Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 August, 2025
2025:UHC:6830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2023
02nd August, 2025
Manisha ..........Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.S. Mehtra proxy counsel for Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G. A. for the
State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, District Pithoragarh, in Sessions
Trial No. 40 of 2021 (Case Crime No. 148 of 2021),
whereby the appellant/accused Manisha was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC),
and was sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of ₹30,000/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo two
years’ simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the
prosecution, are that an FIR was lodged on
24.08.2021 by Smt. Manorma Devi (mother of the
deceased Sumit), a resident of Village Bans, Talla
1
2025:UHC:6830
Khet, Toak, alleging that her son Sumit, aged 31
years, had married the appellant Manisha, daughter
of Suresh Singh, approximately nine months prior to
the incident. It was alleged that soon after marriage,
the appellant began to harass Sumit and frequently
mentioned another man in conversation, which
caused distress to the deceased. On 22.08.2021, after
a medical check-up at Hill Touch Hospital, Bhatkot,
Manisha allegedly insisted on staying in Sumit’s
hospital room and did not return to their village. That
night, it is alleged that with the help of unknown
persons, Manisha murdered Sumit, broke the
hospital gate, and fled from the scene. It is also
alleged that on the morning of 23.08.2021, Manisha
reportedly visited her uncle’s house and stated that
Sumit had been harassing and assaulting her. When
the complainant arrived at the hospital room, she
found Sumit severely injured and already deceased
under suspicious circumstances. Police conducted an
inquest (Panchayatnama) and sent the body for
postmortem. Due to the complainant’s ill health, her
relatives took her to the police station, where she was
informed that the FIR would be registered upon
receipt of the postmortem report. Owing to public
outrage, the body was not buried, and villagers
demanded immediate arrest of the accused and
recovery of the alleged weapon. The complainant
sought prompt legal action.
3. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, after
supplying the necessary documents to the accused
2
2025:UHC:6830
under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the
Sessions Court for trial. The learned Sessions Judge,
after hearing the parties, framed charge against the
appellant under Section 306 IPC. The appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution
examined fourteen witnesses PW1 Smt. Manorma
Devi (mother of the deceased), PW2 Smt. Sonia Singh,
PW3 Dr. Narender Sharma, PW4 Jagat Singh, PW5
Smt. Preeti Singh, PW6 Vaibhav Singh Dobhal, PW7
Bhupender Singh Kathayat, PW8 Smt. Kiran Arya,
PW9 Constable 379 C.P. Narayan Ram, PW10
Constable Rajendra Sah, PW11 Sanjay Singh, PW12
Head Constable Harikrishan Pande, PW13 Sub-
Inspector Sanjay Singh, and
PW14 Inspector Prabhat Kumar.
5. The prosecution, during the course of trial,
exhibited the documents and material objects to
support its case including Exhibit P-1: Tehri (Inquest
Report), Exhibit P-2: Report from Vidhi Vigyan
Laboratory (initial), Exhibit P-3: F.I.R., Exhibit P-4:
General Diary Entry, Exhibit P-5: Panchnama of the
Deceased, Exhibit P-6: Photograph(s) (presumably of
deceased or crime scene), Exhibit P-7: Police
Challan, Exhibit P-8: Surgical Blade – Fard of
seizure, along with blood-soaked packet and wet
blade, Exhibit P-9: Sample Stamp/Seal, Exhibit P-10:
Application for Postmortem of the Deceased, Exhibit
P-14: Postmortem Report, Exhibit P-15: Memo
regarding recovery of CCTV footage and one Pen
Drive, Exhibit P-16: Memo regarding blood stains on3
2025:UHC:6830
the wall, Exhibit P-17: Memo regarding blood sample
from the floor, Exhibit P-18: Memo for seizure of
broken glass bangles, broken Rakhi, and nose pin,
Exhibit P-19: Memo regarding recovery of blood-
stained bed sheet and a simple bed sheet, Exhibit P-
20: Memo regarding recovery of slippers, sweaters,
and chunni, Exhibit P-21: Site Map (Naksha Nazri) of
the Place of Incident, Exhibit P-22: Arrest Memo of
the Accused, Exhibit P-23: Information Memo
regarding Arrest, Exhibit P-24: Memo of recovery of
pink maxi, Exhibit P-25: Letter regarding
advancement for sending viscera to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Exhibit P-26: Forwarding letter for
sending exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Exhibit P-27: Sample Seal – Pink coloured maxi
(inside plastic box), Exhibit P-28: Sample Seal –
Blood stains on the wall, Exhibit P-29: Sample Seal –
Blood stains on the ground, Exhibit P-30: Sample
Seal – Pieces of glass bangles, Exhibit P-31: Sample
Seal – Blood-stained bed sheet, Exhibit P-32: Sample
Seal – Slippers, sweater, chunni, Exhibit P-33:
Application for obtaining blood sample of accused
Manisha, Exhibit P-34: Application for sending blood
sample of accused Manisha to Vidhi Vigyan
Laboratory, Exhibit P-35: Charge Sheet filed against
the accused, Exhibit P-36 & P-37: Final Reports from
Vidhi Vigyan Laboratory.
