Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra @Pappu Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
1 CRA-8162-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8162 of 2025
DEVENDRA @ PAPPU JAISWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the
appellant/accused assailing the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Betul (M.P.) in SC ATR No. 175 of 2024 whereby the
charges for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been framed
against the appellant/accused.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Assistant Sub-
Inspector, Police Station Chicholi, District Betul received an information
from complainant Santu, son of Jhabli Dhurve to the effect that deceased
Makal Singh Dhurve had committed suicide by hanging himself in his house.
Upon receiving the said information, the police registered Merg No.106/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
2 CRA-8162-2025
and initiated an inquiry. During the course of the merg inquiry, the police
reached the spot and found the deceased Makal Singh Dhurve lying inside his
house. During the proceedings of the dead body Panchayatnama, a suicide
note was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased. In the said
suicide note, it was stated that Harish Yadav, resident of Malajpur and Pappu
Jaiswal (present appellant), resident of Chicholi had been harassing and
torturing him in connection with certain monetary transactions. It was further
mentioned that Saleem Khan, resident of Chicholi had not paid an amount of
Rs.1,10,000/-, due to which the “Gitti Wala” was also pressurizing and
harassing him. On the basis of the said suicide note and the merg inquiry, the
police registered an FIR under Crime No.465/2024 for the offence punishable
under Section 108 of the B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
against the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Saleem Khan and
Harish Yadav.
3. The learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Betul by impugned order dated 16.05.2025
has framed charges against appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and read with Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant has
submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, the deceased allegedly left
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
3 CRA-8162-2025
behind a suicide note, which has been filed as Annexure A-3. It is pointed out
that the said suicide note is stated to have been written on 10.10.2024,
whereas the deceased allegedly committed suicide on 14.10.2024. As per the
contents of the suicide note, the allegation against the present appellant is that
despite the deceased having already repaid the entire amount, the appellant
had allegedly added interest of Rs.1,20,000/- and on account of the said
monetary transaction, the deceased was annoyed by the appellant and co-
accused Saleem Khan and Harish Yadav, as a result of which he committed
suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No.2177-2185 of 2024, decided
on 18.08.2025) and in the case of Mohit Singhal & anr. vs. The State of
Uttarakhand and ors., (2024) 1 SCC 417 and the orders passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Ajit Singh Kulhar and others
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Criminal Revision No.6428 of
2024, dated 17.06.2025), Rajesh vs. The State of Madhya Prades h (Criminal
Revision No.3857 of 2022, dated 26.04.2023), Prateek Gautam vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revision No.1566 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023)
and in the case of Premchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
(Criminal Revision No.56 of 2024, dated 25.07.2024) wherein it has been
consistently held that where the dispute between the deceased and the
accused arises out of a monetary transaction and the allegation is that the
accused was pressurizing or harassing the deceased for recovery of the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
4 CRA-8162-2025
amount, the same, by itself, does not constitute the offence punishable under
Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the
essential ingredients of instigation or abetment, as contemplated under
Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 are not made out against the present appellant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed
the prayer made in the present appeal and submitted that the issues raised by
the appellant pertain to the trial. It is contended that there are prima facie
allegations on record regarding instigation and abetment attributed to the
present appellant and, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated at the stage
of charge. It is further submitted that the statement of the wife of the deceased
also discloses that the deceased was annoyed by the present appellant for
recovery of money. According to the learned counsel for the State, the
conduct attributed to the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of
instigation and abetment to commit suicide. It is thus contended that, on the
basis of the material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly
framed the charge against the appellant and, therefore, no interference is
called for with the impugned order of framing charge.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused
the material available on record.
8. The law of framing of charge is well settled and only a prima facie case
has to be placed before the Court for enabling it to frame the charge but as far
as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, in the case of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh
Chavda and others Vs State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC116 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held in paragraphs 21 to 23 and 26 to 29 as under :
“21. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment for the offence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:197595 CRA-8162-2025
abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107IPC which
defines the act of “abetment”. The provisions read as follows:
“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–
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 facilitate the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
22. Section 306 IPC penalises those who abet the act of suicide by
another. For a person to be charged under this section, the
prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of
suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the
three conditions outlined in Section 107IPC. These conditions
include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to
commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was
carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that
directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
23. For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is a well-established
legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea–the intention to
abet the act–is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not
sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The
prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the
accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element
of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be
evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational
requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied,
underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
6 CRA-8162-2025
provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.
26. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case
under Section 306IPC are:
(i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide.
27. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that
the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to
commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must
meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as
well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine
whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them
with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or
indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations
of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction,
there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely
linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the
victim to commit suicide.
28. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide
and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can
involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that
facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that
the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear
evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a
conviction under Section 306IPC cannot be sustained.
29. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through
actions or behaviours of the accused that directly contributed to the
victim’s decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does
not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement
or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the
time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the
accused’s behaviour and the tragic outcome. It is only through the
establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306
IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving
this active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the
alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down
by this Court in several judgments, such as:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
7 CRA-8162-2025
(iii) Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.”
9. In the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed in paragraphs 21 to 23 as under :
“21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding
or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a
conviction cannot be sustained.
