Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040017952023 2026:GAU-AP:672 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./33/2023 Yagam @ Hatung Jamoh Daughter of Late Talom Jamoh, aged about 30 years, resident of Abotani Colony, Itanagar, PO/PS Itanagar district Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS THE STATE OF AP represented by the PP of AP 2:Sama Dodum Age: 0 Occupation : (Informant) Son of Late Taje Dodum F/o Late Laxmi Dodum (Victim) resident of Gohpur Tinali Near Bomdila Hotel PO and PS Itanagar Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : H K Jamoh, Radhe Yakang,Tapak Dai,Eddie Payeng,G Taloh Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Legal Aid Counsel,Hinti Jeram ::BEFORE:: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. H. K. Jamoh Advocate for the respondents : Ms. L. Hage, Addl. PP. Ms. H. Jeram, Legal Aid Counsel Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 2/9 JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) Heard Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, for respondent No. 1, and Ms. H. Jeram, learned legal aid counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No. 26/2022 arising from Ita PS Case No. 01/2019. By the said order, the learned trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application for discharge and framed charges against her under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is a co-accused in the case. She is alleged to have been in an extra-marital relationship with accused Narba Pangia, who is the husband of the deceased. 4. The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter committed suicide on the intervening night of 05.01.2019. The FIR further alleged that the suicide was the consequence of mental harassment allegedly caused by her husband on account of his illicit relationship with the present petitioner. Accordingly, a case was registered and investigated. 5. During investigation, the police seized the suicide note and personal diary of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both the husband of the deceased and the present petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC. 6. The petitioner filed a discharge petition before the learned Sessions Judge. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2023, Page No.# 3/9 rejected the petitioner’s prayer for discharge and framed charges against both accused persons. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner had ever instigated, provoked, aided, or intentionally facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she had an illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased. There is not even a single allegation that the petitioner committed any overt act or subjected the deceased to any form of cruelty or harassment. Neither is there any material to show that a plan was hatched or a conspiracy entered into, to force the victim to commit suicide. Even in the suicide note, the petitioner has not been named. The deceased merely expresses that she had lost the affection of her husband to someone else. 8. It is submitted that an extra-marital relationship, however immoral it may be perceived, by itself does not constitute abetment of suicide unless accompanied by acts amounting to instigation or intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. 9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the evidence so far recorded, although some witnesses have spoken about the alleged extra-marital relationship between the petitioner and the co-accused based on what they had learnt from the deceased, none of them claims to have personally seen the petitioner and the co-accused together. It is also pointed out that the evidence indicates that allegations of the co-accused having relationships with other women also surfaced during trial and, admittedly, the co-accused has subsequently married another woman and not the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel, these circumstances further demonstrate that the prosecution has failed to establish any overt act or active role on the part of the petitioner which could amount to instigation, provocation, intentional aid, or active participation in compelling the deceased to commit suicide. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the trial has Page No.# 4/9 substantially progressed and out of a total of 11 prosecution witnesses, 7 have already been examined. According to the prosecution, the witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased committed suicide because of the illicit relationship between the petitioner and the husband of the deceased, and therefore the petitioner should face trial. 11. The learned legal aid counsel for the informant (respondent No. 2), while supporting the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the co-accused and the petitioner, despite repeated warnings not to continue their illicit relationship, had continued their relationship, leading to the ultimate death of the deceased by suicide. Therefore, the petitioner is also involved in abetting the suicide. Hence, the petitioner should face the trial. 12. From the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the point for consideration is as follows: (i) Whether the materials collected during investigation and the evidence available on record disclose sufficient grounds for presuming that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC? 13. It is true that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, the Court is equally under an obligation to see whether the uncontroverted materials disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offence of abetment. If the materials, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to constitute the offence alleged, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. For proper consideration of the issue involved, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 306 IPC, which read as follows: 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.” Page No.# 5/9 14. Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide. The expression “abetment” derives its meaning from Section 107 IPC, which reads as follows: 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 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. 15. Section 107 contemplates that in order to proceed against a person for a criminal offence under Section 107, the prosecution must prove the element of mens rea. Mere Negligence, carelessness, or facilitation cannot be termed abetment so as to punish the guilty under the provisions of penal law. In order to constitute abetment, the prosecution must establish that the accused intentionally instigated, conspired or aided the commission of the offence. Mere proof that the act of the accused incidentally facilitated the commission of the offence would not satisfy the requirements of Section 107. Intentional aiding or active complicity is the essence of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107. 16. Thus, to attract Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea to instigate, aid or intentionally facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment or conduct causing mental anguish without a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, would not be sufficient. 