of dying declaration at 10.45 a.m., and concluded at 10.55 a.m. He admitted

that there were no other persons present at the time of recording of dying

declaration expect the duty doctor and his attender. Whereas the evidence of

P.W.9 - the Sub-Inspector of Police is that he recorded the statement of the

deceased at about 10.50 a.m., and 11.00 a.m., on the same day of recording

of dying declaration by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

recorded dying declaration of Chilukuri Mariyamma in her own words

(translated into English) as under:

"My husband and his brother (my brother-in-law) Pitchayya
beat me yesternight. They stated that why should I lead this life
and why should not I die. Hence I poured kerosene and set
myself fire. My mother-in-law brought me to the hospital."

14. In this context, it is apposite to refer the landmark decisions of the

Hon'ble Apex Court about the principles and ratios to decide whether there

are adequate ingredients to determine about commission of abetment of

suicide by the petitioners.

15.
In
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan2
, at Paragraph No.25 it is

held 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."

16.
In
Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal3
, at Paragraph No.12 it is

held as under:

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 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
(2010) 12 SCC 190
(2010) 1 SCC 707
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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."

17.
In
M. Mohan v. State4
, at Paragraph Nos.44 and 45 it is held as under:

"44. 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.

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."

18.
In
Ude Singh v. State of Haryana5
, at Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 it is

held as under:

"15. Thus, "abetment" involves a mental process of instigating
a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing
when:

(i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or

(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing; or

(iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.

These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word
"instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about
by persuasion to do anything.

16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of
suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex
(2011) 3 SCC 626
(2019) 17 SCC 301
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could
only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the
accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above
referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had
been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his
acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of
Section
IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-
esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short
of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept
on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own
facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing
on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.

16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be
affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action
on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar
actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a
particular person's reaction to any other human's action is
concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or
assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered
like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education,
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact
on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including
those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each
case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances."

19. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, at Paragraph

Nos.2 and 3 it is held as under:

"2. The impugned order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
is in confirmation of the order of the Court of Session, whereby, the
appellant herein, has been summoned to face trial for offence under

Section 306
IPC. The said order has been passed in this
background:

Sushila Bai, respondent, a married woman, is alleged to have had
two paramours, one was the deceased and the other is the
appellant. It is alleged that there was sexual jealousy between the
two. The deceased was a married man. The prosecution alleges
that Sushila Bai had completely bewitched him but her heart was
with the appellant. On the morning of 13-6-1992, all the three had a
quarrel while sharing their morning tea. During that course, the
appellant is said to have remarked for the deceased to go and die.
The prosecution alleges that thereafter the deceased went home in
a dejected mood, whereafter he committed suicide. The suicide has
been termed as the direct cause for the treatment meted out to the
deceased by the appellant. It is Sushila Devi though, who alone
stands committed to the Court of Session to face trial because of
her preferential treatment to the appellant.

3. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court thought it
appropriate to associate the appellant herein as an accused
because of the words he uttered to the deceased. We think that just
on the basis of that utterance the Court of Session was in error in
summoning the appellant to face trial. In the first place it is difficult,
in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view
that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in 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.
Besides the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and
cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be
said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the
words uttered by the appellant. For these reasons, the error is
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

apparent requiring rectification. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The orders of the High Court and that of the Court of Session are
thus upset. The appellant need not face the charge."

20.
In
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab7
, at Paragraph No.15 it is held

as under:

"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To
prove the offence of abetment, as specified under
Section 107
IPC,
the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to
be something on record to establish or show that the appellant
herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind,
abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea
cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible
and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is
that both the trial court as well as the High Court never examined
whether the appellant had the mens rea for the crime he is held to
have committed. The conviction of the appellant by the trial court as
well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young
kids might have committed suicide possibly because of the
harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house is not at all borne
out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she
was forced to take such a step on his account."

21. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) 8, at Paragraph

No.13 it is held as under:

"13. As per the section, a person can be said to have
abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to
Section 107
states that any wilful
misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact which
he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of
"abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations,
direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
(2009) 16 SCC 605
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the
offence under
Section 306
IPC."

22.
In
Rajesh v. State of Haryana9
, at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under:

"9. Conviction under
Section 306
IPC is not sustainable 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. 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."

23. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya

Pradesh10
wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 it is 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.

19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present
case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame
charges under
Section 306
IPC against the appellant. This is
so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and
at its highest, a reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan
guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar.

