IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2017 Bibhushan Dilipkumar Parija …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Counsel i/by Mahendra M. Agavekar for Applicant. Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for State. PI, Chandrakant K. Chaudhari, Kurla Railway Police Station, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 28th JANUARY 2026 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP for the State. 2. This Criminal Revision Application is placed under the category of ‘Prioritised Cases’, in view of the directions of the Supreme Court, to expedite the cases where stay has been granted to the trial. 3. By the present Criminal Revision Application, challenge is to the Order dated 5th May 2017 passed by the learned Judge, City Dusane Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit-3 in Session Case No.213 of 2017. The said Exhibit-3 Application has been filed seeking discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“Cr.PC.”). By the impugned Order, the learned Judge of the Civil Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai rejected the said Application. 4. It is the submission of Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that for proving the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) concerning abetment of suicide, what is important is intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. He pointed out statements of various witnesses and submitted that there is no material concerning intention of the Applicant. He submitted that the Applicant is serving with H.D.F.C. Bank Limited and at the relevant time, working on the post of Senior Manager, BPRG (WBO) at its Corporate Office at Kanjurmarg. The deceased joined HDFC Bank in March 2015 as a Trainee and in view of the excellent performance of deceased during contractual period, on the recommendation of the Applicant being his immediate senior, the deceased was appointed as permanent bank staff. Page 2 of 29 Dusane 5. It is submitted that on 31st August 2016, there was some technical error concerning the account of M/s Hindustan Zinc Co. and the Applicant being immediate superior supervising the said work. The said error was detected and rectified by the deceased after the long efforts and therefore the Applicant patted on the back of deceased for his remarkable work to appreciate his talent. The deceased left the office at about 7.17 p.m., and went to Kanjurmarg Railway Station and after sometime, he jumped before the running train at about 8.30 p.m. and died by suicide. 6. Accidental Death Report being No. 257/2016 was lodged at Kanjurmarg Railway Police Station on 31st August 2016 and after a period of 4 months, the Police registered F.I.R. No.520 of 2016 on 20th December 2016, against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The First Informant is the brother of the deceased. 7. Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel submitted that although there is proximity between the incident of suicide and the events which took place in the office, however, there is no mens rea for the Applicant to commit the said crime. He therefore submitted Dusane that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside and the Applicant be discharged in said criminal case. 8. Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate his submission: 1) Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 2) Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2 3) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.3 4) Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka4 9. On the other hand, Mr. Mangaonkar, learned APP submitted that the question whether the Applicant has mens rea to commit the crime has to be decided at the stage of trial and same has to be proved in the trial. Learned APP submitted that at this stage i.e. at the stage of discharge, the said submission cannot be accepted. He submitted that the material on record clearly shows that there is proximity between the incidents, which have taken place in the 1 2010 (1) SCC 750 2 2009 (16) SCC 605 3 2010(8) SCC 628 4 (2025) SCC Online SC 1938 Dusane office and time when the deceased died by suicide. He therefore submitted that no interference in the impugned Order is warranted. 10. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the legal position concerning offence under Section 306 of the IPC and also legal position concerning the appraoch to consider applications filed under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking discharge. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan (supra) has discussed various aspects of abetment of suicide. The relevant discussion is from paragraph nos. 6 to 17. The relevant paragraphs are 7, 10, 12, 16 and 17, which read as under :- “7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.” “10. “Abetment” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it Dusane appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more oth er person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under: “Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] . A three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed Dusane suicide. The Court in para 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” “16. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2009) 11 Scale 24] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay Dusane down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.” “17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (Emphasis added) Thus, what the Supreme Court has held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. It has been held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide wherein the accused created such a Dusane conduct that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Although, this case i.e. Gangula Reddy (supra) is arising out of conviction of the Appellant and although, the present case is at the stage of discharge, what is relevant to note is that, for the purpose of Section 306 of IPC, the Supreme Court has in clear terms has held that what is important for the purpose of Section 306 IPC is that there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 12. In the case of Chitresh Kumar (supra), the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 15 to 19 are important and same read as under: “15. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Dusane Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 16. