Ashok Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal Nos. 449 and 450 of 2011 Reserved on: 28.02.2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025

1. Cr. Appeal No.449 of 2011

Ashok Kumar.

...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

...Respondent

2. Cr. Appeal No. 450 of 2011

Bimla Devi

...Appellant Versus State of H.P.

...Respondent

Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the appellant Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate in both the appeals.

For the respondent/State Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General in both the appeals

For the complainant Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, in both the appeals.

____________

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeals are directed against the judgment

and order dated 11.11.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the

appellants in both the appeals (accused before the learned

Trial Court), were convicted of the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and Section 306 of Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year each, pay a fine of ₹5000/- each

and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment

for three months each for the commission of an offence

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. They were also

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each,

pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default of payment of

the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

each for the commission of an offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. It was also ordered that the sentence of

imprisonment on both counts shall run concurrently. (The

parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as 3

they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for

convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

appeals are that the police presented a challan against the

accused for the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was

asserted that Shashi Bala (since deceased) was married to

accused Ashok Kumar in January 2007 as per Hindu rites and

customs. One daughter and one son were born to her and

accused Ashok Kumar. The deceased used to visit the house

of the informant Raghunath Singh (PW-3) and inform his

wife about the beating given to her in her matrimonial home

by the accused for bringing insufficient dowry. The parents

of the deceased were residing in Surat. The deceased Shashi

Bala visited the house of the informant in the first week of

May. She resided in his house for ten days. She told Urmila

Devi, wife of the informant and Sikendra Devi (PW-5) about

the harassment and demand for dowry. She also informed

them that the accused had given the articles provided to the

deceased at the time of her marriage to her sister-in-law. 4

Sashi Bala had an injury in her ear and she revealed that she

had sustained this injury due to the beating given by the

accused. The informant was told on 01.06.2010 at about

1:20 p.m. that Sashi Bala had consumed poison. She was

taken to Hospital. A telephone message was given to the

police. SI Ashwani Kumar (PW-10), ASI Onkar Singh

(PW-8), HC Gulshan and LHHG Poonam went to CHC

Nadaun to verify the correctness of the information. An

entry (Ext.PW-10/A) was recorded in the Police Station

Nadaun. The statement of the informant (Ext.PW-3/A) was

recorded and sent to the Police Station where F.I.R.

(Ext.PW-11/A) was registered. An Application (Ext.PW-1/A)

was written to seek the opinion of the Medical Officer

regarding the fitness of Sashi Bala to make a statement. Dr

B.S. Rana (PW-1) found that Sashi Bala was restless and

disoriented. She was unable to make the statement. He

certified this fact on the application itself. He issued MLC

(Ext.PW1/B) and sent her to RPGMC, Tanda for further

management. Sashi Bala died on the way to the Hospital.

The inquest on the dead body was conducted and the inquest

report (Ext.PW-2/B) was issued. An application was filed for 5

the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr Shalini

Kapoor (PW-2) and Dr H. Singh conducted the post-mortem

examination of the deceased. They found a bruise on the

left T&M joint measuring 6 X 5cms. There were no other

injuries. Viscera was preserved and handed over to the police

official accompanying the deceased along with the

belongings of the deceased. The viscera was sent to RFSL,

Mandi at Gutkar and as per the report of RFSL, Mandi

(Ext.PW-2/E), Phosphine gas (Phosphide) was detected in

the viscera. A final opinion Ext.PW-2/F was issued stating

that the deceased had died due to asphyxia caused by

Pulmonary oedema due to phosphine gas poisoning. SI

Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) recorded the statements of

witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the

investigation, the challan was prepared and presented

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District

Hamirpur, H.P, who committed it to the learned Sessions

Judge, Hamipur, H.P for trial.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 6 498-A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC to which the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove

its case. Dr. B.S. Rana (PW-1) conducted the initial medical

examination of the deceased. Dr. Shalini Kapoor (PW-2),

conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased.

