Akil S/o. Lalu Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Original informant challenges judgment and order dated 06-02-2018 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge-2, Jalna in Sessions Case No.65 of 2017, thereby acquitting present respondent Nos.2 to 5 from offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

PW1 Akil, who is informant and brother of deceased Shaikh Hakim, set law into motion alleging abetment of suicide by accused/ respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein by insisting him to come and reside separately from his family members. That, to compel deceased to do so, complaint was lodged under Section 498A of the IPC. That, due to it, deceased Shaikh Hakim was mentally harassed and therefore, he consumed poison and committed suicide. On report of informant brother to this extent, crime was registered at Ghansavangi Police Station vide Crime No.149 of 2016 for offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

After being chargesheeted, accused persons were tried vide above sessions case wherein prosecution based its case on evidence of in all five witnesses, which was duly appreciated and learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the accused persons. Hence, the appeal by the informant.

Learned counsel for appellant/informant would point out that, deceased Shaikh Hakim was married to accused no.1 nine years prior to the incident. That, rest of the accused are his family members i.e. in-laws of deceased. It is pointed out that, all accused nos.1 to 4 used to insist deceased to come to reside at Pirgabwadi with them. To pressurize him to do so, a case under Section 498A of the IPC was also lodged. That, only because of it, deceased was under mental pressure and finally, he committed suicide.

He further submitted that, apart from evidence of informant brother, there is also evidence of mother of deceased, which is consistent and lending support to testimony of informant. That, necessary ingredients for attracting the charges were available. However, learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same in correct perspective and erred in acquitting accused. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, while justifying the acquittal, would point out that, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges. That, there was no evidence on the point of abetment and inducement. That, though there were allegations of consumption of poison, neither bottle/container was seized and even Chemical Analyzer’s report does not reveal any consumption of poison and therefore, it is submitted that learned trial Court committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused.

Learned APP also supports informant and adopted submissions made by learned counsel for appellant/informant.

Re-appreciated the evidence. Prosecution seems to have adduced evidence of PW1 Akil, who is brother of deceased. PW2 Najira Shaikh seems to be mother of both informant and deceased. PW3 Janak Puri, PW4 Arun Lavhare and PW5 Babasaheb Madnure are police personnel.

On going through testimony of PW1 informant, it is emerging that, accused persons insisted his deceased brother to come and reside at Pirgabwadi and to compel him to do so, a false case under Section 498A of the IPC was lodged, as a result of which, his deceased brother was suffering from mental tension and harassment and so he consumed poison.

PW2 mother of deceased also deposed that, accused no.1 was preventing her deceased son to reside with his own family members. That, there was harassment to her son and even action was taken against deceased to compel him to come to stay at Pirgabwadi.

However, in the very examination-in-chief itself, there are mere general and vague allegations that there was mental and physical cruelty resulting into stress. There are in all four accused persons. Roles of each of them are not specified. Alleged suicide is of 28-09-2016, but apparently complaint is lodged on 07-10-2016 i.e. after delayed period. As pointed out, what happened prior to alleged consumption of poison is not stated by both of these witnesses. No independent witness or neighbour is examined. What positive act accused indulged in or in what form there was inducement or abetment is not demonstrated by prosecution witnesses.

Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has reiterated that, apart from inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has to be mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is also time and again clarified while dealing with above provision.

Few cases that could be named are, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Others (2010) 12 SCC 190 as well as M. Mohan v. The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police MANU/SC/0161/2011, wherein standard of “instigation” is elaborately dealt and discussed.

Even, recently in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Hon’ble Apex Court has reinforced “proximate trigger” doctrine emphasizing that there has to be close temporal and casual connection between the conduct of accused and the alleged suicide. Continuous harassment, without recent instigation, is held to be not sufficient to sustain the charge.

Consequentially, here, when necessary ingredients for attracting the charges are patently missing, learned trial Court committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused. Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed :

Criminal Appeal is dismissed.