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different Dusane individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self. 17. In the present case, the charge against the appellant is that he along with other two accused "in furtherance of common intention", mentally tortured Jitendra Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to commit suicide by the said act of mental torture. It is trite that words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section Dusane 107 of the IPC was attracted. Briefly dealing with the material available on record, in the order directing framing of charge against the appellant, the learned trial court has observed as under: "In the present case the evidence shows threatening given to the deceased. One witness called Kartar Singh says that CK Chopra was heard saying to the deceased that the deceased had become dishonest because he was refusing to sign a paper in which the share in some joint property was shown to be 10%. On another occasion Chopra was heard by this witness to say that Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did not give up his claim for 25% and did not agree to accept 10%. Witness Padam Bahadur has stated inter alia that he overheard Jahoor and Mahavir telling the deceased that Chopra had asked them to say that this was the last opportunity to sign the document and that if he wanted to live in the society he should sign the agreement or should die by taking poison. Soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which one person told the other go and die without actually suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. In the present case the evidence collected by the investigation suggest that the deceased had been actually pushed to the wall and the escape by committing suicide was suggested by the accused persons." 18. In the light of the material on record, in our judgment, it cannot be said that the trial court was in error in drawing an inference that the appellant had "instigated" Dusane the deceased to commit suicide and, therefore, there was ground for presuming that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors5). 19. In Som Nath Thapa & Ors. (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court explained the meaning of the word "presume". Referring to dictionary meanings of the said word, the Court observed thus: "...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has Dusane commuted the offence. It is apparent that at (1990) 4 SCC 76 the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” (emphasis supplied) 13. It is also relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra). The said decision is arising out of Order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, under Section 482 Cr.PC. The High Court has dismissed the Petition of the Appellant in which the relief sought is to quash the F.I.R. In that case, the allegations of the Prosecution was that the deceased was working as Driver and as Appellant changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, the driver committed suicide. In view of the said factual aspects, the Supreme Court set aside the order of Gujarat High Court and quashed the proceedings. The relevant reasons are stated to be found in paragraphs 12 and 13, which read as follows:- “12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to Dusane bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.” “13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so-called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.” Dusane (Emphasis added) Thus, what the Supreme Court has observed that for the purpose to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused is to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. It has been observed in the facts of that case that it is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the Appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. 14. Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel has also relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court, which has been delivered on 9th September 2025 in the case of Geeta (supra). In that case also, reliance has been placed in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra). The relevant discussion is in Paragraphs 18 to 22, which reads as under :- Dusane “18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were administered, will that per se constitute abetment to suicide? This Court in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die” and when thereafter, the deceased committed suicide, absolved the accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under: “3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …” 19. This Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 20. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. Page 17 of 29 Dusane 21. In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, this Court followed the dictum in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under: “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Dusane Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:— 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 22. This Court in Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76, after analyzing the long line of precedents held as under:— “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” (Emphasis added) By applying the test laid down in various Judgments, the Supreme Court in that case has held that when the appellant's family and the victim's family had heated exchanges, there was no intention to abet or to cause any member of either family to take their own life. Dusane These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide. 15. Thus, the following parameters can be culled out from the above decisions of the Supreme Court: i. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. ii. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be inter alia established that: Dusane (a) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (b) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted earlier. (c) The presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. (d) Words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. Page 21 of 29 Dusane (e) The onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life. iii. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. Page 22 of 29 Dusane iv. If the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. 16. Before applying the above parameters to the present case, it is necessary to set out the prosecution case. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned Order dated 5th May 2017, and the same reads as under : “3. The glimpses of the case is that the deceased was working in automation section of HDFC bank at Kanjurmarg, East, Mumbai. The accused was Manager of Operation Section. The deceased was working under his control. On the basis of C.C. T.V. footage, it has mentioned in the complaint that on 31/08/2016, at about 5.56 pm. the accused proceeded towards the deceased. He made gestures towards the deceased and shouted on him in the presence of other employees. Thereafter, at 6.48 pm. he dealt a blow on his back with his hand. At 7.16 pm. the accused again proceeded towards the deceased and dealt blow on his head with his hand. He beat up the deceased twice in presence of other employee of the bank. 4. After last incident of beating at 7.16 pm. the deceased unable to tolerate humiliation caused to him by accused. Thus, deceased walked out from the office at 7.17 pm. and went to the Kanjurmarg Railway station. When is saw train in coming, he fling himself before the local railway and committed suicide. It is further alleged Dusane that the accused abated the deceased to commit suicide by beating the deceased and treating with humiliation.” 17. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the Applicant made gestures towards the deceased in the presence of other employees and thereafter at about 6.48 p.m. he dealt a blow on his back with his hand and thereafter at 7.16 p.m., he again proceeded towards the deceased and dealt a blow on his head with his hand. Thereafter, immediately the deceased left the office, went to Kanjurmarg Railway Station and died by suicide by jumping on the track when local train was entering said station. 18. Thus, as far as the submissions of Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel that in fact the Applicant gave pat on the back of deceased for his remarkable work and same was done twice for appreciating the talent of deceased cannot be accepted at the stage of discharge. 19. However, it is required to appreciate the material collected during investigation and produced along with the chargesheet to Dusane find out whether offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out for framing the charge. 20. It is required to be noted that the prosecution has recorded statement of Prakash Shyam Chandurkar i.e. brother of deceased. As far as the incident is concerned, the brother of the deceased has stated as follows :- “ lnj vie`R;w izdj.kh iksyhlkauh dsysY;k riklke/;s fnukad 31&08&2016 jksthps dkatwjekxZ jsYos LVs”ku o ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/khy izkIr dsysys lhlhVhOgh QqVst rlsp jkds”k ;kps eksckbZy Qksups dkWy fMVsYl iksyhlkauh eyk nk[koys- R;ke/;s fnukad 31&08&2016 jksthps iksyhlkauh ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/kwu izkIr dsysY;k QqVste/kwu eyk vls fnlwu vkys dh lk;adkGh lqekjs 05@56 ok- ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWadse/khy jkds”k ;kps lj foHkwHkq’k.k ikfjtk ¼vkWijs”ku foHkkxkps eWustj½ gs jkds”k clysY;k fBdk.kh ;sowu jkds”k dke dfjr vlysY;k lax.kdkdMs gkrokjs d:u jkds”k ;kpsoj lokZle{k vksjMwu R;kpk viekukLin okx.kwd fnY;kps fnlwu vkys- R;kuarj lk;adkGh lqekjs 06@48 ok- jkds”k ;kps ikBhoj lokZle{k gkrkus ekjys o iqUgk lqekjs 07@16 ok- jkds”k ;kps toG ;soqu MksD;kr gkrkus ekjys- R;keqGs jkdsz”k gk viekukLin okx.kwd lgu d: “kdyk ukgh- R;keqGs lk;adkGh lqekjs 07@17 ok- jkds”k gk clysY;k tkxso:u mBwu ,dVkp vkWfQlps ckgsj fu?kqu xsyk o dkatqjekxZ jsYos LVs”ku ;sFks /kkoR;k yksdyxkMhiq<s VªWde/;s ;soqu vkRegR;k d:u Lor%pk tho laioyk vkgs- rjh ek>k e;r HkkÅ ukes jkds”k panqjdj gk fnukad 31&08&2016 jksth ,p-Mh-,Q-lh- cWad] vkWVkseks”ku foHkkx] frljk ekGk] yks<k] dkWEisDl] dkatqjekxZ ¼iwoZ½ ;sFks cWadse/;s uksdjhoj gtj vlrkauk lqekjs lk;adkGh lqekjs 05@56 ok- rs 06@16 ok- njE;ku jkds”k ;kps lj ukes& foHkwHkq’k.k ;kauh vkWfQle/;s jkds”k ;kal lokZle{k R;kpsoj Dusane vksjMwu gkrkus ikBhoj] MksD;kr ek:u o viekukLin okx.kwd nsowu vkRegR;k dj.;kl izo`Rr dsys Eg.kwu ek>h foHkwHkq’k.k ikfjtk] o;& 34 o’kZs ¼vkWijs”ku foHkkx eWustj½ ;kaps fo:) dk;ns”khj rdzkj vkgs-” Thus, the brother of deceased has stated that as the deceased was humiliated by the Applicant-Accused, he committed suicide. 21. The prosecution has also recorded statements of about 13 bank employees. It is admitted position that all these statements are of identical in nature. Statement of one Manish Nemanna Kebral shows that said Manish was working as Vice President in HDFC Bank and the Applicant was working as Bank Manager and apart from other employees, the deceased was working as per direction of the Applicant i.e. the Bank Manager. The Applicant in his capacity as Bank Manager was supervising the work of all the employees including the deceased. Said statement shows that the Applicant and the Deceased were discussing the issue regarding technical error concerning the customer Hindustan Zinc Company and that the Applicant has patted on the back and head of the deceased for solving said problem. Page 26 of 29 Dusane 22. Although the prosecution case is that the Applicant dealt a blow on his back with his hand and humiliated him in presence of the employees and therefore at this stage, the said case need not be accepted as it is, however, the only question in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court is whether the Applicant as the General Manager has mens rea of abetting the suicide of the deceased who was working under him. 23. Thus, what is important is the mens rea i.e. the Applicant should have intention to abet suicide of the deceased. The other important factor is that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. In this case, admittedly the Appellant at the relevant time was working as Senior Manager in HDFC Bank at its Corporate Office at Kanjurmarg and the deceased was working under him. Even if it is assumed that in the said work, as the Applicant was supervising the work of the deceased, some altercation had taken place, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Appellant created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. As held by the Supreme Court the words uttered in the hit of anger cannot Dusane be said to be instigation. The intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or to abet to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. Thus, even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, it cannot be said that the Applicant who was working as Senior Manager in HDFC Bank has intention that the deceased who was working under his supervision should commit suicide. There is no material on record to frame charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 24. Thus, for the above reasons, impugned Order dated 5th May 2017 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit-3 in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 25. The said Application bearing Exhibit-3 filed by in Sessions Case No. 213/2017 seeking discharge under 227 of Cr.PC is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the said Application. 26. Accordingly, the Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. Page 28 of 29 Dusane [(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) Dusane