Raghunath Singh (PW-3) is the informant. Virender Singh

(PW-4) is the uncle of the deceased. Sikendra Devi (PW-5) is

the aunt of the deceased to whom the deceased narrated the

incident of beating and harassment. Hardev Singh (PW-6) is

the father of the deceased, who deposed about the demand

for dowry and payment of ₹1,00,000/- on two different

occasions. Constable Rajiv Kumar (PW-7) carried the

viscera of the deceased to RFSL, Mandi. ASI Onkar Singh

(PW-8) filed an application to seek the opinion of the

Medical Officer regarding the fitness of the deceased to

make the statement. Rajinder Sharma (PW-9) proved the

statement of account of the parents of the deceased. SI

Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) conducted the investigation of the 7

case. Sanjay Kumar (PW-11) was working as MHC, who signed

the F.I.R. and proved the entry in the daily diary.

5. The accused in their statements recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that Ashok Kumar was married

to the deceased and two children were born to them. They

admitted that the deceased had consumed the poison and this

fact was told to the relatives of the deceased. The accused

stated that the witnesses were close relatives of deceased

Shashi Bala and they made false statements against them.

Deceased Shashi Bala was brought up and educated outside the

State, hence she did not intend to marry the accused Ashok

Kumar who was residing in a village but she was forced to do

so. She remained upset because of this. No relative of Shashi

Bala used to visit her and the accused used to tell Sashi Bala to

visit her parents. Initially, it was stated that the accused

wanted to lead the defence, however, subsequently, a

statement was made on their behalf that they did not want to

lead any defence evidence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the marriage of

deceased Shashi Bala with Ashok Kumar was not disputed. It 8

was also not disputed that Shashi Bala had died after

consuming poison. She complained to the informant, his

wife and her aunt about her harassment in her matrimonial

home. Her father had paid ₹1,00,000/- on two different

occasions. The circumstances established that the accused

had treated Shashi Bala with cruelty and she was left with no

option but to commit suicide. Hence, the accused were

convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order

passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have filed two

separate appeals asserting that the learned Trial Court erred

in convicting and sentencing the accused. The prosecution

witnesses contradicted each other on material particulars.

The witnesses were related to the deceased and they were

highly interested. Learned Trial Court erred in relying upon

their testimonies. Therefore, it was prayed that the present

appeals be allowed and the judgment and order passed by

the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. I have heard Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for

the appellants in both the appeals, Mr Jitender K. Sharma, 9

learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondent/State in both the appeals and Mr Sanjay Jaswal,

learned counsel for the complainant in both the appeals.

9. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the

appellants/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court

erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. The

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contradicted each

other on martial aspects. There were no allegations of

payment of ₹1,00,000/- by the father of the deceased to the

accused -Ashok Kumar in the FIR and this fact was

introduced during the trial by the prosecution. This fact is an

improvement, which cannot be relied upon. There is no

evidence of any instigation on the part of the accused. The

prosecution witnesses admitted that the deceased used to be

happy at the time of leaving the informant's home, which

falsified the prosecution's version regarding the beating and

harassment in her matrimonial home. Hence, she prayed

that the present appeals be allowed and the judgment and

order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. She 10

relied upon the following judgments in support of her

submission:-

 Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2010 Cr.L.J.2011.

 Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 367.

 Sohan Raj Sharma vs State of Haryana AIR 2008 SC2108

 Bhagwan Das vs Kartar Singh (2008)1 SCC (Cri) 664

 Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana 2004 (20 RCR) Cri 140

 Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattishgarh, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088

 Shri Ram vs. The State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175

 Rajbabu vs. State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 3112

 Yadavrao vs. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1205

 Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473-(2010)7 SCC 667

 Shivanand Mallappa Koti vs. State of Karnatka (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 167

 Girdhar Shankar Tawde vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 SCC (Cri) 971 11

 Smt. Raj Rani vs State (Delhi Administration), 2000(4) Crimes 104

 Satish Kumar Batra vs. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 2180

 Mankamma vs State of Kerala (2009) 10 SCC 164

 Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs. Inspector of Police 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387

 Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2024 SCC Online SC1701

10. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent/State submitted that the

prosecution witnesses consistently stated about the

harassment of the deceased by the accused. The accused had

demanded dowry from the deceased and when she was

unable to provide it, they harassed her continuously leaving

her with no other option but to commit suicide. Hence, he

prayed that the present appeals be dismissed.

11. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel for the

complainant adopted the submissions advanced by the

learned Additional Advocate General for the 12

respondent/State. He relied upon the following judgments in

support of his submission: -

 Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 2004(1) BLJR 328

 Ude Singh& others vs. State of Haryana 2019 (9) S.C.R. 703

 Gumasingh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai vs. The State of Gujrat, AIR 2021 SC 4174

12. I have given considerable thought to the

submissions made at the bar and have gone through the

records carefully.

13. The informant Raghunath Singh (PW-3) stated

in his statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. that

Sashi Bala used to complain that her husband Ashok Kumar

and her mother-in-law Bimla Devi used to beat her for

bringing insufficient dowry. She remained in the

informant's house in the first week of May and told her

aunts that her husband and her mother-in-law were

harassing her on trivial matters and beating her. They were

demanding more dowry. She had an injury in the ear and she

said that this injury was caused by the beating given by the

accused to her.

13

14. It is apparent from this statement that it

contains general allegations. No particulars of the date or

time were given regarding the beating or harassment. A

vague and general statement was made that the accused

were harassing the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.

The details of the dowry demanded by the accused were not

provided.

15. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)

286: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that

particulars of the offences committed by every accused and

the role played by the accused in committing the offence are

given in the complaint made to the police. It was observed: -

"9. To lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing that offence.

10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more 14

precisely, but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants." (Emphasis supplied)

16. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P.,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of

false implication by way of general omnibus allegations, if

left unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of

law. It was observed:

"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result 15

in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife, and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, such as allegations of harassment by the husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof for lodging a complaint is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC." (Emphasis supplied)

17. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 759:2024 INSC 369 that asking a person 16

to face criminal allegations without any specific instance of

criminal misconduct amounts to an abuse of the process of

the Court. It was observed:

"18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR, no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case.

25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute." (Emphasis supplied)

18. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes,

the parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain

out of a molehill, and every matrimonial conduct amounting

to nuisance does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: - 17

"32. Many times, the parents, including the close relatives of the wife, make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action, either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about the complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes to mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance of each other's fault, to a certain bearable extent, has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles and trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper- sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes, the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children? Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by 18

the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents, relatives or friends. In all cases where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty"

19. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar

Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR

252 that the phenomena of false implication by general

omnibus allegation in the case of matrimonial dispute are

not unknown to the Court. When the allegations are general

and omnibus, the prosecution should not be continued. It

was observed: -

"14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature;

19 even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.

15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-

wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law.

xxxx

17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution."

20

20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

KailashbenMahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2024

SCC OnLine SC 2621 that general and vague allegations of

cruelty made against the husband and his relatives are not

sufficient to constitute cruelty. It was observed: -

"10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegations is noticed by this Court in many decisions. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, this court observed that:

"16... the respondent alleged commission of offences under S tions 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore, would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.... The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegations against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of a criminal offence in the issue..."

21 10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, this court observed that:

"7. ...what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to the date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint, and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometimes given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in Para 10 of the complaint, where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments, which were given to the accused, and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent."

xxxx

12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the complainant's brother accompanied her to the matrimonial house when appellants no. 1 and 3 are alleged to have refused to take her back, but on persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay. There is also a vague allegation that, when the complainant gave birth to a second child, appellants 1 and 2 came and "quarrelled" with the complainant, her brother, and her parents and threatened them. This Court had occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes. In Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, this Court observed that:

22

"14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.

15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law."

xxxx

13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court noticed the injustice that may be caused when parties are forced to go through tribulations of a trial based on general and omnibus allegations. The relevant portion of the observation is as under:

"11. ...in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly, and there is greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage now 23

more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

18. ... upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes... However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them, being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

21. ...it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."

24 21. This position was reiterated in Dara Lakshmi

Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682,

wherein it was observed:

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No. 1 harassed her and that appellant Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

22. This position was reiterated in Geddam Jhansi v.

State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 wherein it was

observed:

"31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when the specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. The institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply 25

ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, the preservation of family relationships has always been emphasised. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious and should allow invocation of the criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by the public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be 26

hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turn, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants.

27 35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who is accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated on the victim and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence would amount to abuse of the process of law."

