Krushna Prabhakar Pol And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra

Mr. Abhishek Patil h/f Mr. S. M. Gunjal, Advocate for the Revision

Petitioners.

Mr. S. K. Shirse, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. K. F. Shingare, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Krishna P. Rodge, Advocate for the complainant (appointed)

.....

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

Reserved on : 20.01.2026

Pronounced on : 23.01.2026

CriRevn-74-2023

-2-

JUDGMENT :

1. Present revisionists, who were arraigned as accused in Crime No. 36 of 2021 registered at Police Station, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad for offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, are hereby challenging the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which their application Exhibit 13, filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, stood dismissed.

2. Brief background of the case is that, one Popat Gangadhar Pole, father of deceased Sagar, reported police that on 20.01.2021, accused on being questioned for defecating on their way, got annoyed and further, for seeking indulgence of other villagers, allegedly came to the house of complainant at 8.25 a.m. and beat informant, his wife as well as their son Sagar. Occurrence was reported to police and on referral by police, when they went to hospital, it is alleged that, accused Mangalbai and Krushna came there too, and Krishna threatened to see Sager. While Sagar was returning back to Aurangabad on motorcycle with his two friends, Krushna intercepted the said motorcycle and threatened Sagar to be done to death by means of koyta. Out of fright and fear, it is the case of informant that, his son hanged himself in the room at Aurangabad where he stayed.

CriRevn-74-2023

-3-

Hence, holding accused responsible, report was lodged which resulted into registration of above crime for above offence.

3. After investigation, accused were chargesheeted for above offence and therefore they pressed into service application Exhibit 13 in Sessions Case No. 303 of 2021 urging for discharge on the ground that there was no material in the chargesheet to make them face trial for above offence. By order dated 30.01.2023, learned Additional Sessions Judged turned down the request by rejecting the application.

Hence the revision.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that, apparently there was long standing civil dispute between the parties.

He pointed out that, regarding the occurrence dated 20.01.2021, there were complaints against each other by both the sides. He pointed out that, from the FIR itself it is clear that deceased had left the house at Shankarpur in the company of his friends and reached Aurangabad same day. He pointed out that on the next day, it was allegedly learnt that Sagar had hanged himself at Aurangabad.

Consequently, it is his submission that since leaving Shankarpur till committing alleged suicide, there was no contact by accused with the deceased in any manner whatsoever and therefore, it is his submission that, essentials for attracting charge of 306 of IPC like

CriRevn-74-2023

-4-

inducement, abetment or instigation are patently missing in the entire chargesheet.

5. He pointed out that version of informant does not match with the statement of his own wife and both are distinct on the point of alleged occurrence. He pointed out that, statement of even friends of deceased Sagar, which find place in the chargesheet, do not show that deceased was upset, annoyed or under fear as was claimed by informant. He pointed out that, in the statement of friend of deceased, it has categorically come that after reaching Aurangabad, everything was smooth and even informant himself had allegedly told said friend that everything is smooth and matter has been settled.

Taking clue from the same, learned counsel would emphasize that, the alleged occurrence was not at all, thus a trigger point to take the extreme step of committing suicide. He pointed out that, there is no suicide note. Exact reasons for committing suicide are not coming forth. That, deceased had left the village in the afternoon around 3.00 p.m. or so, and suicide was allegedly committed on the intervening night of 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021 and therefore time gap between occurrence in the morning and some conversation in the afternoon cannot be said to have any proximity with the alleged suicide committed at distinct place on next day.

CriRevn-74-2023

-5-

6. He further submitted that, except relatives and friends of deceased, there are no other statements of independent witnesses. He further pointed out that, even assuming that there were threats by Krushna, there are no allegations attributable of any manner against his parents and they are simply dragged. He pointed out that, when there is no participation by any of the revision petitioners by indulging in any positive act or overt act, charges of abetment to commit suicide cannot be attracted. He would add that, there was no mens rea in this case to attribute criminality to any of the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, sought reliance on several rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Courts. Few amongst them are as under : i. Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh SCC 1995

(Supp 3) 438.

ii. Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Cri.

Appeal No. 221 of 2025 decided by the Division Bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated

17.01.2025)

iii. V. P. Singh Etc. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (Crl. A. No.

