Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1589 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2027 of 2012)

Praveen Pradhan                              …Appellant

Versus

State of Uttranchal & Anr.                                        …Respondents                      

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. B.S.CHAUHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.     This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at  

Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 420 of 2006, by way of  

which the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

‘Cr.P.C.’),  filed  by  the  appellant  for  the  purpose  of  quashing  the  

criminal  proceedings,  i.e.  chargesheet  No.  208/2005  and  order  of

Page 2

cognizance dated 28.4.2006 passed  by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  

Haridwar, filed upon an investigation conducted on the basis of  FIR  

No.285  of  2005  (Crime  No.258/2005)  pertaining  to  P.S.:  Ranipur,  

Haridwar.  

3.  The  facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  appeal  are  as  

follows :

A. That,  a  First  Information  Report  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

‘FIR’)  was  lodged by one Ambreesh Singh,  who is  the brother  of  

Anurag Singh, the deceased, alleging that the appellant had long been  

attempting  to  compel  the  deceased  to  indulge  in  several  wrongful  

practices at the work place.  The deceased was not comfortable with  

complying  with  such  orders  and  as  a  consequence,  the  appellant  

started making illegal demands and as the same were not fulfilled, he  

began to harass and insult the deceased at the regular intervals.  The  

appellant, in fact, on one occasion,  disgraced the deceased in front of  

the staff of the entire factory, and told him that “had there been any  

other person in his place, he would have died by hanging himself”.  

B. Anurag  Singh  talked  to  several  of  his  family  members  on  

6.10.2005 over the phone. They stated that he came across as highly  

perturbed and, hence, they tried to pacify him. However, owing to the  

2

Page 3

constant  humiliation  and  ill-treatment  meted  out  to  him  by  the  

appellant, Anurag Singh committed suicide on 7.10.2005.  

C. On  the  basis  of  the  said  FIR,  criminal  proceedings  were  

initiated  and  in  the  course  of  the  investigation,  the  Investigating  

Officer found a suicide note which had been written by the deceased  

and upon reading this,  it  seems evident  that  he  held  the  appellant  

responsible for his death, by way of committing suicide.  

D. During the said investigation, the statement of various persons  

including that  of the widow of the deceased,  and also those of his  

other  family  members,  were  recorded  and  they  all  supported  the  

version of events, as was given by the deceased in his suicide note  

which made it amply clear that according to him, the appellant was  

solely responsible for his death.  Upon conclusion of the investigation,  

the police filed charge-sheet  No.208/2005 on 5.11.2005 against  the  

appellant  under  Section  306  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).  

E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.  

420 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.PC. on 13.6.2006 for the purpose of  

quashing  the  said  chargesheet,  and  also  the  other  proceedings  

incidental thereto.  The High Court granted stay of such proceedings,  

3

Page 4

initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet, as an interim measure.  

However, vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2012, the said  

application was then dismissed.  

Hence, the present appeal.  

4. Shri  U.U.  Lalit  and Shri  K.V.  Vishwanathan,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant,  have submitted that the  

facts and circumstances of the present case do not actually make out  

any  offence  against  the  appellant  as  far  as  Section  306  IPC  is  

concerned. They have submitted that, even if the allegations made out  

in the FIR/charge-sheet, are taken on their face value, and accepted in  

entirety, the same do not prima facie, constitute any offence against  

the appellant.  In a case under Section 306/107 IPC, establishment and  

attribution of mens rea,  on the part of the accused which caused him  

to incite the deceased to commit suicide is of great importance.  The  

cruelty shown towards the deceased in such cases, must be of such  

magnitude,  that  it  would  in  all  likelihood,  drive  the  deceased  to  

commit suicide. The utterances of a few harsh words on one occasion,  

for  that  matter  a  suggestion  being  made  with  the  intention  of  

improving  work,  does  not  amount  to  harassment/cruelty  of  such  

4

Page 5

intensity, that it may be termed as abetment to commit suicide. Hence,  

the appeal deserves to be allowed.  

5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent-State, has vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that  

the appellant would persistently and consistently harass the deceased  

to  compel  him to  do various  illegal  things  and that  it  was  not  an  

isolated instance of harassment, or an occasional off hand remark that  

was made by the appellant in relation to the deceased. As the deceased  

had refused to fulfil the illegal demands of the appellant, the appellant  

made his life extremely difficult, by humiliating him constantly which  

eventually drove him to commit suicide. Therefore, the facts of the  

case being as explained above, do not warrant any interference with  

the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.  The appeal is,  

hence, liable to be dismissed.  