23. Even statements on oath do not contain the

necessary particulars. Raghunath Singh (PW-3) stated that

the deceased used to visit his house as and when she found

time. She used to tell him that the accused were harassing

and beating her for bringing lesser dowry. She visited his

house in May 2010 and told Urmila Devi and Sikendra Devi

(PW-5) that the accused were beating and harassing her for

dowry. She said that her husband had beaten her, due to

which she sustained an ear injury.

28

24. Similarly, Virender Singh (PW-4) stated that the

accused started maltreating the deceased for bringing less

dowry. They used to beat her. Shashi Bala used to visit his

house. He made her understand that he would counsel her

in-laws and she should bear with it. He also told her that the

demand for dowry would be fulfilled by her father on his

return from Gujrat. Shashi Bala complained about the ill

behaviour of the accused to her aunts. She also told him that

the accused had given a beating to her for not bringing

sufficient dowry. He (Virender Singh), Raghu Nath and

Kushal Singh had gone to the house of the accused in March

2010 and advised them not to harass and beat the deceased.

They also told the accused that the demand for cash and

dowry would be fulfilled after the return of Shashi Bala's

father.

25. Sikendera Devi (PW-5) stated that Shashi Bala

told her and Urmila Devi that she was being harassed by the

accused for bringing less dowry. The accused used to beat

her. She told Sashi Bala that she would talk to the accused

not to harass or beat her. Hardev Singh, father of Shashi 29

Bala, fulfilled the demand of the accused. Her husband

Raghunath Singh (PW-3) and Kushal went to the house of

the accused in March 2010 to counsel. They advised the

accused not to harass Shashi Bala. The parents of the

deceased visited the village in May 2010. They talked to the

accused and advised them to keep Shashi Bala properly. The

parents of Sashi Bala called her (Shashi Bala) to her paternal

home and gave ₹1,00,000/- in cash to Ashok Kumar.

₹1,00,000/- was given in the year 2008 to meet their

demand for dowry. The accused continued to harass the

deceased.

26. Hardev Singh (PW-6), father of the deceased,

stated that Sashi Bala started telling him on the telephone

after three-four months of her marriage that the accused

were harassing and beating her for bringing less dowry. He

used to console her and tell her that he would advise the

accused persons properly upon his arrival in the village. He

went to the village in the year 2008. Sashi Bala told him that

she was being harassed and beaten up. He went to the house

of the accused and advised them to keep Shashi Bala 30

properly. He called accused Ashok Kumar and Shashi Bala to

his house and paid ₹1,00,000/- in cash to Ashok Kumar.

The accused, Ashok Kumar, kept Shashi Bala properly for

five months. Shashi Bala again informed him that the

accused had started harassing and beating her. The accused

used to turn her out of the matrimonial home during the

night. She used to complain to her uncles and aunts

regarding the harassment. He counselled and told her that

he would settle the matter upon his arrival. Varinder Singh

(PW-4), Raghunath Singh (PW3) and Kushal went to the

house of the accused in March 2010. They advised the

accused to improve their behaviour. Deceased Shashi Bala

telephoned him in April 2010 and told him about her

harassment. He and his wife went to the village and paid

cash of ₹1,00,000/- to accused Ashok Kumar. Shashi Bala

continued to complain against the accused about the

harassment.

27. It is apparent from these statements that they do

not contain any particulars of date, time, place and nature of

demands made by the accused. All the witnesses stated that 31

the accused used to harass and beat Shashi Bala for bringing

less dowry. The statement made by the victim's father

regarding the payment of ₹ 2,00,000 on two different

occasions was never asserted by the informant in his

statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The victim's

father categorically stated that he had asked Varinder Singh

(PW-4), Raghunath Singh (PW-3) and Kushal to visit the

house of the accused and counsel them. Raghunath Singh

(PW-3), on the other hand, is silent about this fact. He is the

uncle of the deceased and would have been aware of the

payment of ₹2,00,000/-to the accused.However, he omitted

to mention this fact in his earlier statement made to the

police or before the Court. The failure to mention this fact

by Raghunath Singh will make the prosecution case

regarding the payment of ₹1,00,000/- on two different

occasions highly suspect.

