REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503   OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6811 of 2009)

S.S. Chheena .. Appellant  

Versus

Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High  

Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  

Revision No.1800 of 2008 dated 17.2.2009.

3. The  appellant  S.S.  Chheena  was  a  Security  Officer  at  

Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.  This job was accepted  

by  him  after  his  retirement  from  the  Indian  Police  Service

(IPS).  He is seriously aggrieved by the order of the Additional  

Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which he had framed a charge  

against the appellant under section 306 of the Indian Penal  

Code (for short, IPC).

4. Brief  facts  necessary  to  dispose  of  this  appeal  are  as  

under:-

On 13.10.2003, a dispute arose between the son of the  

complainant, namely, Saurav Mahajan, deceased who was a  

final  year  student  of  the  Law  Department  and  Harminder  

Singh, a fellow student of the same class.  The dispute was  

with regard to the theft of a mobile phone which came to the  

notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department on  

13.10.2003,  pursuant  to  which M.D.  Singh  asked  both the  

students,  i.e.,  Saurav  Mahajan,  deceased  and  Harminder  

Singh alias Montu to submit their versions of the incident in  

writing.

5. The  deceased  and Harminder  Singh  gave  their  written  

versions of the incident and thereafter M.D. Singh forwarded  

their  versions  to  the  University  authorities  for  taking  

necessary action.  Consequently, the enquiry was conducted  

2

on 13.10.2003 by the Security Officer of the University – the  

appellant  herein.  During  the  course  of  the  enquiry,  on  

17.10.2003, the son of the complainant committed suicide by  

jumping in front of a train.  Subsequently, during the search,  

a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased  

dated  16.10.2003.   The  suicide  note  is  important  for  

adjudicating and deciding this appeal.  The said suicide note  

is reproduced as under:-

“SUICIDE NOTE

I am Saurav Mahajan a final year student of  Department of Law of GNDU.   Montu had levelled a  false  allegation  upon  me.   I  am  very  annoyed  because a false  allegation has been levelled upon  me.   I  have  a  faith  that  this  allegation  is  false,  accused Montu and his accomplices will be arrested  and I will be declared as innocent.  The reason of  my annoyance is that I am falsely involved as I did  not commit any theft.  A dying person will not speak  falsely.  I have not committed this theft.

According to me, the theft has been committed  by  Harminder  Singh  in  connivance  with  his  accomplices. Harminder Singh says that on the day  when the Mobile was stolen, he was taking the test.  I made request to Mr. Chhina to see as to whether  he was engaged in the test or not?  Or he had not  completed the whole test,  came out a little  before  the fixed time, and committed theft.  Examination  sheet of the said day of Harminder Singh be seen.  Harminder  Singh had admitted  two things  in  the  presence  of  M.D.  Singh,  HOD  of  the  Law  Department, i.e.  (1) he had played a joke with me  

3

(2)  Harminder  Singh  admitted  that  he  had  demanded money from me.

Chhina Sahib, M.D. Singh, while dying, I will  not speak untrue. I have not committed any theft.  Real  thief  is  Montu.   He  has  falsely  involved  my  name.  Harminder Singh cannot prove this at any  cost  because  he  is  totally  wrong.   On  the  other  hand,  he  has  admitted  that  he  had  sold  this  Reliance set  to his friends and has falsely leveled  this allegation against me.

I  request  my  uncle/aunt,  mother/father  to  forgive  me  that  I  tried  my  best  to  fulfill  their  expected wishes but could not do the same because  Harminder Singh has leveled false allegation against  me.   I  want  to  say  this  thing  again  that  I  am  innocent and request  my mother/father  that  they  may not make any complaint regarding my suicide.  I  will  also  say  to  Chhina  Sahib  even if  they  give  justice  and  leave  me  but  the  people  will  have  a  suspicion  about  me.   I  am  taking  this  step  on  account  of  my  insult.   Harminder  Singh  and  his  accomplices are responsible for my suicide or MD  Singh who did not take into account my faith and  without consulting me, has forwarded this case.