6. The oral and documentary evidence were
put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In her
statement, the appellant denied all allegations and
claimed false implication. She also stated that the
4
2025:UHC:6830
prosecution witnesses had given false evidence
against her.
7. PW1-Smt. Manorma Devi, mother of the
deceased, deposed that she had one son (Sumit @
Sonu) and one daughter, and her husband was
deceased. Sumit was employed at Hill Touch Hospital
and married the accused Manisha on 05.12.2020.
After marriage, the couple resided at her home. She
alleged that Manisha frequently quarreled with
Sumit, verbally and physically assaulted him after
duty hours, and threatened to kill him and his
family. She also claimed Manisha told Sumit that her
unborn child was not his, but belonged to her friend
Sahil. On 22.08.2021, Manisha accompanied Sumit
to the hospital and allegedly harassed him again. The
next day, Sumit was found dead in his hospital room
with blood around his body and multiple injuries.
She attributed his death to Manisha’s mental and
physical cruelty.
8. PW2- Smt. Sonia Singh, sister of the
deceased, deposed that that their father died on
24.12.2020, shortly after Sumit’s marriage to
Manisha on 05.12.2020. Sumit worked at Hill Touch
Hospital. She stated Manisha often mentally and
physically harassed her brother. On 23.08.2021, she
received information about a quarrel involving
Manisha at Deepa’s house. Upon reaching the
hospital, they found Sumit’s room soaked in blood.
She described injuries on his neck and hands, veins
exposed, and blood in the sink. She claimed Manisha
had been taken by Sumit to the hospital the previous
5
2025:UHC:6830
day after being discharged from the Women’s
Hospital, but fled to Deepa’s house the following
morning.
9. PW3-Dr. Narendra Sharma (Postmortem
Doctor) in his testimony before the trial court has
stated that on 23.08.2021 he was posted as Senior
Medical Officer/Incharge Blood Bank, District
Hospital, Pithoragarh and on 23.08.2021, he
conducted the postmortem on Sumit’s body. External
injuries included a broken nail (middle finger),
multiple reddish scratches on the neck, face, back,
bluish marks on the lips and forehead, and several
cut wounds on the left wrist, arm, and elbow. Blood
vessels were found cut and clotted. Internal findings
revealed pallor; viscera were preserved for chemical
analysis. Cause of death: shock and excessive
bleeding due to multiple injuries; that, in report of
FSL no evidence of poisoning has been found.
10. PW4 – Jagat Singh, who is uncle-in-law of
accused Manisha in his testimony has deposed that
on 22.08.2021 around 6:15 AM, he received a call
from Manisha’s father, who expressed concern about
her safety and warned of consequences if anything
happened to her. During the call, Manisha arrived
and told her father: “Papa, I don’t live here, Sonu
presses my neck, I don’t want to live here.” Afterward,
Jagat Singh and others tried contacting Sumit; when
he didn’t respond, they went to his hospital room and
found him critically injured and bloodied. Police were
informed and panchanama conducted in his
presence.