9 (2020) 15 SCC 359
10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

It could not be said that the appellant by performing his duty of
realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can
be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be
said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of
suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his
acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no
other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the
armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the deceased,
albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the deceased with no
other option but to commit suicide. This is the conclusion we
draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the
situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged
after a delay of two months and twenty days.

20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly
reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for
Section
IPC [Now
Section 108
read with
Section 45
of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however
seem to have followed more in the breach.
Section 306
IPC
appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the
police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the
threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should
not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the
immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.
The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their
interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate
death of the deceased should be approached from a practical
point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without
anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide.
It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law

laid down by
this Court under
Section 306
so that persons are
not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable
prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution
and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the
investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter
disregard for the ingredients of
Section 306
of 'the
I.P.C
'.
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

24.
In
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat11
, it is held that in order to

bring out an offence under
Section 306
of 'the
I.P.C
.,' specific abetment as

contemplated by
Section 107
of 'the
I.P.C
.,' 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
of 'the
I.P.C
'.

25.
In
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh12
the Hon'ble Apex Court

while examining different shades of the meaning of "instigation" at Paragraph

No.20 reads as under:

"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 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."

26.
In
Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh
13 the Hon'ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.19 and 21 held as under:

"19...By a long line of judgments, this Court has
reiterated that in order to make out an offence under
Section
IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107
(2010)
SCC 628
(2001) 9 SCC 618
2025 INSC 168
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

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 has been further held that the intention
of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to
commit suicide is a must for attracting
Section 306
IPC [See

Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another
, (2010)
8 SCC 628].

Further, the alleged harassment meted out
should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put
an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide
there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to
commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu vs. State of
West Bengal
, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State,
(2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make
out a case under
Section 306
IPC to be even remotely
mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the
material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants
assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as
to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put
an end to her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly
the prior lodgment of the FIR by the first appellant against the
family of Tanu for the death of his son Ziaul Rahman, does
indicate an element of desperation on the part of the
respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants.
Reliance of the statements recorded under
Section 161

Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022, 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022,
only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided, partial and
inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding
with the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed
will be a gross abuse of process."

27.
In
Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh14
the Hon'ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 held as under:

"19...This Court in
Ude Singh v. State of Haryana
, (2019) 17 SCC
301, held that in order to convict an accused under
Section 306
of
the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be
visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as
under:-
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the
question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of
an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a
person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another; the consideration would
be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act
of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to
commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the
case may fall within the four-corners of
Section 306
IPC. If
the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-

esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually
draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be
held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens
rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may
fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if
the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of
suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of
human behaviour, each case is required to be examined
on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased."

21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 306
of
the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is
committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to
commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing
suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological
imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two
broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental
ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category
would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused
in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category
sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may
result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently
creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the
person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give
temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is
relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister,
sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental
tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second
category the tie is on account of official relations, where the
expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for
such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in
law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie
cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being
different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former
category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category,
by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by
law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to
make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on
record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that
the accused intended the consequences of the act, l.e., suicide.
Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention
can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial. The
problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and
nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of
the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence &
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common
intention under
Section 34
of the IPC could be gathered only after a
full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as
regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the
weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in
cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things
clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The
Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law
governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the
inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the
correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which
leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and
appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of
the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they
decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However,
it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the
matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have
been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to
trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. (a) On the date of the meeting, l.e., 03.11.2006, did the
appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture,
leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To
ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the
deceased referred to by us were sufficient.

(b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional
vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or
underserving of life leading him to commit suicide?

(c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences,
such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that
he believed suicide was the only way out?

(d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged
the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to
public humiliation & loss of dignity.

24. The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as
abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given
case."
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

28.
In
Arjunan v. State
15 the Hon'ble Apex Court, while explaining the

necessary ingredients of
Section 306
of 'the
I.P.C
.,' in detail, at Paragraph

No.7 it is held as under:

"7... The essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 306
I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence
capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act
to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the
ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306

IPC."

29.
In
Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal16
the Hon'ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.5, 6, and 7 held as under:

"Where an employee of a company was transferred from one
place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he
sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance against
stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company
accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee
committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging
therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh Chatterjee
engaged him in several wrong doings. The same was alleged
as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint,
against Netai Dutta and others under
Section 306
of the IPC.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined
to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while
quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as
under:

"5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note
that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was
in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very
much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work
place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his
(2019) 3 SCC 315
(2005) 2 SCC 659
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha
Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two
years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot
be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated
the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the
suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under
Section 306
.

