Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Deepanshu @ Honey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3302 OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.12572/2025)
DEEPANSHU @ HONEY ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent-State of Chhatisgarh.
3. Appellant is aggrieved by order dated 18.03.2025 passed
by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur (High Court) in
Criminal MP No.968 of 2025 filed by the appellant for quashing of
FIR. It may be stated that FIR No.367 of 2023 was filed by Sub-
Inspector Satyendra Singh on 13.10.2023, about the unnatural
death of the deceased Vaibhav Kumar Singh. As per the FIR, on
08.10.2023, around 04:00 pm, the appellant along with three
Signature Not Verified
others
Digitally signed by had abused and assaulted the deceased at a place in
IRAMNAZ
Date: 2026.07.27
19:06:18 IST
Godripara near Zero Cafe at Chirmiri, Raipur. The incident had
Reason:
1
happened when the boys who had abused and assaulted the deceased
objected to his friendship with a girl from their neighbourhood.
It is alleged that the deceased thereafter committed suicide by
hanging in his room on 09.10.2023. Accordingly, the case was
registered under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
4. Contending that the appellant was being unnecessarily
roped in as an accused though he had no role to play in the
alleged abatement which led to commitment of suicide by the
deceased, he preferred a quashing petition before the High Court.
5. High Court by the impugned order took note of the fact
that investigation was complete whereafter charge sheet has been
filed against the appellant. Trial Court has taken cognizance and
the trial has commenced. After referring to some of the
statements made by the witnesses before the police including that
of the friend, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that no
case was made out for quashing of FIR. Accordingly, the petition
filed by the appellant for quashing of FIR was rejected.
6. This Court by order dated 14.08.2025 had issued notice
pursuant to which State has filed counter affidavit.
7. In the course of the hearing today, our attention has
been drawn to the statement made by the mother of the deceased
before the police. Reena Singh, the mother, in her statement
before the police dated 14.10.2023, stated that on 09.10.2023,
2
while she was at home, the deceased had asked for the motorcycle
keys from her at about 03:00 pm. She refused to handover the keys
of the bike to her son. In her statement she stated that her
father-in-law Dadan Singh was also present at home at that point
of time. A little later she came to know that her son Vaibhav had
hanged himself in his room. She stated that she had narrated this
fact to her brothers and had told them that her son Vaibhav had
committed suicide because she did not handover the motorcycle
keys to him.
7.1 In the second part of her statement, she says that
Vaibhav’s friends- Satish Paswan, Ayush Badera and Ayaan Singh
had come to her home on 11.10.2023 at around 03:00 pm and had
told her that on 08.10.2023, Vaibhav had told them that he felt
tormented and humiliated after being beaten up by the appellant
and three others who were juveniles. It was thereafter that the
mother stated that her son committed suicide by hanging because
he was deeply hurt by the beating he received at the hands of the
appellant and others.
8. At this stage it is interesting to note that neither the
mother nor the father had lodged the First Information Report
before the police. Even the grandfather who was present when the
incident had occurred did not lodge the FIR. It was only left to
a police officer who had conducted the inquest examination of the
3
dead body of the deceased to lodge the FIR because of the
unnaturalness of the death. The date of lodging of the FIR is
13.10.2023, though the suicide took place on 09.10.2023.
Similarly the grandfather, Mr. Dadan Singh also stated in his
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (CrPC) that the deceased Vaibhav had asked for the
motorcycle keys from his mother, but when his mother refused, he
went to his room and hanged himself. Thereafter, in an apparent
improvement, he reiterates what his daughter-in-law had stated in
her 161 statement.
9. Though, learned State counsel has drawn our attention to
the statement made by the friend of the deceased, we find that
the said statement was recorded on 20.11.2024 i.e. after more
than one year of the incident. However, in her statement, she
stated that being hurt by the verbal abuse and physical assault
by the appellant and three others, the deceased had committed
suicide.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the materials on record, we are of the view that
the alleged incident cannot be construed to be the immediate
proximate reason for the commission of suicide by the deceased.
11. Section 306 IPC reads thus:
“306. Abetment of suicide.—
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be4
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
12. Thus, the sine qua non for invocation of Section 306 IPC
is abatement to the commission of suicide. Abetment is defined in
Section 107 IPC which is 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
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.
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. From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is discernible is
that 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
5
doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a
person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a
material fact which he is otherwise 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. Similarly, it
is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that whoever does anything
in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to
or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing
of that act.
14. This Court in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v State of Karnataka
(2024 INSC 156) analysed Section 306 IPC as under:
36. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State
of West Bengal((2010) 1 SCC 707) , this Court
after referring to some of the previous
decisions held that it has been the consistent
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 to put an end to her life. It must
be borne in mind that in a case of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect act(s) 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC would not be
sustainable.
15. In Amalendu Pal, relied upon in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar, this
6
Court had held as under:
13. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said
offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of 4 suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by
the person charged with the said offence must
be proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.
16. Reverting back to Kumar @ Shiva Kumar, this Court
observed as follows:
Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan
(supra), this Court observed that abetment
would involve 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 the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. Delineating the intention of the
legislature and having regard to the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court, it was
concluded that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It would also
require an active act or direct act which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other
option and that this act of the accused must
have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.
17. Having noted the legal framework, we may now analyse the
facts of the case.
18. Though the alleged incident had taken place on
08.10.2023, there was no immediate reaction of the deceased. As
7
per the version of the mother, the deceased had asked for the
motorcycle keys from her in the afternoon of 09.10.2023 and upon
her refusal to handover the keys to him, he committed suicide. It
appears to be a reaction at the spur of the moment. The fact that
neither the mother nor the grandfather, who was also present in
the house when the incident had occurred, came forward to lodge
the FIR is enough indication that the proximate cause for
commission of suicide was otherwise than the alleged verbal abuse
and physical assault on the deceased by the appellant and the
three others. It is an unfortunate incident in which a young
person had ended his life in tragic and unnatural circumstances.
But that by itself would not be adequate to sustain a criminal
trial. Appellant is also a young person. At the time of the
incident, appellant was 22 years of age.
19. Be that as it may, we are of the view that on the basis
of the aforesaid facts, conviction of the appellant appears to be
a remote possibility. In such circumstances, compelling the
appellant to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial would not be
justified. We are, therefore, of the view that these relevant
factors were over-looked by the High Court while rejecting the
prayer of the appellant for quashing of the FIR.
20. Consequently, we allow this appeal by quashing the FIR
No. 0367 of 2023, registered at Police Station Chirmiri,
8
Manendragarh, Bharatpur, Raipur, for the offence under Sections
306/34 IPC, qua the present appellant.
21. Consequently, the High Court order dated 18.03.2025 is
set aside and Criminal MP No. 968 of 2015 is allowed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………….J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
NEW DELHI;
July 21, 2026.
IZ
9
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12572/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-
2025 in CRMP No. 968/2025 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh
at Bilaspur]
DEEPANSHU @ HONEY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
Date : 21-07-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR
Ms. Pushpanjali Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vipul Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Gursimrat Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv.
Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
Mr. Shashi Kant, Adv.
Mr. Avinash Singh, Adv.
Ms. Roshni Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(IRAMNAZ) (CHETNA BALOONI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
10