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the records.  

7. In the FIR, the complainant, who is the brother of the deceased,  

made several allegations against the appellant, all of which, have also  

been mirrored in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, and it is  

5

Page 6

also evident from the FIR that the deceased had intimated his family  

members regarding the ill-treatment and harassment constantly meted  

out to him, by the appellant. The deceased was very perturbed and the  

same is evident from the suicide note which reads as under:  

“I am dying due to Praveen Pradhan. He has done   

too much atrocities. He is very cunning man. He always  

humiliated-exploited  me  all  the  time.  He  made  me  

demoralised and made my self respect hurt too much.  

He has hurted  Mr. O.P. Agaral (KPGI) and Mr.   

CRK Gaur (Project Consultant). These persons  also had   

to go before time due to him. He  always hurts other’s  

feelings as he is a egoistic and cruel man.  

I  have  been  daily  hurted my self  respect.  He is   

always scolding me. I have to die solely due to him.  

I  have  told  my  feelings  to  Mr.  Pavan  and  Mr.   

Raghu  earlier.  But   his  attitude  do  not  change.  He   

always scolded  and  demoralised  me.  Even  in  front  of   

Amit  (Jaymit)  he  insulted  me.  He  said  Anurag  is  a   

“chutiya” as he is working for him and he doubted my   

dignity. I can’t tolerate any way to my dignity.  

He  always forced  me  to  resign.  This  can  be   

verified from Mr. Minesh Dakwe (who is in Mahindra)   

that he forced me to resign. His attitude can be verified   

from  other officers of factory. He is proving me faulty   

6

Page 7

and  incompetent  after  completing  entire  project  work   

successfully.”

                                                    (Emphasis added)

A plain and simple reading of this suicide note makes it crystal  

clear  that  the  appellant  had not  just  humiliated   and  insulted   the  

deceased on one occasion.   In  fact,  it  is  evident  that  the appellant  

perpetually  humiliated,  exploited  and  de-moralised  the  deceased,  

which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words used are, to the  

effect that the appellant  always hurt the self-respect of the deceased  

and  he  was  always scolding  him.   The  appellant  always  made  

attempts to  force him to resign.  

8. The  statements  recorded  by  the  police  under  Section  161  

Cr.PC., particularly, one made by Smt. Kavita Singh, widow of the  

deceased and also those of various other family members, corroborate  

the version of  events,  as  given in his  suicide note.   Therefore,  the  

question that arises is whether the court would be justified in quashing  

the chargesheet filed against the accused, in the instant case.  

9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr., (1995) Supp  

(3) SCC 438, a similar question arose before this Court wherein one  

Sushila Bai,  a married woman allegedly had two paramours. There  

7

Page 8

was  sexual  jealousy  between  the  two.   Sushila  had  managed  to  

completely bewitch one of them. In one fine morning, while Sushila  

Bai was having her morning tea with both her  paramours, they began  

to quarrel. During the course of such quarrelling, one of them made a  

remark asking the other “to go and die”. The other person to whom  

such  remark  was  made,  went  home  very  dejected  and  thereafter,  

committed suicide.  This Court held as under:  

 “In the first place, it is difficult in the facts   and  circumstances,  to  come to  even  a  prima   facie  view  that  what  was  uttered  by  the   appellant was enough to instigate the deceased   to commit suicide. Those words are casual in   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.   Besides,  the  deceased  had  plenty  of  time  to   weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he   ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that   the  suicide  by  the  deceased  was  the  direct   result of the words uttered by the appellant.”

10. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., AIR 2002  

SC 1998,   a  quarrel  had taken place  between the  accused and the  

deceased during which, the accused asked the deceased “to go and  

die”.  A chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 306  

8

Page 9

r/w Section 107 IPC when the said person actually committed suicide.  

This Court dealt with the issue elaborately, taking into consideration  

the  fact  that  the  accused  had  also  specifically  been  named  in  the  

suicide note left behind by the deceased, and held that merely asking a  

person “to go and die” does not in itself amount to instigation and also  

does  not  reflect  mens  rea,  which  is  a  necessary  concomitant  of  

instigation.   The  deceased  was  anyway  in  great  distress  and  

depression.  The  other  evidence  on  record  showed  him  to  be  a  

frustrated man who was in the habit of drinking.  Thus, considering  

the said circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings against the  

accused,  holding  that  ingredients  of  abetment  were  not  fulfilled  

therein.    

11. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8  

SCC 628, this  Court  re-examined this  question,   in a similar  case,  

involving Sections 306/107 IPC, wherein the deceased left a suicide  

note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death.  The  

deceased  in  this  case,  was  a  driver  in  the  Microwave  Project  

Department.  He had undergone a bypass surgery for his heart,  just  

before the occurrence of such incident and his doctor had advised him  

against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior  

9

Page 10

officer to the deceased. When the deceased failed to comply with the  

orders of the accused, the accused became very angry and threatened  

to suspend the deceased, rebuking him very harshly for not listening  

to him. The accused also asked the deceased how he still found the  

will  to  live,  despite  being  insulted  so.  The  driver  after  all  this,  

committed suicide.  This Court found that such incident was a one  

time occurrence. For the purpose of bringing home any charge, vis-à-

vis Section 306/107 IPC against  the accused,  this Court stated that  

there  must  be  allegations  to  the  effect  that  the  accused  had either  

instigated  the  deceased  in  some  way,  to  commit  suicide  or  had  

engaged with some other persons in a conspiracy to do so, or that the  

accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to cause  

the  said  suicide.   In  the  said  case,  this  court,  after  assessing  the  

material on record, found that the deceased was suffering from mental  

imbalance which caused depression. The accused had never intended  

for the deceased employed under him to commit suicide. This court  

observed  that  if  the  making  of  observations  by  a  superior  officer,  

regarding  the  work  of  his  subordinate,  is  termed  as  abetment  to  

suicide, it would become almost impossible, for superior officers to  

discharge their duties as senior employees.  

1

Page 11

12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of  

Delhi),  AIR 2010 SC 1446, this Court while dealing with the term  

‘instigation’ held:    

“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. 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 to be inferred. A word   uttered  in  a  fit  of  anger  or  emotion  without   intending the consequences to actually follow,   cannot be said to be instigation.

  Thus,  to  constitute  ‘instigation’,  a  person   who instigates another has to provoke, incite,   urge or encourage the doing of an act by the   other by “goading” or ‘urging forward’.  The   dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a   thing  that  stimulates  someone  into  action;   provoke  to  action  or  reaction…..to  keep   irritating  or  annoying  somebody  until  he   reacts.”  

13. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR  

2001 SC 3837, while dealing with a similar situation observed that  

what  constitutes  ‘instigation’  must  necessarily  and  specifically  be  

1

Page 12

suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the  

consequences  must  be  capable  of  being  spelt  out.  More  so,  a  

continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the  

deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.  

14. The  offence  of  abetment  by  instigation  depends  upon  the  

intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done  

by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation,  

conspiracy  or  intentional  aid  as  provided  under  Section  107  IPC.  

However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any  

intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide:  State of Punjab v.  

Iqbal  Singh, AIR 1991  SC 1532;  Surender  v.  State  of  Hayana,  

(2006) 12 SCC 375;  Kishori Lal v.  State of  M.P.,  AIR 2007 SC  

2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC  

923.)

15. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation  

has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case.  No  

straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a  

particular case there has been instigation which force the person to  

commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence  

1

Page 13

in  regard  to  instigation  which  may  have  direct  nexus  to  suicide.  

Therefore,  in  such  a  case,  an  inference  has  to  be  drawn from the  

circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had  

been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt  

totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with  

an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a  

firm  opinion,  rather  a  tentative  view  that  would  evoke  the  

presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.  

16. Thus,  the  case  is  required  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  

aforesaid  settled  legal  propositions.   In  the  instant  case,  alleged  

harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of  

persistent harassment.  It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an  

illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had  

another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation  

of  the  deceased  in  the  instant  case,  who  was  a  qualified  graduate  

engineer and still suffered  persistent harassment and humiliation and  

additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by  

the appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly  

harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time.  He had also  

been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the factory,  

1

Page 14

vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at  

a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of  words to the  

effect, that, “had there been any other person in his place, he would  

have  certainly  committed  suicide”  is  what  makes  the  present  case  

distinct  from  the  aforementioned   cases  considering  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which  

requires  any  interference  by  this  court  as  regards  the  impugned  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court.  The  appeal  is,  therefore,  

dismissed accordingly.

Before parting with the case, we would clarify that none of the  

observations  made  hereinabove  would  have  adverse  effect  on  the  

rights of the appellant in any of the proceedings during trial as such  

observations have been made only and only to decide this case.  

……………………………………J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………….………………………………………J.                (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)

New Delhi, October 4,  2012

1