Ayyub vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 168 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7371 OF 2024)

AYYUB & ORS. APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(s)

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. The present criminal appeal calls in question the correctness of the

order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 25969 of 2023. By the said

order, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings instituted against

the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

‘IPC’).

2. The facts of the case are rather unfortunate. It has its origin in a

suspected relationship between the son of the first appellant, one Ziaul Signature Not Verified

Rahman (since deceased) and Tanu (since deceased), the cousin sister of Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2025.02.07 18:30:10 IST Reason:

respondent no. 2.

3. On 02.11.2022 at 19:15 hrs, the first appellant Ayyub lodged a first

information report alleging that Bhuru @ Janeshwar (relative of deceased

Tanu), Maneshwar Saini (father of deceased Tanu), Priyanshu, and Shivam

(brother of Tanu) beat his son Ziaul Rahman with sticks and fists.

According to the complaint, this was on suspicion about the relationship

between Ziaul Rahman and Tanu. According to the FIR, the incident was

witnessed by Saleem Ahmed and Abdul Rehman. It was also averred that

while being taken for treatment, after being referred to a higher centre by

Medigram Hospital, Saharanpur, Ziaul Rahman died. It was mentioned that

the body was kept in the mortuary and the first appellant had come to the

police station and lodged First Information Report No. 366 at PS Rampur

Maniharan, District Saharanpur. According to the prosecution, Ziaul

Rahman suffered 14 injuries on his body and the cause of death was shock

and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Pursuant to the investigation,

a charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed for commission

of offence under Section 304 IPC. We are informed that proceedings at the

behest of the family of Ziaul Rahman for enhancement of the charge to

Section 302 IPC are pending.

4. On 03.11.2022 at around 17:07 hrs, the respondent no. 2-Vijay lodged

a First Information Report No. 367 at PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur. In the FIR, the appellants herein were arrayed as accused on

the accusation that they abetted the suicide of the deceased Tanu and

committed offence under Section 306 IPC.

5. The gravamen of the allegation was that on 02.11.2022, at around

08:00 am, at the residence of the complainant’s uncle Janeshwar, the

appellants came there and told the complainant’s cousin Tanu, “ because of

you our boy has died, why you do not die”. According to the FIR, so saying,

they humiliated Tanu and tortured her and said that they will file a case

against her and also get her arrested and humiliate her in society so that she

will not be able to face anyone in the society.

6. According to the complainant, scared of the insult and humiliation, his

cousin sister Tanu, between 10:30 am to 11:00 am committed suicide being

hurt by the statements. The complainant mentioned that the incident

concerning the verbal utterances at 08:00 am was witnessed apart from R-2,

by Sushil S/o Jal Singh and Anil S/o Rahtu.

7. It was further stated that the deceased was cremated and that

complainant-R-2 came to lodge the report. The statement of respondent no.

2-Vijay Saini was recorded on 07.11.2022. The statements of Sushil Singh

S/o Jal Singh and Mrs. Sunesh W/o Janeshwar were recorded on 08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 respectively. The statements parroted the FIR

virtually verbatim. The only addition being that while the FIR refers to

Sushil and Anil as being present along with R-2 Vijay, whereas in the

statements Mrs. Sunesh also claims to have been present.

8. It further transpires from the application for quash that based on the

information given by the ward boy of the hospital on 02.11.2022, the same

was registered at Police Station G.D. 37 at 01:14 pm and then

panchayatnama of deceased Tanu was conducted at the hospital in the

presence of her family members.

9. Thereafter, it is clear from the counter affidavit of R-2 filed in this

Court that at 05:00 pm on 02.11.2022, post-mortem was conducted at SBD

Hospital, Saharanpur and the following injuries were noticed on the

deceased Tanu:-

“1. ligature mark (24 cm x 1.5 cm) oblique, non-continuous, placed high up in the neck, between the thin and larger in position 5 cm below chin, 3 cm below outer angle of right _____ of cm below from right ear, 4.5 cm below from outer angle of left ____ and 6 cm below left ear.

Subcutaneous tissues under the ligature mark are white, hard and glistering.

2. multiple linear abrasion (11 cm x 5.5 cm) on front of neck.

3. linear abrasion 5 cm long on front of neck lower part.

4. linear abrasion 5 cm long on front of left forearm just above left wrist joint.

The cause of death was opined as ‘Asphyxia as the result of ante-mortem hanging and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.”

The FIR, however, came to be registered on 03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs.

10. The appellants obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court till the

filing of the police report. The police filed final report against the appellants

under Section 306 IPC on 02.05.2023. The police report does nothing more

than reiterating the contents of the FIR. The Judicial Magistrate,

Saharanpur, after perusing the charge-sheet, took cognizance of the offence

against the appellants in case No. 2843 of 2023 (arising out of Crime No.

367 of 2022, Police Station : Rampur Maniharan) and issued summons on

17.06.2023 returnable on 11.07.2023.

