Order 020926apeal482.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2026. Dildesha Arinda Pawar -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms T. Udeshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the present appeal was filed under Section 419[2] of the Bharatiya Nagrik Sursksha Sanhita, 2023, however, as the appellant is the victim and she has right to file an appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS directly instead of seeking leave to file the appeal, he seeks leave to amend the appeal memo so as to incorporate the provisions under which the Appeal is filed. 2. Leave granted. Necessary corrections be carried out forthwith. ….. Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:11991 Order 020926apeal482.26 2 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-6 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No.309/2022 on 19.11.2025, whereby the accused/respondent no.2 came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Facts in brief are that – the appellant is wife of deceased Arinda Pawar, who committed suicide due to respondent no.2, on 16.09.2021. The reason for committing suicide was that the deceased hailed from Scheduled tribe and respondent no.2 grabbed his land under the garb of money lending, however, the said sale transaction was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chandur Railway by order dated 31.12.2016, which was challenged by the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had spread rumors that he was going to get the possession of the said land. Because of this, deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Accordingly, first information report was lodged, investigation was carried out, trial was conducted, which resulted into acquittal of respondent no.2. Hence this appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has miserably failed to take into consideration the Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 3 evidence led by the prosecution. To support its case, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses, however, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there are several omissions in their evidence. He invited my attention to the testimony of P.W.1 – Dildesha (Exh.17), wife of the deceased, who has lodged the first information report, wherein she has specifically stated that there was a dispute between respondent no.2 and deceased on account of land, and on the date of incident, the accused came to the house of the deceased and threatened him due to which the deceased committed suicide. This fact, according to the learned Counsel has not been taken into consideration in its proper perspective by the tiral Court. My attention is invited to the testimony of P.W.2 Manoranjan (Exh.20), who is brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.2 has supported the case of prosecution, as he has specifically stated that there was a dispute between the deceased and accused. Further it is specifically stated in the evidence that the deceased had borrowed some amount from the accused, and sale deed was executed as security. It is further stated that since the said land was belonging to a tribal, sale deed could not be executed, and accordingly the sale deed was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer, however, the accused challenged the said order before the Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 4 Competent Court. It is also stated in the evidence that the informant and her family were in possession of the land, despite this fact, the accused threatened to kill the deceased, due to which the deceased committed suicide. He further submits that though some minor omissions were brought on record, however, those omissions cannot go to the root of the matter, and in such circumstances the Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of both the witnesses. My attention is also invited to testimony of P.W.3- Ravindra Pawar (Exh.21), who is son of the deceased. His evidence is consistent with that of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He has deposed that the accused has given threats to kill the deceased, due to which he was under pressure and hence, by consuming poison, committed suicide. 5. Learned A.P.P. supports the case of informant and submits that the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence in its proper perspective. However, by not doing so, has committed gross error, and therefore, it requires re-appreciation and reconsideration by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the evidence of all the three witnesses and the Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 5 impugned judgment and order. It appears that the deceased committed suicide on 16.09.2021, and first information report was lodged on 25.09.2021. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 10.01.2022 and charges were framed on 15.10.2025. Perusal of testimony of P.W.1 – wife of the deceased reveals that she has stated about the dispute between her husband and the accused. She has stated that on the date of incident, the accused came to their house and threatened to kill the deceased, due to which the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide, and she therefore, lodged the report. During her cross examination it was brought on record that the first information report filed by her, was written by the clerk of an Advocate, and the same was given by her to the police. The entire case of prosecution was damaged by the defence, since the defence has successfully brought on record omissions in cross-examination. So far as the testimony of P.W.1 is concerned, in examination-in-chief, she has stated that the accused came to the house of the deceased and gave threat, due to that the deceased consumed poison. However, in cross examination, she has specifically stated that the said fact does not find place in the first information report. Upon perusal of testimony of P.W.2, it is revealed that he has specifically stated that there was a land dispute Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 6 between the deceased and the accused. The deceased had borrowed some amount from the accused, and sale deed was executed, however, as the land was belonging to a tribal, said sale deed was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer, against which a Civil Suit was filed by the accused before the competent Court. He further stated that the accused used to threaten the deceased with dire consequences. In the cross examination, it was brought on record in the form of omission that he has not stated before police that the deceased had borrowed amount from the accused, and sale deed was executed, and that the accused has given threat to the deceased, thereby damaging the case of the prosecution. Even the testimony of P.W.3 was similarly damaged by bringing on record the omission that the respondent no.2 came to their house and threatened the deceased due to which the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. However, said statement is not found in the statement recorded by the police. 7. After going through the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of M. Arjunan .vrs. The State Rep. By its Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.1550/2018 Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 7 decided on 04.12.2018), wherein in paragraph nos.7 to 9 the Supreme Court has held as under : “(7) As pointed out by the High Court, of course PW-1 to PW-5 have spoken about the borrowing of money by the deceased and also the execution of the promissory note. The sheet anchor of the prosecution’s case to prove the guilt of the accused is the suicide note (M.O.1)-written by the deceased. On perusal of suicide note (M.O.1), it is seen that in M.O.1 the deceased has written about the financial difficulties faced by him and his inability to meet the financial crunch and also his inability to repay the same. The tenor of M.O.1 only shows that the deceased was subjected to pressure for payment and was facing the financial difficulty. In M.O.1 (letter) there is nothing to indicate that there was instigation by the appellant-accused which had driven the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. (8) The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. (9) In our considered view, in the case at hand, Rgd. Order 020926apeal482.26 8 M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant - deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.” From this judgment it is clear that when the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not established, the conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained. I have already held that neither ingredients are fulfilled, nor there is sufficient evidence against the accused, to connect him with abetment of suicide. There is no evidence at all against the respondent no.2. In such circumstances, considering the entire material on record, including the impugned judgment and order, and after re-appreciating the evidence, I do not find any perversity in the same. In the result, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 10/09/2026 10:14:34