Can a person be charged under Section 120-B IPC for conspiracy if they were in judicial custody at the time of the alleged offense?

No. The Court held that judicial custody renders physical participation in a conspiracy impossible, and without evidence of prior agreement or communication, mere association or prior misconduct cannot sustain a charge under Section 120-B IPC.

Does a victim’s social media post blaming a third party constitute evidence of abetment under Section 306 IPC against the accused?

No. The Court ruled that for Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove the accused’s intent to instigate suicide. Victim statements implicating others, without any link to the accused, cannot establish abetment.

Is territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 Cr.P.C. relevant when a suicide occurs in a different city from where the accused is charged?

Yes. The Court emphasized that Section 177 Cr.P.C. requires investigation by the jurisdiction where the offense occurred. Charging an accused in Lucknow for a suicide in New Delhi, without nexus, violates procedural law and warrants discharge.

Abetment of suicide charges quashed if accused in jail at

The Allahabad High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against an accused who was already acquitted in a prior rape case, holding that no prima facie case exists for charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide where the accused was in judicial custody at the time of the victim’s self-immolation. The judgment underscores the necessity of concrete, admissible evidence to sustain charges under Section 120-B and Section 306 IPC, particularly when allegations rest on social media statements and circumstantial inferences.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The revisionist, Atul Kumar Singh alias Atul Rai, was accused in two interconnected criminal cases arising from the tragic suicide of a young woman who had previously alleged rape against him. The first case, F.I.R. No. 548 of 2019 under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 IPC, was registered on 01.05.2019 at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, alleging that the victim was raped by the revisionist on 07.03.2018 at his flat in Varanasi. The prosecution claimed the revisionist recorded the act via CCTV, threatened to viralize the video, and subjected the victim to ongoing harassment.

Key Facts

The victim was a former student of U.P. College, Varanasi, who contested the student union election in 2015 and allegedly met the revisionist during the campaign.
F.I.R. No. 548 of 2019 was lodged on 01.05.2019, following political rivalry and public social media activity by the victim.
The revisionist was arrested and remained in judicial custody from 2019 until his acquittal on 06.08.2022.
The victim uploaded a video on Facebook on 15.08.2021, alleging that I.P.S. officer Amitabh Thakur was spreading false narratives to tarnish her image, and that the revisionist had paid him to do so.
On 16.08.2021, the victim committed self-immolation near Gate-D of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, leaving behind a suicide note in Hindi and inflammable materials.
F.I.R. No. 113 of 2021 was registered at Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi, on 16.08.2021 under Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide).
On 27.08.2021, a second F.I.R. No. 309 of 2021 was registered at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under Sections 120-B, 167, 195-A, 218, 306, 504, and 506 IPC, implicating the revisionist in conspiracy and abetment of suicide.
The revisionist’s father filed a complaint on 10.11.2020 requesting further investigation, leading to a report by Circle Officer Amresh Kumar Singh on 11.12.2020 recommending re-investigation.
The victim’s complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dated 10.11.2020, named Amitabh Thakur as the instigator, with no direct allegation against the revisionist.
The revisionist was acquitted in F.I.R. No. 548 of 2019 on 06.08.2022 after trial, during which nine prosecution witnesses and fifteen defense witnesses were examined.

Procedural History

07.03.2018: Alleged rape incident at Varanasi.
01.05.2019: F.I.R. No. 548 of 2019 registered under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC.
10.11.2020: Victim’s complaint to SSP Varanasi naming Amitabh Thakur as instigator.
11.12.2020: Circle Officer recommends further investigation.
16.08.2021: Victim commits self-immolation at Supreme Court, New Delhi.
16.08.2021: F.I.R. No. 113 of 2021 registered at Tilak Marg PS, New Delhi.
27.08.2021: F.I.R. No. 309 of 2021 registered at Hazratganj PS, Lucknow, implicating revisionist in conspiracy and abetment.
21.11.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, rejects discharge application under Sections 120-B, 306 IPC.
04.02.2026: Revision heard by Allahabad High Court.
04.05.2026: Judgment pronounced.

The Parties' Positions

For the Revisionist

Argued that he was in judicial custody during the suicide and could not have instigated or conspired.
Contended that the victim’s social media statements and suicide note implicated Amitabh Thakur, not him.
Highlighted that the charge-sheet was mechanically prepared without investigating exculpatory evidence under Para 107 of Police Regulations.
Relied on Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, and Rana Ayyub v. Director of Enforcement to challenge territorial jurisdiction.
Emphasized that Section 120-B IPC requires proof of agreement and knowledge of unlawful object, which was absent.
Cited M. Arjunan v. State, Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P., and Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. to argue that mere insults or harassment do not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.

For the State

Argued that the victim’s social media posts and the timing of the suicide created a prima facie case of conspiracy and abetment.
Contended that the revisionist’s prior conduct and the co-accused’s actions (Amitabh Thakur) formed a chain of events leading to suicide.
Relied on G. Easwaran v. State, Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, and Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa to assert that victim’s statements on social media are admissible evidence.
Maintained that the trial court rightly rejected discharge as a case was made out.