28. The contemporaneous conduct of the witnesses

does not support their allegations. The informant,

Raghunath Singh (PW-3), stated in his cross-examination

that he had not mentioned the pain in the ear of Shashi Bala 32

because he was confused. He stated that he had not shown

her to any doctor. He volunteered to say that he wanted to

avoid litigation on this account. This is hardly any

explanation. Taking an injured person to the doctor does not

initiate any litigation, rather it ensures the treatment of the

injured. It is difficult to believe that Shashi Bala and her

relatives would not have taken any steps to get her medical

help for the injury in the ear when any such injury could

have resulted in hearing loss. Hence, failure to provide

medical help to the deceased will make it doubtful that the

accused had caused injuries to the deceased.

29. Varinder Singh (PW-4) stated in his cross-

examination that Shashi Bala visited his house about six or

seven times. She also used to stay with the informant.

Accused Ashok Kumar used to acocmpany Shashi Bala in her

parental home and take her back in his vehicle to her

matrimonial home. Shashi Bala visited his house in the first

week of May 2010 and stayed in his house for 1-2 days. He

volunteered to say that her father was also in the village. 33

Shashi Bala stayed with her father and went to her

matrimonial home with accused Ashok Kumar.

30. The statement of this witness shows that Shashi

Bala's father was present in the village in May 2010 when

she is stated to have suffered an injury in her ear. Her father

has not stated anything about the injury. This fact, coupled

with the fact that the victim was not taken to the Medical

Officer, will make it difficult to rely upon the prosecution

version regarding the injury sustained by Sashi Bala.

31. Varinder Singh (PW-4) stated in his cross-

examination that accused Ashok Kumar used to accompany

Sashi Bala to her parental home and take her to her

matrimonial home. Accused Ashok Kumar and Shashi Bala

appeared to be happy. This statement makes the

prosecution's version regarding the harassment highly

doubtful. If her husband used to accompany her to her

matrimonial home and her parental home, it makes the

prosecution case suspect. Her husband would not have

accompanied her to her parental home and her matrimonial 34

home if he was unhappy with Shashi Bala for bringing

insufficient dowry.

32. Sikendera Devi (PW-5) stated in her cross-

examination that accused Ashok Kumar used to drop her in

his vehicle, but sometime she used to travel on a bus. The

accused would invariably take her in his vehicle to her

matrimonial home. She never took a stand that she would

not return to her matrimonial home. Ashok Kumar and

Shashi Bala appeared happy whenever they visited Shashi

Bala's parental home.

33. The cross-examination of this witness shows

that Shashi Bala was not unhappy in her matrimonial home

because she never refused to go to her matrimonial home.

She appeared happy in her matrimonial home. Her conduct,

and the conduct of the accused to accompany her to her

parental home, will make it difficult to rely upon the version

of the prosecution witnesses regarding the harassment.

34. Hardev Singh (PW-6) stated in his cross-

examination that Ashok Kumar used to bring her to her

parental home in his vehicle. He also used to take her back 35

in his vehicle invariably. They did not quarrel during their

stay in their parental home. They also never quarrelled

during any social event. This shows that Ashok Kumar and

Shashi Bala were happy, and the prosecution's version

regarding harassment is not corroborated by her conduct.

35. Rajinder Sharma (PW-9) proved the statement

of account (Ext.PW-9/A). However, this statement of

account shows only the withdrawal of ₹1,00,000/- on

16.10.2008 and ₹1,50,000/- on 08.04.2010. Mere withdrawal

of the amount is not sufficient to prove the payment of

money to the accused, especially when the earliest version is

silent regarding any such payment.

36. It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Naresh Kumar versus the State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573

that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused

had created such circumstances that the deceased was left

with no other option but to commit suicide. The Court

cannot conclude that a woman was being harassed because

she had committed suicide. It was observed: 36

"17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan [Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144], considering the provisions of Section 306IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107IPC observed as under: (SCC pp. 149-50, paras 14-16) "14. Section 306IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. ...

15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "instigate" is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618:

2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], has defined the word "instigate" as under : (SCC p. 629, para 20) '20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".'

16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC have been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465], it was observed as under : (SCC p. 197, para 25) '25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing 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 the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the 37

offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option, and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.'"

18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State [M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 219], while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under : (SCC p. 317, para 7) "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306IPC are (i) the abetment and

(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such an act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306IPC."