2104/2010 and 2105/2010 decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by order dated 24.11.2022.

CriRevn-74-2023

-6-

iv. Mangal Kashinath Dabhade and another v. The State of

Maharashtra (Cri. Revision Application No. 285/2023

decided by this Court at Principal Seat at Bombay on

06.03.2024.

v. Shankar Genaji Wavalkar v. The State of Maharashtra

decided by this Court by judgment dated 18.11.2025.

8. Learned APP, as well as learned counsel for original complainant, both, appointed through legal Aid as well as engaged by the complainant, have all strongly opposed the above application on the premise that, in the FIR itself, detail role of accused is reflected.

That, in the morning as well as in the hospital, there were threats by Krushna. That, he had also intercepted the way of deceased who was proceeding to Aurangabad with his friends and had also issued life threats. That, only because of such fear, deceased was under pressure and he committed suicide. They pointed out that there was NC at the instance of informant regarding above instances. Statements of witnesses are recorded, both under Section 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. That, there was no other reason for deceased to commit suicide. It is their submission that, accused persons being solely responsible for the same and there being ample material in the chargesheet, it is not at all a fit case for discharge, and as such,

CriRevn-74-2023

-7-

according to them, learned trial court has also committed no error in refusing to discharge the accused.

9. Law while dealing with discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is fairly settled. In series of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with application for discharge. A few landmark cases which are relevant on this point are State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 ;

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 ;

R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Another (1986) 2 SCC 716; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra & Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 and recent judgment in the case of Asim Shariff v. National Investigating Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148, Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2024) 10 SCC 651.

10. The ratio that is culled out is that, while dealing with an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., strong suspicion against the accused cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to

CriRevn-74-2023

-8-

say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. Where the material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

11. In the above referred case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) and Amit Kapoor (supra), it is declared that, trial Judge can sift the chargesheet for the limited purpose of determining whether there is prima facie material against the proposed accused to frame charge and to further make them face trial. It is expected that while sifting and weighing evidence, court is not supposed to conduct mini trial and evaluate the evidence. The principles that are laid down in above cases suggest that at pre-trial stage, safeguard is taken to prevent innocent being made to face ordeal of trial.

CriRevn-74-2023

-9-

12. In the light of above judicial precedent, available material in the form of charge sheet is sifted. Here, deceased is namely Sagar.

There is no dispute that suicide is committed by him at Aurangabad where he was staying in a room along with other friends. There is no dispute that he had visited his village Shankarpur, taluka Gangapur at relevant time of the occurrence. His father Popat has reported about above suicide by his son in the intervening night of 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021. Apparently, FIR is of 22.01.2021.

13. According to informant, accused, who are their kinsmen, were regularly picking up quarrels on trifle counts. He stated that two to three days prior to the occurrence, his son Sagar had come to the village. In the early hours of 20.01.2021, they noticed that deliberately accused Prabhakar and Krushna defecated on their way and were therefore questioned and further it was informed to villagers namely Ashok Pol, Sarangdhar Gaikwad, Kiran Pol, Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad and others. Getting annoyed on account of passing such information to others, it is alleged that, accused Prabhakar, Krushna and Mangalbai came at around 08.25 a.m. and questioned them and also allegedly beat them, of which report was lodged at Shillegaon Police Station, who had referred them with medical memo and when they were at the hospital, again it is alleged

CriRevn-74-2023

-10-

that, Mangalbai and Krushna Pole came there also and there, according to informant, Krushna had threatened to see his son. He further reported that, thereafter they took the medical papers to the police station.

He further reported that, friends of his son Sagar, namely Krushna Khatal and Shubham Mogal came to their village on motorcycle to take Sagar and while they were taking him towards Aurangabad, it is alleged that, again on their way, Krushna intercepted and issued threats to Sagar to commit his murder, as a result of which, he claims that his son was frightened and terrified and he duly told about it to his mother on phone. Again, as accused Krushna, Prabhakar and Mangalbai visited their house at 3.30 p.m. and issued life threats, both, informant and his wife approached police with an application and gave complaint against accused persons. He further claims that on 21.01.2021, information was received at 9.30 a.m. about Sagar to be admitted in the hospital and so, when they went to GHATI hospital, they learnt that Sagar had hanged himself at 8.40 a.m. According to him, only because of the beating and threats to kill, his son Sagar was mentally harassed due to which he committed suicide and as such, accused persons were responsible for the same.