11. The appellants approached the High Court with an application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 25969 of

2023 seeking for quashment of the charge-sheet dated 02.05.2023 and the

criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 2843 of 2023. It was averred that

none of the ingredients to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC are

attracted. Post the filing of the police report, the appellant no. 1-Ayyub and

appellant no. 3-Haroon obtained pre-arrest bail from this Court by order

dated 05.12.2023.

12. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the Application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by holding that, on facts, proximate link between

the unfortunate incident of suicide by Tanu and the act of the accused

existed. The High Court also recorded that Tanu was a hypersensitive girl

and she was very much depressed and felt humiliated among her family

members, friends and in the society. The judgments cited by the appellants

were distinguished and that the High Court held that it did not feel it

appropriate to quash the proceedings at that stage. So holding, the High

Court dismissed the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the

appellants are in appeal before us.

13. We have heard Mr. Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel for the appellants as

well as Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr.

Divyesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, R-2. We have

also carefully perused the records.

14. At the outset itself, we notice certain disturbing and peculiar features

that obtain in this case. The first appellant who lost his son, lodged the first

complaint on 02.11.2022 at 19:15 hrs. By the said time the body was in the

mortuary. It transpires from the first information report lodged on

03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs by the respondent no. 2 that Tanu had committed

suicide at around 10:30 am to 11:00 am on 02.11.2022. Regarding the death of Tanu, it was mentioned in the application for quash that the G.D. entry at

the behest of the ward boy of the hospital was registered on 02.11.2022 at

01:14 pm. It was also mentioned that an inquest was held in the hospital on

the said day. Admittedly, the post-mortem of Tanu was also held at 05:00

pm on 02.11.2022. However, the FIR came to be registered only on

03.11.2022 at 17:07 hrs.

15. It is intriguing that the police authorities, merely by recording the

statements of the complainant Vijay, Sunesh W/o Janeshwar and Sushil who

have simply parroted the contents of the FIR, proceeded to file the charge-

sheet against the appellants. On our repeated queries to the counsel for the

State as to whether any investigation to explore any other angle was

pursued, we were met only with a stoic silence.

16. We are today left with the one sided version of the complainant R-2.

Was there anything more sinister? Even if it was suicide what was the real

cause? Was the deceased Tanu distraught with what happened to her friend

Ziaul Rahman? Considering the under-currents and the disapproval of the

relationship, was there any instigation for the suicide from any other

quarter? Did the deceased Tanu resort to the extreme action of taking away

her own life due to the ugly turn of the events and due to the fact that her

family members were suspected to be involved? We have no answers today. Only an independent, thorough and comprehensive investigation will bring

to light the true story. The charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have

proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the

complainant (R-2) and his family members as the gospel truth.

17. We find that based on the charge-sheet filed by the police on

02.05.2023 and the cryptic order of cognizance dated 17.06.2023, the

proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried on against the appellants. Even

taking the allegation on a demurrer, on the facts of the case, an offence

under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be made out against the appellants.

The law on Section 306 IPC is well settled.

18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp

(3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and

the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :-

“…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….”

19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to

make 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 has been further held that the intention of the

accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a

must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of

Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment

meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an

end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof

of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu

Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M.

Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of

Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618].

20. These principles have been reiterated recently by this Court in

Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76.

21. We find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case

under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet

or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed

to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature

as to leave the deceased Tanu with no other alternative but to put an end to

her life. The surrounding circumstances, particularly the prior lodgment of

the FIR by the first appellant against the family of Tanu for the death of his

son Ziaul Rahman, does indicate an element of desperation on the part of the respondent no. 2 to somehow implicate the appellants. Reliance of the

statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. belatedly on 07.11.2022,

08.11.2022 and 22.11.2022, only reinforces out suspicion viz. one-sided,

partial and inimical investigation. Under these circumstances, proceeding

with the trial against the appellants in the charge-sheet as filed will be a

gross abuse of process.

22. As pointed out earlier, the case has several disturbing features which

call for a reinvestigation, which we propose to order based on the

observations made hereinabove. The Director General of Police, Law and

Order, State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to constitute a Special Investigation

Team headed by an officer of the level of Deputy Inspector General of

Police to investigate the unnatural death of Tanu D/o Janeshwar R/o

Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur. We authorize the Special

Investigation Team to treat the first information report registered in crime

no. 367 of 2022 at PS Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur as one of

unnatural death. We further grant them liberty to re-register the FIR if they

deem it appropriate. We direct that the reinvestigation report shall be placed

before this Court in a sealed cover within a period of two months from

today.

23. We make it clear that the observations in the present judgment are only for the purpose of quashing the proceedings against the appellants, and

the reinvestigation on other aspects indicated above, will be carried out

independently. We are not to be taken, to have expressed any view, one way

or the other.

24. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The proceedings in Case

No. 2843 of 2023 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Saharanpur (arising out of Crime No. 367 of 2022 Police Station Rampur

Maniharan, District Saharanpur) are quashed. Let the matter be listed on

15.04.2025 for further directions and for consideration of the report of the

Special Investigation Team.

………........................CJI [SANJIV KHANNA]

……….........................J. [SANJAY KUMAR]

……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN] New Delhi;

7th February, 2025.