IPC
would stand only if there is an abetment for the
commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment"
have been stated in
Section 107
of the Penal Code, 1860.

Section 107
says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who
instigates any person to do that thing: or engages with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have
intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation
to.
Section 107
says that any willful misrepresentation or willful
concealment of a material-fact which he is bound to disclose,
may also come within the contours of "abetment"

6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the
appellant at two places, there is no reference of any-act or
incidence where by the appellant herein is alleged to have,
committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to committing the
act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played
any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately
instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."

7. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only
result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful
result. In our opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred
in holding that the first information report against the appellant
disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was
absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein."

30.
In
Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan17
the Hon'ble Apex Court at

Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 held as under:

"15...The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is
to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This
Court in
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
, (2001) 9
SCC 618, has defined the word 'instigate' as under:"20.
(2021) 19 SCC 144
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act"."

16. The scope and ambit of
Section 107
IPC and its co-
relation with
Section 306
IPC has been discussed repeatedly
by this Court.
In the case of
S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan
(2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed 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 the Supreme 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".

31.
In
Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police18
the Hon'ble Apex

Court at Paragraph No.44 held as under:

"44... 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 their 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."

32. On a careful analysis and scrutiny of the dying declaration of Chilukuri

Mariyamma, it can be easily discerned that there was no instigation done by

any of the Petitioners goading Chilukuri Mariyamma to commit suicide. There

is no evidence that they had intentionally aided her to commit suicide. There is
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

no evidence that the Petitioners committed abetment of suicide by criminal

conspiracy. On a scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances of

the case, especially dying declaration of the deceased, there was no positive

action proximate to the time of suicide on the part of the Petitioners which lead

or compelled the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.

Therefore, the conviction under
Section 306
of 'the
I.P.C
.,' sustained by the

learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court are not valid

and legally acceptable inasmuch as there was no positive act on the part of

the Petitioners to instigate or intentionally aided Chilukuri Mariyamma to

commit suicide.

33. None of the witnesses of the prosecution had spoken that the

Petitioners had entertained a clear mens rea to cause the deceased to commit

suicide. There was neither an active act of direct or indirect on the part of the

Petitioners which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option.

Beating the deceased by the Petitioners on yester-night cannot be

presumable that they intended to push the deceased into such position that

she should commit suicide. As the Petitioners suspected the fidelity of the

deceased, they beat her yester-night of the death of Chilukuri Mariyamma, but

she had felt insulted and resorted to the extreme step.

34. There was no evidence that the Petitioners instigated Chilukuri

Mariyamma to commit suicide. There was no evidence to the effect that the
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

Petitioners either goaded or provoked or instigated or encouraged her to

commit suicide. Therefore, it may not be right to hold that the Petitioners were

guilty of abetment of suicide. The deceased felt insulted or humiliated as her

brother-in-law and husband beat her on the pretext that she had not kept her

matrimonial piousness. The action of the Petitioners is otherwise not ordinarily

expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, the

deceased was hypersensitive, as such, it would not be appropriate and proper

to convict the Petitioners for abetment of suicide.

35. The prosecution could not establish the guilty mind of the Petitioners

and in furtherance of that state of mind they abetted Chilukuri Mariyamma to

commit suicide. There was no visible and conspicuous presence of element of

mens rea in the case. The act and words of the petitioners, however, insulting

or humiliating the deceased by stating that why should she live, as she was

leading an immoral life, will not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The

words of the petitioners spoken to the deceased only once, a single instance

i.e., on the preceding night of committing suicide, cannot constitute the

petitioners exploiting the vulnerability of the deceased, making her feel

worthless or undeserving of life, leading her to commit suicide. The

persecution failed to establish that the petitioners, by their acts and their

continuous course of conduct, created a situation which led Chilukuri

Mariyamma to perceive no other option except committing suicide.
Dr.YLR, J

Crl.R.C.No.44 of 2011

Dated 16.06.2025

36. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the

impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court dated 21.12.2010 in

Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 on the file of learned VI Additional District and Sessions

Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam. Consequently, the judgment of the

learned Trial Court in S.C.No.300 of 2008 dated 09.03.2009 on the file of the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, is also set aside. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 16.06.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o
KMS