19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306], held that to convict an accused under Section 306IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under: (SCC pp. 321-22, para 16) "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of suicide, particularly in the context 38

of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of an accusation of abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide, and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted the commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused, by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct, creates a situation which leads the deceased to perceive no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in 39

tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

20. This Court inMariano Anto Brunov.State[Mariano Anto Brunov.State, (2023) 15 SCC 560: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387], after referring to the above-referred decisions rendered in the context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under: (SCC para 45) "45. ... 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, a conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable."

40

21. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 417], observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible to determine the culpability.

22. This Court in Kashibai v. State of Karnataka [Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 15 SCC 751: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575], observed that to bring the case within the purview of "abetment" under Section 107IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.

23. Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).

24. For intention in English law, Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, provides the frame in which the mens rea is assessed. It states: 41

"A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,

(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions but

(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances."

Under Section 8(b), therefore, the jury is allowed wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intent or foresight on the basis of all the evidence.

25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.

37. This position was reiterated in Patel Babubhai

Manohardas and others vs State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 322

wherein it was observed:

15. Attempt to commit suicide is an offence in India.Section 309 IPC says that whoever attempts to commit suicideand does any act towards such act shall be punished withsimple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one yearor with a fine or with both. However, once suicide is carried out,the offence is complete. Considering the nature of the offence,obviously, such a person would be beyond 42

the reach of the law.Therefore, the question of penalising him would not arise, butwhoever abets the commission of such suicide would bepenalised under Section 306 IPC. The punishment prescribedunder Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either description fora term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine. What Section 306 IPC says isthat if any person commitssuicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicideshall be punished as above.

16. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 IPC is'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined in Section 107 of IPC.

As perSection 107 IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thingif he instigates any person to do that thing, if he encourages one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doingthat thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegalomission doing of that thing. There are two explanations toSection

107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person, by way ofwilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material factwhich he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily causes orprocures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, issaid to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 clarifiesthat whoever does anything in order to facilitate thecommission of an act, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act.

17. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarificationof Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 IPC says is that wheneverany person is absent but was present when the act or offencefor which he would be punishable in consequence of theabetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committedsuch an act or offence and would be liable to be punished asan abettor.

18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh(2001) 9 SCC 618, thisCourt held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke,incite or encourage to do 'an 43

act'. To satisfy the requirement of'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be usedto that effect or that the words or act should necessarily andspecifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where theaccused by his act or omission or by his continued course ofconduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with noother option except to commit suicide, then 'instigation' may beinferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said tobe 'instigation'

19. Elaborating further, this Court in Chitresh KumarChopra versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)(2009) 16 SCC 605observed that toconstitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has toprovoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by theother by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court summed upthe constituents of 'abetment' as under:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying thedeceased by words, deeds or wilful omission orconduct which may even be a wilful silence untilthe deceased reacted or pushed or forced thedeceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission orconduct to make the deceased move forward morequickly in a forward direction; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke,urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicidewhile acting in the manner noted above.Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessaryconcomitant of instigation.

20. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal(2010) 1 SCC 707is a case wherethis Court held that in a case of allegedabetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirectact(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on theallegation of harassment without there being any positiveaction proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of 44

theaccused which led or compelled the deceased to commitsuicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not besustainable. Similar view has been expressed by this Court incase of Ude Singh versus State of Haryana(2019) 17 SCC 301

21. After considering the provisions of Sections 306and 107 of IPC, this Court in Rajesh versus State of Haryana(2020) 15 SCC 359held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainableon the allegation of harassment without there being anypositive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the partof the accused which led or compelled the person to commitsuicide.

22. Abetment to commit suicide involves a mentalprocess of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a personin the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on thepart of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict aperson under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens reato commit the offence.

23. This Court in Amudha versus State2024 INSC 244held thatthere has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accusedproximate to the date on which the deceased committedsuicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to thetime of suicide but should also be of such a nature that thedeceased was left with no alternative but to take the drasticstep of committing suicide.

