No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No. 1800 of 2021 With C482 No. 1702 of 2021 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant in C482 No. 1800 of 2021 and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the applicant in C482 No. 1702 of 2021. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Aayush Pokhriyal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these two criminal misc. applications, hence, they are being decided by the common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of C482 No. 1800 of 2021 are taken into consideration. 3. In this case, an FI R was lodged by one Kamal Singh Chauhan in which it was alleged that one Bhupal Singh Chauhan has taken away his sister-in-law and minor nephew alongwith him. This FIR was lodged in Patwari Circle, Asho, District Bageshwar on 28.05.2020. Thereafter, the applicant, who was serving on the post of Revenue I nspector (Patwari), Asho Circle, after taking due permission from the authority concerned, alongwith Suresh Rathour and Praveen Takuli, who were Revenue Inspectors of Khakar and Nandi Gaon respectively, searched for the accused and ultimately Bhupal Singh was arrested from Village Nyoli, District Almora alongwith the child and the woman. They were brought in the office of Tehsil Kafilgair, Kathpuriya Cheini at night time at about 11: 15 PM. Accused was kept in custody in the first floor of the Tehsil building, which was guarded by home guard. The other two Sub- Inspectors namely Suresh Rathour and Praveen Takuli left from there after taking due permission. In the morning at about 6-7 AM, tea was served to the accused, but, after some time, noise of the banging of the door was coming from the room, where, the accused was kept in the custody and it was found that room was locked from the inside. With the help of the villagers, window was broken and accused was found lying unconscious alongwith gamchha around his neck and blood was coming out from the backside of his head. Doctor was immediately called at the spot, but, the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted in Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani on 30.05.2020, whereby, doctors opined that no definite opinion could be determined and as per the FSL report, it was found that the cause of death was due to carbamate poisoning and the ligature mark in absence of any extravasation indicates the deceased had tried to strangulate himself. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased on 29.05.2020, under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Jhirauli, District Bageshwar. During investigation, the charge of Section 302 was not found and chargesheet was filed under Section 306 of IPC. With regard to the custodial death, inquiry was conducted by CJM concerned, who after the inquiry, found no evidence regarding the custodial death. That inquiry report has attained finality. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that without any evidence on record, no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are made out against the applicants. To support his case, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873. Paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as hereunder: - “23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement of the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.” 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, would submit that in his statement, home guard who was on duty in the Tehsil premises on the fateful day has categorically stated that the deceased was brought by the applicants alongwith four-five unidentified persons. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are as under: “3 0 6 . Abet m en t of su icide.- 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. 1 0 7 . Abet m en t of a t h in g—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— Fir st ly .— Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secon dly .— 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 Th ir dly .— 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. 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. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 9. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/ she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, there is no iota of evidence that the applicants were involved either actively or passively in instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC remained unproved and thus the applicants deserve to be acquitted of the charges for the said offence. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 490 of 2021, State Vs. Tara Datt Pathak and Others, under Section 306 of IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 Ujjwal