Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1702/2021 on 20 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No. 1800 of 2021
With
C482 No. 1702 of 2021
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the
applicant in C482 No. 1800 of 2021 and Mr.
B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the applicant in
C482 No. 1702 of 2021.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Aayush Pokhriyal, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate
for respondent no. 2.
2. Since, common question of law and
facts are involved in these two criminal misc.
applications, hence, they are being decided by
the common judgment. However, for the sake
of brevity, facts of C482 No. 1800 of 2021 are
taken into consideration.
3. In this case, an FIR was lodged by one
Kamal Singh Chauhan in which it was alleged
that one Bhupal Singh Chauhan has taken
away his sister-in-law and minor nephew
alongwith him. This FIR was lodged in Patwari
Circle, Asho, District Bageshwar on
28.05.2020. Thereafter, the applicant, who
was serving on the post of Revenue Inspector
(Patwari), Asho Circle, after taking due
permission from the authority concerned,
alongwith Suresh Rathour and Praveen Takuli,
who were Revenue Inspectors of Khakar and
Nandi Gaon respectively, searched for the
accused and ultimately Bhupal Singh was
arrested from Village Nyoli, District Almora
alongwith the child and the woman. They
were brought in the office of Tehsil Kafilgair,
Kathpuriya Cheini at night time at about
11:15 PM. Accused was kept in custody in the
first floor of the Tehsil building, which was
guarded by home guard. The other two Sub-
Inspectors namely Suresh Rathour and
Praveen Takuli left from there after taking
due permission. In the morning at about 6-7
AM, tea was served to the accused, but, after
some time, noise of the banging of the door
was coming from the room, where, the
accused was kept in the custody and it was
found that room was locked from the inside.
With the help of the villagers, window was
broken and accused was found lying
unconscious alongwith gamchha around his
neck and blood was coming out from the
backside of his head. Doctor was immediately
called at the spot, but, the doctor declared
him dead. Thereafter, post-mortem was
conducted in Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani
on 30.05.2020, whereby, doctors opined that
no definite opinion could be determined and
as per the FSL report, it was found that the
cause of death was due to carbamate
poisoning and the ligature mark in absence of
any extravasation indicates the deceased had
tried to strangulate himself. Subsequently, an
FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased on
29.05.2020, under Section 302 of IPC at
Police Station Jhirauli, District Bageshwar.
During investigation, the charge of Section
302 was not found and chargesheet was filed
under Section 306 of IPC. With regard to the
custodial death, inquiry was conducted by
CJM concerned, who after the inquiry, found
no evidence regarding the custodial death.
That inquiry report has attained finality.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that without any evidence on
record, no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC
are made out against the applicants. To
support his case, learned counsel for the
applicants has relied upon a judgment passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo
Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 873. Paragraph 23 of
the aforesaid judgment is extracted as
hereunder:-
“23. What is required to constitute an alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is
there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement of the commission of
offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person
would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there
are allegations of such actions on the part of
the accused which compelled the commission
of suicide. Further, if the person committing
suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations
attributed to the accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
situated person to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold
the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
Thus, what is required is an examination of
every case on its own facts and circumstances
and keeping in consideration the surrounding
circumstances as well, which may have
bearing on the alleged action of the accused
and the psyche of the deceased.”
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, would submit
that in his statement, home guard who was
on duty in the Tehsil premises on the fateful
day has categorically stated that the
deceased was brought by the applicants
alongwith four-five unidentified persons.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. The relevant provisions of the IPC that
fall for consideration are as under:
“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.
107. Abetment of a thing–A person abets
the doing of a thing, who–
Firstly.– 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.”
8. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic
ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one
person and second, the abetment to the said
act by another person(s). In order to sustain
a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it
must necessarily be proved that the accused
person has contributed to the suicide by the
deceased by some direct or indirect act. To
prove such contribution or involvement, one
of the three conditions outlined in Section 107
of the IPC has to be satisfied.
9. Section 306 read with Section 107 of
IPC, has been interpreted, time and again,
and its principles are well established. To
attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it
is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of
suicide by the accused, which must be in
close proximity to the commission of suicide
by the deceased. Such instigation or
incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to
abet the commission of suicide and should put
the victim in such a position that he/she
would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
10. Considering the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the
material available on record, this Court is of
the opinion that in the present case, there is
no iota of evidence that the applicants were
involved either actively or passively in
instigating or abetting the deceased to
commit suicide. The ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC remained
unproved and thus the applicants deserve to
be acquitted of the charges for the said
offence. In such circumstances, allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue against the
applicants would be an abuse of the process
of law. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that it is a fit case to exercise
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is allowed and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 490 of 2021, State Vs. Tara
Datt Pathak and Others, under Section 306 of
IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, is hereby
quashed, qua the applicants.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
20.05.2026
Ujjwal