22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein
before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant
harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients
of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a
proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct
consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate
incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of
taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s
back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden
impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the
victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual
predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and
demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens
rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at
one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life
cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting
abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in
the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option,
but to take his life, because of what another person did or said;
which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment
on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and
purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious
acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all
probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the
accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly
drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of
goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or
whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising
in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of
each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship
between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one
case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another
person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment
under Section 306.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
8 CRA-8162-2025
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025) has
held as under:-
“18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued
course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It
was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we
are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under
Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the
prosecution’s case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of
the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased
to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to
Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of
his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasised hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said
that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It
could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created
circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except
to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the appellant, the
exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to
leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This
is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the
context and the situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been
lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly
reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306
IPC [Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have followed
more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too
readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in
genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the
provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to
assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the
deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased,
their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate deathSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:197599 CRA-8162-2025
of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles
employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be
glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the
investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this
Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the
abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial courts
also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should
not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges,
even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter
disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
21. For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the
appellant is groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306.
Hence, we discharge the appellant from proceedings in Sessions
Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the file of First Additional
Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and quash and set
aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the impugned
order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal
Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan vs. State , (2011) 3
SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC
618, wherein 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
10 CRA-8162-2025
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.”
Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she
committed suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
12. The law laid down in the aforesaid case of Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh
Chavda (supra) has been followed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Ghanshyam Das Sirvaiya and others Vs. The State of M.P.
decided on 28.01.2025 in CRR No.6372 of 2024.
13. In the case of Rajesh (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
observed as under:-
“4. It is alleged that he was being harassed by the applicant by
demanding the excess interest on the same.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no basic
ingredient of section 107 of IPC to constitute the offence under
section 306 of IPC.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs.State
of (Govt of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605, Shabbir
Hussain Vs. State of MP in SLP (Cri) No.7284/2017, Amalendu Pal
Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Rajesh Vs.
State of MP in CRR No.3155/2011 decided on 09.07.2019, held
that there is no evidence regarding instigation which is one of the
most important ingredient under section 107 of the IPC to constitute
the offence under section 306 of IPC and set aside the charge under
section 306 of the IPC.
7. Section 107 of the IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution
to show and establish the elements of instigation. The Apex Court
in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s. State of M.P., AIR
2002 SC 1998 has opined as under:-
‘8. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
11 CRA-8162-2025
tell the deceased to go and die, that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of instigation the word instigate denotes incitement or
urging to do some drastic or inadvisable 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 on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to
be uttered with mens rea it is in a fit of anger and emotion.’
8. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay (supra) the accused allegedly
told the deceased “to go and die” yet Apex Court opined that it does
not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. In the instant case, if
story of the prosecution is read and believed as such, it would be
clear that the appellants did not in any manner instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. There is no element of “incitement” or
“instigation” on their behalf. Thus, Section 306 of the IPC is not
attracted against the appellants.
9. The ancillary question is whether their acts fall within the
ambit of Section 306 of the IPC. In Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s.
State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined
as under :-
’17. 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 the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.’
10. The principle flowing from this judgment is that the overt act
of accused person must be of such a nature where the victim had no
option but to commit suicide. Even assuming that the appellants
mounted pressure upon the deceased to repay the Bank defalcated
amount, this does not fall within the ambit of “incitement” or
“instigation”.
11. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported
in ILR (2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of Supreme Court
in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and held as under :-
’10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that
whether applicants have had same knowledge that deceased would
commit suicide. As per the prosecution case when deceased was
going with his father. Applicants restrained deceased and his father
Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence it cannot be
assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of themSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
12 CRA-8162-2025
particularly deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and
threatening was alleged to be done with deceased as well as his
father, so it cannot be said that applicants had knowledge or
intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no
evidence that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to
commit suicide. It is also not alleged that when applicants
threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish they were
armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased
was so frightened that he had no option left except committing
suicide and was compelled to do so.’
12. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated
23/2/2018 in Criminal Revision No. 208/2018 in the case of
Hemchand Yashwant Fasatey Vs. State of M.P, after referring to
various judgments of the Apex Court held that demand of loan
amount or asking to repay the money would not amount to
abetment.
13. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The FIR
registered at crime no.188/2021 for the offence punishable under
section 306 of the IPC and all the proceedings pursuant thereto
against the applicant is quashed.”
14. In the case of Prateek Guatam (supra), the coordinate Bench of this
Court has observed in paragraph No.13 as under:-
“10. In the present case also the petitioner demanded amount of
loan advanced by him and exercised pressure upon the deceased for
the same. It can not be said that he instigated or provoked the
deceased to commit suicide. The deceased probably could not resist
the pressure of repaying the loan and committed suicide. In view of
the circumstances of the case and the legal aspects, in the opinion
of this Court, ingredients of “abetment to commit suicide” is
missing, therefore, offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the
petitioner/accused is not made out.”
14. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether
the framing of charges against the appellant under Section 108 of the BNS,
2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is lawful and
proper, and whether the appellant is liable to be discharged from the said
charges.
15. On the anvil of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the law
laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is clear that where the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19759
13 CRA-8162-2025
merely demands repayment of money advanced by him and on account of
such demand, the victim commits suicide, no offence under Section 108 of
the BNS, 2023 is made out, as no instigation or abetment to commit suicide
as contemplated under Section 45 of the BNS, 2023 is established. Since the
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is dependent
upon the existence of the principal offence under Section 108 of the BNS,
2023, in the absence of a prima facie case under Section 108 of the BNS,
2023, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 also
would not be attracted. At best, the allegations indicate a demand for
repayment of money and an alleged demand for additional money, which by
itself does not constitute the offences alleged.
1 6 . Ex consequenti, the criminal appeal succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The impugned order dated 16.05.2025, whereby charges were
framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 108 of
the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is
hereby set aside. The appellant is discharged from the aforesaid charges. The
learned trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings pending against the
appellant. It is made clear that the trial shall proceed against the remaining
accused persons in accordance with law.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 02-04-2026
11:02:17