24. Again, in the case of KamaruddinDastagir Sanadiversus State of Karnataka(2024) SCC Online SC 3541, this Court observed that discordand differences in domestic life are quite common in society.Commission of suicide largely depends upon the mental stateof the victim. Until and unless some guilty intention on the partof the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible toconvict the accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC. 45

25. Prakash versus State of Maharashtra.2024 INSC 1020is a casewhere this Court after analysing various decisions on the pointsummed up the legal position in the following manner:

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, hasbeen interpreted, time and again, and its principlesare well established. To attract the offence ofabetment to suicide, it is important to establishproof of direct or indirect acts of instigation orincitement of suicide by the accused, which mustbe in close proximity to the commission of suicideby the deceased.

Such instigation or incitementshould reveal a clear mens rea to abet thecommission of suicide and should put the victim insuch a position that he/she would have no otheroption but to commit suicide.

25.1. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred toits earlier decision in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus Stateof M.P.(2002) 5 SCC 371and held that in a given case, even a time gap of 48hours between using of abusive language by the accused andthe commission of suicide would not amount to a proximateact."

38. Similar are the judgments cited on behalf of the

accused and it is not necessary to refer to each judgment

individually.

39. It was submitted that the deceased had

committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, and

presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act

applies to the present case. This submission is not 46

acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Naresh (supra) that the presumption under Section 113 A

of the Indian Evidence Act will only apply when there is

proof of the cruelty. It was observed:-

"29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act requires proof : (1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.

30. Although it is not necessary for us to refer to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which raises a presumption as to dowry death yet, with a view to indicate the fine distinction between the two presumptions, we are referring to Section 113-B. In Section 113-A, the legislature has used the word "may", whereas in Section 113-B, the word used is "shall".

31. In this appeal, we are concerned with Section 113- A of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

32. What is important to note is that the term "the court may presume having regard to all other 47

circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113-A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.

33. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under Section 113-A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it transpires 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 would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty.

34. Section 113-A has been interpreted by this Court in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab [Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173: 1994 SCC (Cri) 235], Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309: 1998 SCC (Cri) 740] and Shanti v. State of Haryana [Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371:

1991 SCC (Cri) 191].

35. This Court has held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption because of the words "may presume". It must take into account all the circumstances of the case, which is an additional safeguard.

48

36. In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306IPC by raising a presumption under Section 113-A."

40. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the

presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act.

41. In Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court found on facts that the victim had

filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she had to take

shelter in the house of the independent person, which

corroborated the prosecution version regarding the cruelty.

In the present case, such facts are missing.

42. In Ude Singh(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

found that the victim had taunted an unmarried girl by

addressing her as "wife", "Chachi" (aunt) and

"Bohoria"(younger brother's wife). They dragged her into

the house, pushed and abused her. She complained about

this harassment to the villagers. The accused continued with

these activities and she committed suicide. In the present

case, no complaint was ever made to the villagers;at least,

none has spoken about any complaint. No complaint was 49

ever made to the police or the Panchayat.Therefore, the facts

in Ude Singh (supra)are distinguishable.

43. In Gumansingh (supra), it was found that the

deceased was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home,

and she committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage.

The accused demanded ₹25000/- to purchase buffalo, which

demand was not fulfilled. She was harassed and compelled

to commit suicide. There was sufficient material on record

to establish the prosecution case, and there was no infirmity

in the statement of witnesses. These facts are missing in the

present case. Hence, no advantage can be derived from the

cited judgment on behalf of the complainant.

44. In the present case, the evidence is insufficient to

establish the charge of cruelty without the specific details.

The statements are vague, and they are not supported by

contemporaneous conduct. Hence, in these circumstances,

the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt.

45. The learned Trial Court did not notice the

absence of payment of ₹1,00,000/- on two occasions in the 50

FIR and the informant's statement on oath. Learned Trial

Court also failed to notice that no medical treatment was

provided to Shashi Bala, and her father had also not stated

anything about the injury. Learned Trial Court considered

the withdrawals of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹1,50,000/- sufficient

to establish that the money was paid to the accused. No such

inference could have been drawn from the withdrawal of the

amount. Thus, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting

and sentencing the accused.

46. In view of the above, the present appeals are

allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned

Trial Court are ordered to be set aside. The fine amount be

refunded after the period of appeal in case no appeal is

preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as

per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

47. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the respondents/accused are

directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/-each

with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 51

the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall be

effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of

Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or

on grant of the leave, the respondents/accused on receipt of

notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

48. A copy of this judgment along with the record of

the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th March,2025 (ravinder)