Dated: 16.10.2003        Sd/- Saurav Mahajan

I have not committed any theft and I am not  involved  with  Montu  and  his  accomplices  are  responsible of my this step.  Till today, I have not  spoken  badly  to  any  one  but,  however,  if  any  mistake had been done by me to anybody, please  forgive me.

Sd/- Saurav Mahajan”

4

6. In the suicide note it is stated that he (Saurav Mahajan)  

did  not  commit  the  theft  and  he  had  committed  suicide  

because he was falsely implicated in the theft case of a mobile  

phone.   He  further  mentioned  in  the  suicide  note  that  

Harminder  Singh  and  his  accomplices  were  responsible  for  

this act.  On the basis of the suicide note a FIR No.81 dated  

17.10.2003 under section 306 of the IPC was registered  at the  

Police Station, GRPS, Amritsar.  In the said FIR, the suicide  

note of the deceased has been reproduced and on the basis of  

the same, Harminder Singh was implicated under section 306  

IPC along with M.D. Singh.  It is pertinent to mention that in  

the  said  FIR,  the  appellant,  namely,  S.S.  Chheena,  the  

Security Officer was not even named as an accused.   

7. The  complainant  had  approached  the  Punjab  State  

Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, but, the Commission  

had also refused to interfere in the investigation conducted in  

FIR No.81 dated 17.10.2003.   

8. A  report  under  section  173  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure  was  submitted  only  against  Harminder  Singh.  

5

Pursuant  to  the  presentation  of  the  Challan,  charges  were  

framed against Harminder Singh @ Montu.   

9. The  complainant,  being  father  of  the  deceased  filed  a  

private  complaint  in  the  court  of  learned  Additional  Chief  

Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, in which it was alleged that the  

appellant S.S. Chheena and M.D. Singh were responsible for  

abetting the suicide of his son and sought for their trial under  

section 306 IPC.   

10. During the course of the trial, an application was moved  

by the Public Prosecutor for summoning of the appellant and  

M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Department of Law of Guru  

Nanak  Dev  University,  Amritsar  under  section  319  Cr.P.C.  

The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, on  

the basis of the said complaint, summoned the appellant as  

well as M.D. Singh to face trial under section 306 IPC.  The  

trial court dismissed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C.  

being not pressed as the appellant and his co-accused stood  

summoned in the complaint case.   The trial court clubbed the  

complaint case with the State case and ordered for framing of  

the charge under section 306 IPC.  Accordingly, a charge-sheet  

6

was filed against the appellant along with Harminder Singh @  

Montu.

11. The  appellant,  aggrieved  by  the  framing  of  the  charge  

moved  the  High  Court  in  the  Revision  Petition  which  was  

dismissed on 17.2.2009.  Against that order, the appellant has  

approached this court.

12. The High Court observed that the material  against the  

appellant  was  not  just  the  suicide  note  but  also  includes  

threats,  humiliating phrases etc.  addressed to the  deceased  

and his father over a period of few days.   

13. According  to  the  appellant,  it  may  be  significant  to  

mention that if the threat or the humiliating phrases etc. by  

the appellant had any impact on the deceased’s mind or had  

led  to  the  abetment  to  commit  suicide  then  all  these  facts  

ought  to  have  been mentioned in  the  suicide  note.   In the  

suicide  note  nothing  had  been  mentioned  against  the  

appellant.   According  to  the  appellant  in  absence  of  any  

material against him, no charge could be framed against him  

under section 306 of IPC.

7

14. The appellant submitted that the main question which  

arises for adjudication is whether it would be just and fair to  

compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of a criminal trial in  

absence of any credible material against him?  According to  

the  appellant,  a  careful  reading  of  the  suicide  note  clearly  

leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  appellant  was  not  even  

remotely connected with the offence of  abetment.  When the  

appellant  was  in  no  manner  connected  with  this  case  and  

there was no credible material to connect the appellant with  

the  crime,  in  this  view  of  the  matter,  according  to  the  

appellant,  it  would  be  a  futile  exercise  to  compel  him  to  

undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial.  

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on  

the  judgment  of  this  court  in  Gangula  Mohan  Reddy v.  