CriRevn-74-2023

-11-

14. In the light of above contents of the report by father, apart from his own statement, statement of his wife, the two friends who allegedly came to take deceased Sagar to Aurangabad and the persons who allegedly intervened in the afternoon on the road, gains significance and is accordingly visited.

15. Chargesheet contains statement of wife of informant, namely, Sangita, but surprisingly her statement is not recorded immediately on the date of FIR dated 22.01.2021, but it is apparently recorded after almost two weeks i.e. on 04.02.2021. Be it so. She too in her statement has informed police about alleged defecation by accused in the morning of 20.01.2021 on their way, accused being questioned, indulgence of villagers being sought and she also stated that at around 8.25 a.m. accused came to their house and initially after questioning them for defaming them in the village, she, her husband and son allegedly being abused as well as slapped and they approaching police station. She too stated about visiting hospital and that time accused Mangalbai as well as accused Krushna also came there, however, according to her, in front of the hospital, accused Krushna merely said to Sagar that he would see him and thereafter they again carried the medical papers to the police station. She also claims that friends of her son had come on motorcycle at Shankarpur

CriRevn-74-2023

-12-

and there she prepared meals for them and her son and his friends left for Aurangabad. She claims that, after 15 minutes she received phone call from her son informing that Krushna had intercepted her son's way at Agathana and issued threats to kill by means of koyta.

16. Apart from above statements of parents of deceased, equally crucial is the evidence of the friends of deceased, namely Krushna Khatal and Shubham Mogal, who were party to the alleged incident which took place at around 3.30 p.m. while on the way to Aurangabad and they were also in the company of deceased in the evening as well as the intervening night. Resultantly, their evidence is also visited.

17. In his statement dated 25.01.2021, Shubham seems to have informed police about he being telephoned and called by deceased to come to take him at Shillegaon and accordingly, after seeking permission from police, they proceeded to the house of Sagar, had meals and left for Aurangabad. According to him, around 3.00 to 3.30 p.m., a man a lady came on a motorcycle from opposite side and Sagar was signaled to stop and accordingly, while Sagar was proceeding towards him, the motorcyclist himself came towards Sagar and questioned him for beating his mother. That time, while they both were talking, another two motorcyclists came, intervened and

CriRevn-74-2023

-13-

asked Sagar to go away and accordingly they came towards Lasur Station, where friend of Krushna, namely, Sandip Chavan met them and there, Sagar operated ATM, handed the cash to a shopkeeper and they all again proceeded towards Aurangabad to their room. He stated about, he making inquiry with Sagar about the events that took place at police station and during police inquiry. After reaching room, Sagar developed fever and therefore this witness gave him company for some time. On 21.01.2021, Sagar went to use the washroom on the upper floor but as he did not come for long time and as it was getting late for breakfast, they all went and knocked the door but there was no response and when the door was forced open, they noticed that Sagar had committed suicide.

18. Similar sort is the statement of Krushna Khatal. There are also statements of other witnesses namely, Jivan Kahate, Satish Choutmal etc. Copies of NC are also placed on record suggesting police being approached after the incidence of 08.25 a.m.

19. Here, on carefully considering the above material, it is clearly emerging that accused and complainant are kinsmen but are on cross terms with each other. Defecation on the road on the morning of 20.01.2021 seems to be the trigger point for quarrel which escalated into episode of abuses and slapping to deceased Sager as well as his

CriRevn-74-2023

-14-

parents by the accused persons.

20. Now, the moot question is whether, in view of the chargesheet, there is prima facie material to frame charge for offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. It is pertinent to note that, there is material showing two episodes taking place at Shankarpur where deceased, who was preparing for police recruitment and put up in Aurangabad for studies, had temporarily gone. Regarding the incidence of 08.25 a.m., police was indisputably duly approached. At hospital premises, allegations are that accused Krushna merely said to Sagar that he would see him. According to informant father, at around 3.30 p.m., when deceased was proceeding towards Aurangabad with his friends, that time also accused issued threats and on intervention of others, deceased and his friends proceeded ahead, took a brief halt at Lasur Station, there, deceased withdrew amount and paid it to a shopkeeper and thereafter they reach Aurangabad. Suicide by hanging came to light at around 8.00 a.m. of 21.01.2021.