6
2025:UHC:6830
11. PW5 – Smt. Priti Singh (sister-in-law of the
Deceased) in her testimony before the trial court has
stated that in June 2021, deceased Sumit expressed
emotional distress, stating that Manisha troubled
him, his mother, and sister, and accused him of an
illicit relationship with his sister. Manisha also talked
about suicide and harming the unborn child, whom
she claimed belonged to Sahil. PW5 received a call
from “Deepa Bhabhi” on 23.08.2021 about a quarrel
in which Manisha claimed Sumit was strangling her.
PW5 did not go to the hospital but attended the
cremation. She emotionally concluded that Manisha
was responsible for Sumit’s death.
12. PW6 – Vaibhav Singh Dobhal (Hospital
Colleague) has confirmed Sumit’s employment and
marriage and stated there were frequent marital
disputes, especially regarding Manisha’s strained
relationship with Sumit’s mother. In August 2021,
Sumit brought Manisha to stay at the hospital. On
22.08.2021, PW6 received a call from Deepa (via
Kiran madam) that Manisha seemed frightened. PW6
and another person went to the hospital room, found
blood seeping out and Sumit’s body inside–cold and
unresponsive, with hands tied and blood-stained
clothes. CCTV footage later showed Manisha leaving
the hospital that morning.
13. PW7-Bhupender Singh Kathayat, a
pharmacist at Healing Touch Hospital, testified that
Sumit often complained about Manisha’s mental
harassment, including being locked in a room and
threatened with suicide; that, on 22.08.2021, he
7
2025:UHC:6830
arranged lodging for Sumit and Manisha at the
hospital. The next day, he and Vaibhav discovered
blood outside Sumit’s room and found him dead
inside with visible neck injuries and cut marks. He
also observed a nail near the body. CCTV footage
captured Manisha jumping over the hospital gate that
morning. PW7 signed the inquest report and CCTV
pen drive.
14. PW8 – Smt. Kiran Arya (Nurse, Hilling
Touch Private Hospital), in her testimony stated that
on 23.08.2021, while at home, Deepa informed her
that Sonu had allegedly beaten Manisha, who had
come to Deepa’s house. Kiran arranged a call
between Deepa and Vaibhav. Later, Vaibhav called
Kiran to report blood at the hospital and asked her to
come quickly. Upon arriving, Kiran saw blood at the
door and on the floor near a finger labeled
“Sumit@Sonu.” She became frightened and left. She
later gave her statement to police.
15. PW9 – Constable C.P. Narayan Ram in his
testimony stated on 26.10.2021, he accompanied
SHO Prabhat Kumar to court. A sealed envelope
related to Crime Case No. 148/2021 (Section 306
IPC) against Manisha was received and assigned to
him for transportation to the FSL. He temporarily
stored it at the police station and deposited it at the
Dehradun FSL on 28.10.2021, obtaining a receipt
and returning it to the police station.
16. PW10 – Constable Rajendra Sah deposed
before the trial court that on 28.08.2021,
accompanied the Investigating Officer to court with
8
2025:UHC:6830
sealed evidence. He was appointed to deliver the
items to FSL Rudrapur. Due to personal leave, the
items were kept in the police station malkhana and
dispatched on 29.08.2021. He claimed the
submission receipt was dated 31.09.2021–an
apparent clerical error as September has only 30
days.
17. PW11 Sanjay Singh, cousin of the deceased
Sumit @ Sonu, stated that on 22.04.2021, he
received a call from his wife Deepa that “Sonu has
done something wrong in the hospital.” Upon arriving
at Hill Touch Hospital, he saw a crowd and learned of
Sumit’s death. Police directed him to accompany the
pregnant Manisha to the hospital. He and his wife
remained with her until her family arrived later that
evening.
18. PW12 – Head Constable Harikrishan Pande
deposed before the trial court that he was posted at
Police Station Pithoragarh from 20.12.2019 to
03.12.2021. On 24.08.2021, while on duty at Kotwali
Pithoragarh, at approximately 12:51 hrs, Smt.
Manorma Devi visited the police station. She
submitted a written complaint in Hindi authored by
one Johab Ahmed, resident of Bhaatkot, dated
22.08.2021. The complaint alleged that Sumit had
been murdered by his wife Manisha.
