8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.789 OF 2023 1. Dagadu Deorao Murmure, Aged : about 56 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Piranji, Tahsil Umarkhed, District Yavatmal Presently R/o. Lonar, Tahsil Lonar, District Buldhana. .... APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Lonar, District Buldhana. 2. Yogesh s/o Shriram Kolhe, Aged ablout 25 years, Occupation : Labour, ...... [Dead] R/o. Dhopad Kolhe, Lonar, Tahsil Lonar, District – Buldhana Legal heir of deceased R – 2 R. 2 Smt. Pratiksha Yogesh Kolhe [deleted as per Court’s R/o. Dhopad Kolhe, order dated 05.01.2024] Lonar, Tahsil Lonar, District Buldhana. 2. Indubai wd/o Shriram Kolhe, Aged Major, R/o. Village Dhodap-Kolhe, Tahsil Chikhli, District Buldhana. ....NON-APPLICANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 28/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2026:BHC-NAG:2094-DB 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (2) 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 4. Present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) in connection with Crime No.22/2023 registered with Police Station Lonar, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 201, 294, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act 1999 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial No.27/2023 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar. 5. The present applicant is arraigned as an accused in connection with the above said crime on the basis of a report lodged by Yogesh Shriram Kolhe, on an allegation that the deceased was his nephew and was studying in ITI college. He was admitted in the ITI college in September 2022 and his relative Anil Kumar Kale has admitted him in the hostel. It is alleged that on 31.12.2022, when he was proceeding towards his village, he has received a phone call of the deceased, who was weeping and disclosed that the said Anil Kale is insulting him in 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (3) the classroom by abusing in a filthy language and also in presence of the other students saying that he is not studying hard and playing on mobile phone, due to which, he felt insulted. It is further alleged that the other students have also ill-treated him by ragging him by removing his clothes. On the basis of the said report, initially, the crime was registered against the co-accused Anil Kale. 6. During the investigation, the various statements are recorded and on the basis of the statement of one Nikhil Milind Lahane, the present applicant is also arraigned as an accused as it is alleged against him that though the deceased has disclosed the incident to the present applicant, who was serving as a Wardan of the said hostel. He has not taken any action not informed the said fact to the police and subsequently, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging him. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that considering the ingredients of the offence which are required to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, there is no proximity between the two acts. Only allegation against the present applicant that though the facts of the ragging by the other students is disclosed to the present 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (4) applicant, who was serving as a Wardan, he has not taken action, not disclosed to anybody and thereafter, the deceased has committed suicide. He submitted that even taking into consideration the allegation as it is, at the most it would be negligence on the part of the present applicant or dereliction in duty, but that itself is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC as there is no mens rea on the part of the present applicant appearing on the face of record, and therefore, the charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. 8. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that whether there was a requisite mens rea or not is a matter of evidence. A strong suspicion is also sufficient to proceed against the accused. He submitted that overall material shows that the applicant created certain circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide, which is sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 9. Despite the service of notice, none appears for the non-applicant No.2. 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (5) 10. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the considerations as far as the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. 11. Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which reads thus: 306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Court of Session. 12. Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads thus: 107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (6) A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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. 13. Section 108 of IPC reads thus: 108. Abettor. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1. The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Illustrations (a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. (b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder. Explanation 3.- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Illustrations (a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (7) having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. (b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, Instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death. (c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence. (d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft. Explanation 4.- The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence. Illustration A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B's instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment. Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed. 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (8) Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A's name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C' has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder. 14. Section 306 of IPC talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 15. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence of abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act. 16. On going through the catena of decisions and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is well settled that to attract the provision what is to be shown is that the accused have actually instigated or aided to the victim in 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (9) committing suicide. There must be direct or indirect inducement to the commission of suicide and the accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or who are doing certain acts to facilitate the commission of suicide. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the allegation against the present applicant is only to the extent that though the fact of the ragging was disclosed to him, he has not taken any action against the other students. Thus, even if it is accepted at the most it would be dereliction in duty or negligent on the part of the present applicant. The recitals of the FIR and other statements are completely silent on this aspect. In view of that, and considering the crucial word in Section 306 of the IPC is ‘abets’. ‘Abetement’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per section 107 of the IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing; or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, doing of such things. There are two explanation to Section 107. As per Explanation 1, even if, a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he otherwise found 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 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (10) clarifies, that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act. 17. By referring the decision of Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then 'instigation' may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be 'instigation'. 18. Thus by applying the above principles to the present case except the allegation that the present applicant has not taken cognizance of the complaint, is not sufficient to infer that he has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: 8.apl.789.2023.Judgment.odt (11) ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.22/2023 registered with Police Station Lonar, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 201, 294, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act 1999 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial No.27/2023 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicant. The application is disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.