Relief Sought

The revisionist sought quashing of the order dated 21.11.2025 rejecting his discharge application, and direction to the trial court to reconsider his discharge application afresh, in light of his acquittal in the prior case and absence of any evidence linking him to the suicide.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 120-B IPC and Section 306 IPC can be invoked against an accused who was in judicial custody at the time of suicide, where the only evidence of abetment or conspiracy consists of social media statements by the victim implicating a third party, and no direct or circumstantial evidence ties the accused to the act.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

The revisionist’s counsel argued that Section 120-B IPC requires proof of an agreement to commit an unlawful act, which cannot be inferred from mere association or prior allegations. The prosecution failed to establish any communication, coordination, or intent between the revisionist and the co-accused (Amitabh Thakur). The revisionist was incarcerated from 2019 until his acquittal in August 2022, making physical or instrumental involvement in the suicide on 16.08.2021 impossible. Regarding Section 306 IPC, the counsel emphasized that abetment requires active instigation or intentional encouragement, not passive harassment or prior misconduct. The victim’s own statements on Facebook and her suicide note explicitly blamed Amitabh Thakur, not the revisionist. The charge-sheet was mechanically prepared without investigating exculpatory material, violating Section 177 Cr.P.C. on territorial jurisdiction and Section 227 Cr.P.C. on discharge standards.

For the Respondent/State

The State contended that the victim’s social media posts, though made against Amitabh Thakur, were part of a broader pattern of psychological pressure initiated by the revisionist during the pendency of the rape case. The prosecution argued that the revisionist’s prior conduct created an environment of fear and coercion, and that the co-accused acted as his agent. The State relied on G. Easwaran v. State to assert that victim statements on social media are admissible and can form the basis of a charge. It further argued that the trial court’s rejection of discharge was justified as a prima facie case existed, and that the revisionist’s acquittal in the rape case did not preclude liability for subsequent offenses.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began by noting that the revisionist was in judicial custody at the time of the victim’s suicide on 16.08.2021. This fact alone rendered any direct involvement in the act impossible. The Court then examined the nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution: social media posts by the victim, a suicide note, and an investigation report implicating Amitabh Thakur. The Court observed that none of these documents named the revisionist as an instigator or conspirator.

"The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the revisionist had any knowledge of, or participated in, the alleged conspiracy to instigate suicide. The victim’s own statements, even if accepted at face value, point squarely to Amitabh Thakur as the source of harassment."

The Court further held that Section 120-B IPC cannot be sustained on speculation or guilt by association. The prosecution failed to establish any agreement between the revisionist and the co-accused, nor any communication or coordination. The Court cited V.C. Shukla v. State and State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu to affirm that while conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must point unerringly to the accused’s participation.

Regarding Section 306 IPC, the Court reiterated the settled principle from M. Arjunan v. State and Kanchan Sharma v. State of U.P. that mere insults, threats, or prior misconduct do not constitute abetment unless there is clear evidence of intent to drive the victim to suicide. The Court noted that the victim’s suicide note and Facebook posts were self-incriminating against a third party and contained no reference to the revisionist.

The Court also criticized the mechanical nature of the investigation, noting that the charge-sheet ignored the Circle Officer’s recommendation for re-investigation and failed to examine the territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 Cr.P.C., as the suicide occurred in New Delhi, not Lucknow. The Court concluded that the trial court erred in rejecting discharge without applying the test laid down in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P. - whether the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the offense.

The Verdict

The revisionist succeeded. The Allahabad High Court set aside the order dated 21.11.2025 rejecting the discharge application. The Court directed the trial court to reconsider the revisionist’s discharge application afresh, expeditiously, and in accordance with law, taking into account his acquittal in F.I.R. No. 548 of 2019, his incarceration at the time of suicide, and the absence of any evidence linking him to the alleged conspiracy or abetment. The Court emphasized that no charges under Section 120-B or Section 306 IPC can proceed without concrete, admissible evidence of intent and participation.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Discharge Cannot Be Denied on Speculative Links

Practitioners must challenge discharge rejections where charges rest on social media statements implicating third parties, not the accused.
Absence of communication, coordination, or opportunity (e.g., incarceration) must be raised as decisive grounds for discharge.

Victim’s online posts must be examined for direct attribution to the accused; indirect or third-party allegations cannot substitute for evidence of intent.
Courts must distinguish between harassment and instigation under Section 306 IPC - mere prior misconduct is insufficient.

Territorial Jurisdiction and Investigative Rigor Are Non-Negotiable

Charge-sheets must address Section 177 Cr.P.C. - offenses must be investigated by the jurisdiction where they occurred.
Investigating officers must consider exculpatory evidence under Para 107 of Police Regulations; mechanical filing invites judicial intervention.
Always verify accused’s custody status at the time of alleged offense - incarceration is a powerful ground for discharge.
In conspiracy cases, demand proof of agreement and knowledge - not just association or motive.
Use Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and M. Arjunan to argue that discharge is mandatory where the prosecution’s case is legally unsustainable.

No Prima Facie Evidence of Conspiracy or Abetment if Accused Was Incarcerated During Suicide: Allahabad HC Quashes IPC 120-B & 306 Charges