State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 (in which one of  

us, Bhandari, J., was the author of the said judgment).  The  

ratio of the said judgment is fully applicable to this case and  

we deem it proper to rely and reproduce some parts of the  

said judgment.

8

16. In order to properly comprehend the scope and ambit of  

Section 306 IPC, it is important to carefully examine the basic  

ingredients  of  Section  306  IPC.    The    said    section   is  

reproduced 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.”

 17. The  word  “suicide”  in  itself  is  nowhere  defined  in  the  

Penal Code,  however its meaning and import is well  known  

and  requires  no  explanation.  “Sui”  means  “self”  and  “cide”  

means “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a  

person  committing  suicide  must  commit  it  by  himself,  

irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his  

object of killing himself.

18. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or  

Indian criminal  law,  though at  one  time it  was a  felony  in  

England.  In  England,  the  former  law  was  of  the  nature  of  

being  a  deterrent  to  people  as  it  provided  penalties  of  two  

types:

9

• Degradation of corpse of the deceased by burying  it on the highway with a stake through its chest.

• Forfeiture  of  property  of  the  deceased  by  the  State.

19. This  penalty  was  later  distilled  down  to  merely  not  

providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be  

proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no  

punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act,  

1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a  

crime for a person to commit suicide has been abrogated.

20. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence,  

considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of  

law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.

21. “Abetment” has been defined under Section 107 of the  

Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which  

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

10

Thirdly.—Intentionally  aids,  by  any  act  or  illegal  omission, the doing of that thing.”

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section  

107 reads as under:

“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.”

22. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance  

on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v.  State of  

M.P.  1995  Supp  (3)  SCC  731.   In  Mahendra  Singh, the  

allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)

“1. … My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in- law (husband’s  elder  brother’s  wife)  harassed me.  They  beat  me  and  abused  me.  My  husband  Mahendra wants to marry a second time.  He has  illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of  these reasons and being harassed I want to die by  burning.”

23. The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a  

definite  conclusion  that  by  no  stretch  the  ingredients  of  

abetment  are  attracted  on  the  statement  of  the  deceased.  

According  to  the  appellant,  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  

under  Section  306  IPC  merely  on  the  basis  of  the  

11

aforementioned  allegation  of  harassment  of  the  deceased  is  

unsustainable in law.

24. The  learned  counsel  also  placed  reliance  on  another  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  Ramesh  Kumar v. State  of  

Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618.  In this case, a three-Judge  

Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a  

similar nature.  In a dispute between the husband and wife,  

the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever  

you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the  

appellant  Ramesh  Kumar  committed  suicide.  The  Court  in  

para  20  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.”

12

25. In this case, the 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 may necessarily be drawn.

26. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC  

73,  this  Court  has  cautioned  that  the  court  should  be  

extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of  

each  case  and  the  evidence  adduced  in  the  trial  for  the  

purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim  

had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.  

If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was  

hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences  

in  domestic  life  quite  common  to  the  society  to  which  the  

victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences  

were  not  expected  to  induce  a  similarly  circumstanced  

individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience  

of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that  

the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should  

be found guilty.

13

27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of  

NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with  

this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary  

meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court  

opined  that  there  should  be  intention  to  provoke,  incite  or  

encourage  the  doing of  an act  by  the  latter.  Each person’s  

suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person  

has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it  

is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing  

with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of  

its own facts and circumstances.

28. 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  

14

that act must have been intended to push the deceased into  

such a position that he committed suicide.

29. In  the  instant  case,  the  deceased  was  undoubtedly  

hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences  

which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each  

individual  differs  from  the  other.  Different  people  behave  

differently in the same situation.

30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the  

facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the  

conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally  

sustained without any credible evidence or material on record  

against the appellant.  The order of framing a charge under  

section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous  

and unsustainable.  It would be travesty of justice to compel  

the  appellant  to  face  a  criminal  trial  without  any  credible  

material  whatsoever.   Consequently,  the  order  of  framing  

charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed  

and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside.

15

31. As  a  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed  and  the  impugned  

judgment of the High Court is set aside.   

…….……………………..J.   (Dalveer Bhandari)

…….……………………..J.   (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi; August 12, 2010

16