19. PW13 – Sub-Inspector Sanjay Singh at
Kotwali Police Station, Pithoragarh on 23.08.2021
deposed before the trial court that on 23.08.2021, he
received information from Sanjay Singh (S/o Jagat
Singh) that Sumit @ Sonu s/o Pradeep Singh, who
9
2025:UHC:6830
worked at Hilling Touch Hospital, was found dead in
a hospital room; that, on the information, he reached
Hilling Touch Hospital at 8:05 PM; that, at the
hospital, he met Sanjay Singh, Vaibhav Singh,
Bhupender Singh Kathayat, Manoj Singh, and the
family of the deceased, who showed him the room,
the room was on the ground floor and had blood
spilled outside with the door half open; that, the staff
of hospital told him that Sumit worked in the
canteen, and had come with his pregnant wife
Manisha to stay in the hospital room the previous
day and prior to that, they were staying in the female
hospital for several days; that, upon entering the
room, he saw Sumit’s dead body lying on the bed;
that, his Head towards east, legs towards west, legs
slightly bent; that, multiple cut wounds on the left
hand, body was in very bad condition; that, a surgical
blade, blood-stained items, an blood-stained cloth, a
blue-covered Bible, and a sanitizer bottle were found
on or near the bed; that, the sink was filled with
blood, and blood stains were seen in the adjacent
room, on the floor, and leading to the bathroom; that,
Vaibhav Singh Dobhal, a hospital colleague, stated
that the previous evening, Sumit and his wife
Manisha had come to stay in the room; that, Kiran
Arya (hospital nurse) informed Vaibhav by phone that
Manisha came to her house, was crying, and seemed
mentally disturbed; that, Vaibhav and Bhupender
Singh then went to Sumit’s room, found blood flowing
outside and the door locked from inside, but window
open. Upon entering, they found Sumit lying
10
2025:UHC:6830
motionless. His pulse was checked, including with an
oximeter, and found absent; that, Vaibhav then
informed the police; that, on the spot, SI Sanjay
Singh appointed five panch witnesses from the
deceased’s family i.e.
Jagat Singh, Sachin Kumar, Amit Singh, Anand
Singh, and Daan Singh, and registered the
Panchayatnama.
20. PW14 -Inspector Prabhat Kumar at Kotwali
Police Station, Pithoragarh on 23.08.2021 in his
testimony before the trial court stated that on
23.08.2021 at 8:40 AM, he received hospital
information about Sumit’s death. Directed SI Sanjay
Singh to proceed. On 24.08.2021, based on Manorma
Devi’s statement, FIR No. 148/2021 under Section
302 IPC was registered. Investigation was initially
assigned to SI Heera Singh Dangi but later taken over
by him. On 25.08.2021, he visited the site with the
forensic team, collected CCTV footage and seized
various blood-stained items including pieces of the
bedsheet and wall samples. Investigation continued
accordingly.
21. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of the evidence led by the parties,
the trial court in its impugned judgment convicted
the appellant/accused under Section 306 I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
ten years. Hence, this present appeal filed by the
appellant/accused assailing the said judgment and
order dated 05.02.2021.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused
11
2025:UHC:6830
would submit that although the F.I.R. in the present
case was initially registered under Section 302 IPC,
during the course of investigation, no evidence of
homicidal death was unearthed. Instead, it emerged
from the investigation that the deceased had
committed suicide, leading the Investigating Officer to
file a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC against the
appellant. The appellant was not granted bail during
the trial and has been incarcerated since 26.08.2021.
It was further contended that the appellant’s minor
child, aged two years, has been residing with her in
jail since birth, and the prison environment is
unquestionably detrimental to the child’s mental
development; that, no cogent motive has been
attributed to the appellant that could suggest
abetment of suicide. He would further submit that
the prosecution relied solely on vague and general
allegations of mental harassment, and the learned
trial court erred in treating such assertions as
sufficient proof of motive; that, matrimonial discord
alone cannot form the basis for inferring abetment to
suicide; that, prior to committing suicide, the
deceased had allegedly assaulted the appellant, who,
in order to protect herself, locked herself in the
bathroom and left the premises the next morning,
eventually taking refuge at the house of the
deceased’s relatives.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that there was an unexplained delay
of two days in lodging the F.I.R. as the incident
allegedly took place on 22.08.2021, while the report
12
2025:UHC:6830
was registered on 24.08.2021. It was also argued that
although prosecution witnesses alleged that the
deceased was harassed, abused, and subjected to
mental cruelty by the appellant, there is no record of
the deceased ever lodging any complaint before any
authority after the marriage. On the contrary, it was
asserted that the appellant herself was subjected to
harassment by the deceased and his family members,
including his mother and sister.