17. The Supreme Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that mere allegation of harassment or an extra-marital relationship, in the absence of any positive act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, are insufficient to constitute an offence of abetment under section 306 IPC. 18. In the present case, the FIR alleges that the husband was maintaining an illicit relationship with the petitioner and that such relationship caused immense mental agony to the deceased. However, there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner ever threatened, provoked, humiliated, coerced, or directly interacted with the Page No.# 6/9 deceased in any manner intending that she should commit suicide. 19. The suicide note seized by the police assumes considerable significance. The entire note is addressed to the husband. Throughout the note, the deceased expresses her emotional attachment towards her husband and her inability to bear his neglect. Since the suicide note, assume significance in the present case, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced below: “Dearest husband, It is true that I'm always mad at you, but it is also true that I have loved so deeply that I would not bear you being with others. We get angry at someone whom we love and have expectations. But you have hurt me again and again. All I needed was time to heal. But you are always in a hurry, which is impossible for any person. All I ask from you was your attention and care. I know I have lost it for someone else. Though you are my biggest regret, I can't live without you. But the thing is that nothing can be the same between us. You have given up on me and I'm all alone now. Please do take care of our daughter, the purest form of our love. I'm sorry, but I have to leave you both. Say sorry to Ama and Papa, and ask Abbo and Adi Medak to forgive me. I'm weak, inside and out, mentally, physically, and also psychologically. I wished I could turn the time back. I want my innocence back.” 20. As can be seen, the petitioner is not named in the suicide note. There is no accusation that the petitioner instigated or encouraged the deceased to take the extreme step. 21. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, 7 have already been examined. Therefore, this Court has also considered the record to determine whether the evidence adduced during trial discloses any material constituting the offence alleged against the present petitioner. 22. On a perusal of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses examined so far, it appears that almost all of them have deposed in substantially similar terms. Their evidence is that the deceased was mentally disturbed because her husband was allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship with the present petitioner, which ultimately led her to commit suicide. However, none of them have personally seen the petitioner Page No.# 7/9 and the co-accused together in any incriminating circumstances suggestive of an illicit relationship. Their testimony regarding the alleged relationship is largely based on what the deceased had disclosed to them and on WhatsApp messages allegedly recovered during investigation. It has also come on record that there were allegations of the co-accused maintaining relationships with other women. It has also come on record that some of the prosecution witnesses admitted in their cross examination that the co-accused has since married another woman and not the present petitioner. 23. Even if the statements of the prosecution witnesses are accepted in their entirety, they merely explain the circumstances which emotionally affected the deceased. None of them attributes any overt act to the petitioner amounting to instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy to compel the deceased to commit suicide. The distinction between the cause of emotional distress and the legal offence of abetment cannot be overlooked. 24. Even if the prosecution version is accepted completely, the highest allegation against the petitioner is that she knowingly maintained an illicit relationship with a married man. 25. Such conduct may undoubtedly be morally wrong and may have caused immense emotional pain to the deceased. However, criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot rest upon moral culpability alone. The statute requires legal culpability by establishing the ingredients of abetment. The prosecution evidence, even if accepted in its entirety, at best raises astrong suspicion regarding the alleged extra-marital relationship. However, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute the statutory ingredients of abetment required under Section 306 IPC. 26. Next question is whether Section 34 IPC can be sustained. Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence. It merely embodies the principle of joint liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention.In the absence of any material indicating that the petitioner shared a common intention with the Page No.# 8/9 husband to drive the deceased to commit suicide, the invocation of Section 34 IPC is wholly unsustainable. 27. From the above discussion, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the premise that since the petitioner knowingly continued an illicit relationship with a married man despite requests from the deceased and her relatives, she must also be held to have abetted the suicide. 28. In the opinion of this Court, such reasoningoverlooks the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC.The impugned order does not refer to any material indicating instigation, intentional aid, or conspiracy attributable to the petitioner.The learned trial Court appears to have equated the existence of an extra-marital relationship with abetment of suicide. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue merely because the conduct complained of may be morally unacceptable. Criminal liability must strictly satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offence alleged. Consequently, continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 30. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, no prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC read with section 34 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.11.2023, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 31. The order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for discharge is hereby set aside insofar as it concerns the present petitioner; and the charges framed against the petitioner under Sections 306/34 IPC are hereby quashed. The petitioner stands discharged from Sessions Case Page No.# 9/9 No. 26/2022 in Ita PS Case No. 01/2019 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 32. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the case of the present petitioner alone and shall not affect the prosecution or trial against the co-accused, which shall proceed in accordance with law on its own merits. 33. Before parting with the records, the Court records its appreciation for the assistance extended by the learned legal-aid-counsel and she be paid the usual fees. 34. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant