Supreme Court of India
MAHENDRA AWASEversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 76
- Decided
- 16 January 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The appellant did not actively instigate or intend the suicide, so the charge under Section 306 IPC is untenable and must be dismissed.
Summary
The appellant Mahendra Awase was charged under Section 306 of the IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of Ranjit Singh, who had taken a loan and was reportedly harassed by the appellant for repayment. The prosecution relied on a suicide note and audio transcripts of heated conversations, but the Supreme Court examined whether these amounted to active instigation or creation of a circumstance leaving the deceased with no alternative but suicide. The Court held that the appellant's actions were part of his duty to recover loans and lacked the requisite mens rea and direct act to compel suicide. It emphasized that Section 306 requires a higher threshold of proof of intentional abetment, which was not satisfied. Consequently, the charge was deemed unsustainable, the proceedings were quashed, and the appellant was discharged. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's conduct satisfies the elements of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution proved the requisite intent and active instigation by the appellant.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to discharge the appellant from the charges.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects the viability of the charge.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 108, s. 45
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 107, s. 306
Subjects
Section 306 IPCAbetment of suicideInstigationIntentLoan recoveryCharge dischargeBharatiya Nyaya SanhitaCriminal procedure
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 80 : 2025 INSC 76
Mahendra Awase
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025)
17 January 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer of the
appellant to discharge him from the offences under Section 306,
Penal Code, 1860.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Charges
framed against the appellant u/s.306 – Appellant, if instigated
the deceased to commit suicide:
Held: No – For conviction u/s.306, 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 suicide – Such act of abetment must be proved and
established by the prosecution – Further, 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 –
Suicide note revealed that the appellant was asking the deceased
to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to
one ‘RM’ – Thus, the appellant by performing his duty of realising
outstanding loans at the behest of his employer cannot be said to
have instigated the deceased to commit suicide – Appellant did not
intend 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 – The exchanges with the deceased, though heated, were
not with the intent to leave him with no other option but to commit
suicide – Also, the FIR was also lodged after a delay of two months
and twenty days – There were no grounds to frame charges u/s.306
against the appellant – Discharged – Proceedings quashed, set
aside – Impugned order also set aside. [Paras 16, 19, 21]
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 81
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Threshold to
attract s.306 is higher – Charges not to be framed mechanically,
Courts to be cautious – Police to be sensitised:
Held: s.306 is 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 death 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 – Investigating agencies to be
sensitised so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of
process of a totally untenable prosecution – Trial courts must
also exercise great caution and circumspection and should not
adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges,
even when the investigating agencies have shown utter disregard
for the ingredients of s.306 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 –
ss.108, 45. [Para 20]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Ingredient of s.306 – When
attracted – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Another (1995) Supp.
3 SCC 438; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another
[2010] 10 SCR 351 : (2010) 8 SCC 628; Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu v. State of West Bengal [2009] 15 SCR 836 : (2010) 1
SCC 707; M. Mohan v. State [2011] 3 SCR 437 : (2011) 3 SCC
626; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001] Supp. 4 SCR
247 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Section 306, Penal Code, 1860; Abetment of suicide; Instigation;
Active role; Intention; Aid; Instigate; Abet; No other option except
82 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to commit suicide; Loan; Realising outstanding loans; Ingredient
of Section 306; Charge under Section 306, Penal Code, 1860;
Discharged.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
221 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2023 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in CRR No. 1142 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Ms. Anjale Kumari, Vishal Thakre,
Gopal Singh, Sanjeev Malhotra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhimanyu Singh, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Deepak Raj,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated
25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. By the said judgment, the High Court
declined the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the
offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(‘IPC’ for short) and maintained the charges as framed by the Trial
Court on 28.02.2023.
Brief Facts:
3. On 31.12.2022 a First Information Report was registered at PS
Maingaon on the information of Dharmendra. The informant stated
that his brother Bhagwan Singh was residing near his house along
with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on 11.10.2022 Ranjeet had left
home around 10 AM on his Motorcycle to go to the farm; that when
he did not return home till around 2 PM, he called him, but he got
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 83
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
no response; that his nephews - Shivam Chauhan and Kuldeep
Chauhan started searching for Ranjeet and while searching they
went towards Rangaon. There they found a Motorcycle parked on
the side of the road and when they searched nearby, around 6 PM
in the evening, they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose from
a tree on the bank of Borgaon drain about 100 mtrs. away from the
Motorcycle. The informant further stated that he informed Bhagwan
Singh - father of Ranjeet Singh.
4. That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicide-
note and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about
the deceased being harassed by the appellant - Mahendra Awase.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be
filed on 21.01.2023. The chargesheet mentioned that the appellant
had committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
5. The suicide note reads as under:-
“I Ranjeet Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Chauhan “illegible”
taking my life on my own because life will help me in taking
my problems for which I have to take this step.
I did loan for one Ritesh Malakar in which as witness my
cheques were attached for reason of which Awase, person
who give and take loan is harassing much for this reason
I have to take this step.
Sd/-
Ranjeet Singh
10.10.2022”
[Emphasis supplied]
Apart from the suicide note, it further transpires that statements
of witnesses were recorded to the effect that the deceased was
staying disturbed for the past few months and when asked he
had mentioned to them that Mahendra Awase, the appellant was
harassing him with respect to repayment of a loan which one
Ritesh Malakar had taken from Shree Saakh Cooperative Society
Limited, Khargone.
6. It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed certain
audio recordings of the conversation between the deceased and
the appellant. Transcripts of the conversation were also produced.
84 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7. The transcripts are extracted hereinbelow, as is available from the
Panchnama:-
“Speaker 1: Deceased Shumbam @ Ranjit son of Bhagwan
Singh Chauhan, caste Rajput, aged 26 years, resident
of Temla.
Speaker 2: Mahender Awasey, resident of Janki Nagar,
Khargone.
The data of mobile obtained from the Cyber Forensic
Unit, Khargone is perused and protected in aforesaid Pen
Drive (DGNET 24 GB, F22) in a Lab Case 80-22>2022-
12-05. 16-22-36>Lab Case 80-22 Exbt. A> files>recorded
Audio in the file being AUD-20221010-WA0007 which is
prepared on 10.10.2022 at 07:26 AM being of 151 KB
before the aforementioned Panchas and transcripted
thereof as under:
Speaker-1 Sir in the evening, in the evening, let me
go at least.
Speaker-2 Let’s go. (*********) abusive language. Now
let me know whether we are to go in the
evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening.
Bhaiya since when you are to go. When I
made a phone call only then you realized
that we are to go in the evening.
Speaker-1 No, he has met me two times while on the
way. Now, I may go to his home and only
there I may convince him. What else can I
do I also told him that I have nothing more.
Dear I have only 30-35 thousand rupees.
You may give him and get freed.
Speaker-2 What are you narrating me. From where
you may give money, (*******) abusive
language.
Speaker-1 Yes, Sir.
Speaker-2 Tell him I have no concern with it.
Speaker-1 You have got it and now you may return.
That is all.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 85
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Speaker-2 Listen, if you are not giving today then you
may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in
the office at 11:00 AM. If you cannot, I am
not in your favour. If you don’t want to talk
then I will tell my authority.
Speaker-1 No, No. Sir it is our duty.
Speaker-2 You will pay money tomorrow because you
had committed it.
Speaker-1 Yes, Sir.
Speaker-2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump. You
can run up to when you can.
[Emphasis supplied]
Specimen Transcript
Speaker-2-Name of suspect/accused Mahender son of
Ghanshyam Awasey, aged 27 years, resident of Janki
Nagar, Khargone.
Speaker-2 Let’s go. (****) abusive language. Now
let me know whether we are to go in the
evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening.
Bhaiya since when you are to go. When I
made a phone call only then you realized
that we are to go in the evening.
Speaker-2 What are you narrating me? From where you
may give money, (***) abusive language.
Speaker-2 Tell him I have no concern with it.
Speaker-2 Listen, if you are not giving today then you
may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in
the office at 11:00 A.M. If you cannot, I am
not in your favour. If you don’t want to talk
then I will tell my authority.
Speaker-2 You will pay money tomorrow because you
had committed it.
Speaker-2 Otherwise, I will come to the Pump. You
can run up to when you can.
86 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Speaker-2 Thereafter, I will come home. The
neighbourers will hear the story. I will put
banners at your house. That’s it.
Speaker-2 You have signed the file indicating that this
person has obtained the loan and now is
not traceable. You may come and meet me
and see that some people have written. If
I may get it written which will not be right.
The modesty of your parents will also hurt.
Speaker-2 Then, you may make payment of money.
(****) abusive language. You may return
my money. That’s all. You go and arrange.
[Emphasis supplied]
8. The appellant prayed for discharge from the proceedings. However,
based on the material available, on 28.02.2023, the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Khargone framed the following charges.
“On 11.10.2022 between about 10:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs and
before that, you mentally tortured the deceased Ranjit
Chauhan at Rangaon Road, on the banks of Borgaon
drain, Temla, under District Khargone, Police Station
Maingaon, and forced him to commit suicide due to which
he committed suicide by hanging himself. Your said act is
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.”
9. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the appellant approached
the High Court by filing a revision but the same has been dismissed
by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
10. We have heard Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellant and Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the records of the case.
11. Section 306 of the IPC reads 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.”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 87
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“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.”
As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the
ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the
commission of a suicide. 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.
13. 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:-
“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. …”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2010)
8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring 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 was further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must
for attracting Section 306.
88 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1
SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
“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]
16. 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 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.
17. 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 89
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
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 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]
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
90 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 death 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,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 91
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 306 IPC"Sign in to search