24. Learned counsel for the appellant would
also submit that the impugned judgment is based on
conjectures and surmises, and the prosecution failed
to discharge the burden of proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt. He relied upon several decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have consistently
held that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC,
there must be clear mens rea and a direct or active
act that compelled the deceased to take the extreme
step. In the present case, there is no suicide note or
dying declaration which could substantiate any
element of abetment on part of the appellant. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance on Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2020) 10 SCC 200, wherein it was held that in the
absence of any intentional act of aiding or instigation,
a conviction under Section 306 IPC is unsustainable.
It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish
the essential ingredients of abetment in this case.
25. On the other hand, learned State counsel
opposed the appeal, contending that serious
allegations were made against the appellant; that, the
13
2025:UHC:6830
Investigating Officer conducted a thorough
investigation, and based on the evidence on record
submitted the charges-sheet and, the learned trial
court rightly convicted the appellant under Section
306 IPC; that, the prosecution evidence was said to
be consistent, cogent, and trustworthy. It was further
submitted that the deceased committed suicide due
to persistent mental and physical harassment at the
hands of the appellant.
26. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
appellant emphasized that although the prosecution
examined 14 witnesses, their testimonies suffer from
contradictions, exaggerations, and reliance on
hearsay evidence. The accused, in her statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., categorically denied all
allegations and claimed false implication; that, the
mobile phone marked as Exhibit Ka-3 was produced
by the appellant, but the prosecution failed to
conduct any forensic analysis of the same, raising
doubts about the fairness and completeness of the
investigation.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that PW1, the mother of the deceased,
is an interested witness whose testimony is not
corroborated by any independent source; that, her
allegations of harassment and pregnancy from one
Sahil are wholly unsubstantiated, with no supporting
medical or DNA evidence; that, her testimony is
based entirely on hearsay, rendering it inadmissible
as direct evidence. He would further submit that PW1
also claimed that the accused assaulted the deceased
14
2025:UHC:6830
daily, a statement unsupported by medical or
documentary proof. PW2 made similar allegations but
her account of visible injuries on the deceased is
contradicted by the post-mortem report, which
revealed hesitation cuts on the left wrist, consistent
with suicide. Furthermore, the timeline presented by
PW2 regarding the accused’s departure to Deepa’s
house in the morning negates the prosecution’s
theory of a murder committed later that day.
28. He would further submit that the post-
mortem report did not conclude homicidal death,
instead, it attributed the cause of death to excessive
bleeding and shock; that, the absence of any
intoxicant or poison, as confirmed by the FSL report,
further supports the defense’s version. PW4
confirmed that the appellant had reached his home in
a distressed state in the morning and had telephoned
her father; that, no call recordings or independent
evidence were produced to support the allegations of
threats made by the appellant’s father. PW5, a
relative of the deceased, gave vague and emotionally
charged statements, which were not corroborated by
any independent evidence or medical report. The
allegations of incest are shocking, baseless, and have
no relevance since there is no forensic or psychiatric
evidence to support them.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that PW6 and PW7, hospital staff,
admitted that they did not witness the incident but
merely saw the room post-incident, therefore, their
testimonies do not link the appellant to any act of
15
2025:UHC:6830
abetment; that, the fact that the door was latched
from inside further supports the theory of suicide.
Similarly, PW8, a Nurse of the Hilling Touch Hospital,
confirmed that the accused reached her relative’s
house distressed, and made no mention of physical
struggle or escape. PW9 and PW10, being police
constables, made procedural statements without any
incriminating material. PW11, the cousin of the
deceased, merely acknowledged prior disputes but
confirmed that the accused was pregnant and did not
attempt to flee; that, no forensic analysis was
conducted to ascertain the origin of the injuries
sustained by the deceased or to identify the weapon
allegedly used. In the absence of any direct or
deliberate act of instigation, provocation, or
encouragement on the part of the appellant, the
essential ingredients of abetment, as required under
Section 306 I.P.C., remain unfulfilled.
30. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record carefully.
31. For proper adjudication, it is necessary to
refer to Section 306 IPC, which reads as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.–If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
32. Further, Section 107 IPC defines abetment as
follows:
“107. Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the doing of
a thing, who– First.–Instigates any person to do that16
2025:UHC:6830
thing; or
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing…;
or
Thirdly.–Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.”
33. A combined reading of Sections 306 and
107 IPC reveals that for a conviction under Section
306, there must be a clear and proximate act of
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding in the
commission of suicide.
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Geo
Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 19 SCC
144 and Sanju @ Sanjai Singh Sengar v. State of
M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, has emphatically held that
mere allegations of harassment, without any direct or
proximate act of instigation or abetment, are
insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306
IPC.
35. In the case of State of Kerala v. S.
Unnikrishnan Nair, (2015) 9 SCC 639, the Apex
Court reiterated that for a conviction under Section
306 IPC, the prosecution must establish mens rea
and prove that the accused engaged in a direct or
active act that led the deceased to commit suicide.
36. In Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 3
SCC 701, the Court held that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be direct or indirect
acts of incitement. Mere cruelty is not enough,
especially where the deceased was already mentally
disturbed due to personal issues like infertility.
17
2025:UHC:6830
37. In Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019)
17 SCC 301, it was reiterated that mere allegations
of harassment cannot constitute abetment unless the
acts are proximate and of such intensity that they
compel the victim to commit suicide. The presence of
mens rea and a deliberate course of conduct are
essential. Each case must be assessed based on its
unique facts and psychological impact on the
deceased.
38. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835, the Hon’ble Apex Court
emphasized that abetment under Section 306 IPC
requires a positive act of instigation or intentional
aid. A mere quarrel or momentary anger is
insufficient. The conduct must reflect a clear
intention to provoke or push the deceased towards
suicide.
39. In Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v.
State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679,
relying on S.S. Chheena, the Court held that mens
rea cannot be presumed and must be clearly evident.
Mere harassment without demonstrable intent or
active participation in the suicide does not satisfy the
requirement of abetment.
40. Lastly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court clarified
that instigation must have a clear link to the act of
suicide. Words or acts uttered in anger, without the
intent to provoke suicide, do not amount to
abetment.
18
2025:UHC:6830
41. After carefully going through the statements
of the 14 prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the
prosecution case suffers from serious contradictions,
is largely based on hearsay, and lacks independent or
corroborative evidence. In her statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all
allegations, claiming false implication. PW1, the
deceased’s mother, is an interested witness, and her
allegations regarding harassment and paternity are
uncorroborated. Claims of physical assault lack
medical evidence, and PW2’s statements about
injuries are contradicted by the post-mortem report,
which indicates death by excessive bleeding and
shock due to hesitation cuts–suggestive of suicide.
Witnesses PW4, PW6-PW8, and PW11 support the
defense claim that the accused was not present at the
scene. The room was locked from inside with no signs
of struggle, and CCTV footage shows the accused
leaving the hospital earlier. Investigating officers
(PW12-PW14) did not conduct forensic tests to
establish the weapon or injuries, and allegations of
threats by the accused’s father remain unproven.
42. It is trite law that a conviction under
Section 306 IPC requires evidence of a direct,
proximate, and intentional act of instigation or
abetment, coupled with the necessary mens rea,
which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. In
the present case, the prosecution has failed to
establish any overt or proximate act on the part of
the accused that could amount to abetment. In the
19
2025:UHC:6830
absence of cogent, credible, and independent
evidence supporting abetment, the conviction is
unsustainable.
43. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction dated 18.08.2023,
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh,
in S.T. No. 40/2021, is hereby set aside. The
appellant, who is presently in custody, shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Her bail bonds stand discharged.
44. A copy of this judgment and order along
with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
02.08.2025
Mamta
20
[ad_1]
Source link