21. Therefore, last meeting between deceased and accused Krushna is of 3.30 p.m. on 20.01.2021, during which there was said to be threat. Suicide is thus apparently committed 16 hours after alleged threat, that too, at Aurangabad. There is nothing to indicate that

CriRevn-74-2023

-15-

anything further happened even by way of threat on the intervening night of 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021. In fact statement of his friends show that deceased woke up in the morning and went to washroom on the upper floor for daily chores. During said time at Aurangabad, there is no material about any threat, abetment, inducement or enticement. There is nothing to show that there was any participation by accused in any manner in making deceased take extreme decision of ending up his life. Though there are threats to kill, said threats were issued at Shankarpur, taluka Gangapur, that too in the afternoon and occurrence was said to be duly reported to police.

Admittedly, alleged threats were during a quarrel and in the heat of rage and anger. It was open for parents to again approach police for receiving life threats, i.e. threat to kill by means of koyta. Further, as pointed out, friend of deceased with whom informant/father had telephonic conversation, has given statement about informant being questioned whether there was any problem, and informant himself conveying that there was no problem and that everything was settled and case was taken back. Therefore, with such material, even the element of fear of life ought to have come to an end. Accused and deceased are shown to be miles apart. As stated above, there is no material suggesting any inducement, abetment in any form to commit suicide.

CriRevn-74-2023

-16-

22. Law is loud and clear that for attracting culpability under Section 306 of IPC, it has to be demonstrated that accused had specific intention to bring out suicide. There has to be material suggesting abetment in that direction. Further, there has to be proof of direct or indirect enticement for commission of suicide. Unless there is positive action attributable to accused which too has to be in proximity to the time of suicide, criminality for abetment to commit suicide cannot be attracted. There has to be active participation by accused or further, there has to be material suggesting creation of such circumstances at the instance of accused that deceased is harassed to such an extent that he or she is left with no other alternative but to end up his/her life.

23. Some relevant citations on above aspects are referred as under :

In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :

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

In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010)

1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-

CriRevn-74-2023

-17-

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.

Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." [Emphasis supplied]

In M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, it was held as under:-

41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation".

Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,

incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the

requirement of instigation though it is not necessary

that actual words must be used to that effect or what

constitutes instigation must necessarily and

CriRevn-74-2023

-18-

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."

In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to deal a case arising out of dispute between husband and wife. There also husband had committed suicide and in para.20 the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining different shades of the meaning of "Instigation", ruled as under :-

"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an "act". To satisfy requirement of instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation

CriRevn-74-2023

-19-

must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. Yet, a reasonablecertainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in fit of anger or omission without intending the consequence to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. , 2002 Cri.L.J.

2796, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in spur of moment cannot be taken to be uttered.

In S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan , (2010) 12 SCC 190, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "the intention of legislature is that, in order to convict a person u/s.306 of the I.P.C., there has to be clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option."

In M. Mohan v. represented by State the Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that,

CriRevn-74-2023

-20-

"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."

In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 2017 SC 74, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "21. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus :

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.

22. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the

CriRevn-74-2023

-21-

culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 1.P.C. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 1.P.C., thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide."

24. Consequently, keeping in mind above judicial precedent and the above discussed material which is emerging on sifting the chargesheet to ascertain whether there is material to make accused face trial, admittedly, alleged threats were during a quarrel and in the heat of rage and anger. Last confrontation between deceased and only accused Krushna is also of around 3.30 p.m. of 20.01.2021. Suicide is committed after 16 hours or so, that too at Aurangabad. Thus, during such time there are no allegations about involvement or indulgence of revision petitioners in any manner, more particularly with deceased Sager which led him to end up his life.

25. In the considered opinion of this Court, essential elements of abetment, inducement, enticement coupled with mens rea being missing in the charge sheet, revisionist succeed. Hence, the following order :

CriRevn-74-2023

-22-

ORDER

I. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "C" and "D".

II. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed off.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre