Allahabad High Court
Rishi Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10847
Judgment reserved on 17.10.2024
Judgment delivered on 21.01.2025
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3593 of 2024
Revisionist :- Rishi Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in Session Case No.488 of 2024 (State Vs. Rishi Verma and another), arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station Bithoor District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned order learned court below has dismissed the discharge application 4Kha and 5 Kha filed by accused applicants Risha Verma and Diksha Sharma for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that informant Smt. Malti Singh wife of Sri Roop Singh, R/o 884 Patel Bihari Bairi Bithoor Road, Kalyanpur Kanpur Nagar lodged an FIR at P.S. Bithoor (Commissionerate) District Kanpur Nagar on 21.06.2023. On the basis of written report, wherein she stated that that informant had married her daughter Priti Singh on 25.06.2014 with Rishi Kumar Verma. She came to know after marriage of her daughter that her son-in-law Rishi Verma was a vagrant and drunkard person, he used to beat and torture her daughter. Her daughter apprised her of the reprehensible acts of her husband, but she used to console her that things would get better in course of time. Her daughter told him that for last five months her husband was having affairs with a girl namely Diksha Verma and she would visit her home also in her absence, she raised objection to this to her husband and firmly asked him to stay away from the girl, but he did not mend his ways and instead engaged in harassing his daughter more often. He would threaten her to give divorce to him by mutual consent, otherwise he would kill her and thereafter would solemnize marriage with Diksha Sharma. On 19.06.2023 in the morning her daughter visited her at her place and the informant assured her that she would ask her husband about this, thereupon her daughter came to the place of her husband; On same day at around 12:00 hours in the night Rishi Verma telephoned her and stated in anger that make your daughter understand his point otherwise dire consequences would ensue. She rushed to the flat of his daughter in anxiety, but found the door closed, Rishi Verma was not there, she telephoned to come to his flat, when he came and opened the lock of the door, she found that her daughter was hanging from ceiling fan by a noose made of a towel around the ceiling fan. She became stunned by seeing this and Rishi Verma escaped from the place, her daughter committed suicide on being harassed and tortured by her husband and his companion Diksha Sharma.
4. The FIR was lodged under Section 306 IPC against named accused, the police investigated the case. During investigation statement of the informant Smt. Malti Sing, the mother of the deceased, Saurabh Singh brother of the deceased, Jyoti the sister of the deceased, Deepti Singh maternal aunt of the deceased and also an independent witness Kanhaiya Lal Katiya. The Investigating Officer also collected whatsapp chat of the deceased and accused Rishi Kumar Verma and his girl friend Diksha Sharma. The CCTV camera was installed in the flat where deceased committed suicide. The Investigating Officer sealed the DVR of the camera and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory and entered this fact in GD. The CCTV footage of the flat of deceased was recorded in a pendrive which has been made part of the case diary. CDR of the mobile phone of accused Rishi Kumar Verma and Diksha Sharma was also collected by the Investigating Officer which showed that they were engaged in frequent conversation on regular basis between 08.02.2022 to 19.06.2023 he used to talk together several times in a day. The informant stated that on 09.12.2019 her deceased daughter Priti Singh was blessed with a daughter, but her husband was not amused, as he wanted a male child. She raised the child Shanvi together with her daughter Priti Singh (deceased). He daughter Preeti Singh had purchased a flat at Gulmohar Apartment from her own savings and also by taking loan from Bank. Her son-in-law was having multiple extra marital affairs and he was in intimated relationship with one Diksha Sharma whom he would say as his female friend. Her daughter was so much perturbed and disappointed with the relationship of her husband and Diksha Sharma and also due to the maltreatment, harassment and torture given by husband to her that she ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself.
5. In postmortem report of the deceased Preeti, cause of death is shown as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The viscera and blood preserved for chemical analysis. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused Rishi Kumar Verma and Diksha Sharma under Section 306 IPC after concluding the investigation. The Investigating Officer found the defence taken by the accused Rishi Kumar Verma that deceased was suffering from depression and due to depression she committed suicide, as unfounded and baseless.
6. On commencement of trial, the accused persons filed separate applications for discharge before trial court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the impugned order. Out of two chargesheeted accused, the accused Rishi Kumar Verma the main accused has filed present criminal revision before this Court, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his discharge application by the court below.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the informant and her family members have stated during investigation that deceased was often assaulted by the accused Rishi Kumar Verma, but there is no injury report on record in support of his version. No complaint was filed by the deceased or the informant prior to this incident regarding demand of dowry or subjecting the deceased to matrimonial cruelty. The deceased Priti Singh was legally wedded wife of the applicant/revisionist she was short-tampered lady and she committed suicide under heat of passion. He next stated that there is no evidence of abetment to commit suicide against the applicant. He is an official in the forest department and has falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant at the instance of some persons inimical to him. The revisionist is not involved in unfortunate death of his wife directly or indirectly, has committed no offence. No other ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased except ligature mark on her neck, as a mark of suicide in the postmortem report of the deceased, who committed suicide in intervening night on 20.01.2006.
8. Learned Magistrate dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist without considering the grounds taken therein in proper prospective. The main allegations against revisionist is that he was having extra marital relationship with a girl namely Diksha Sharma, but proof of extra marital relationship of the spouse of deceased is not sufficient in itself to raise a presumption of abetment to commit suicide of his wife. Even no specific instances of harassment or torture are established during investigation; even independent witness Kanhaiya Lal Katiyar who was found present at the place of incident, just after disclosure of the fact of suicide by the deceased has only deposed regarding extra marital relationship of the applicant with some Diksha Sharma, the co-accused. No case under Section 306 IPC is made out with above submissions. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the accused may be discharged by order of this court.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that from the FIR version and evidence on record during investigation a prima-facies case of abetment to commit suicide is made against the revisionist and co-accused Diksha Sharma. The revisionist being married with the deceased in the year 2014 developed extra marital relationship with one Diksha Sharma, some 5 to 6 months earlier to her unfortunate death. She was harassed and assaulted subject to cruelty by her husband, as she would object to the intimacy of the revisionist and co-accused instead of refraining from relationship with co-accused. The revisionist was deeply involved in said extra marital relationship and created a situation due to which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide in utter frustration. The CDR of the mobile number of the revisionist and co-accused itself shows that they were in frequent communication in regular basis without any justification. The CCTV footage of the flat which was purchased by the deceased and where the incident occurred also supports the prosecution version. The revisionist and Diksha Sharma used to go to vacation and stay together in the same room, regarding which the Investigating Officer has collected few bills of the places where they stayed together which is made part of the case diary. The revisionist used to abuse the deceased and pressurize her that he would not stay with her. The entire incident has been recorded in the CCTV footage of the place of incident as a CCTV camera was installed in the living area of the deceased house, and a copy of CCTV footage has been filed as annexure No.1 to counter affidavit. In CCTV footage it is clearly visible at the time of fight with the revisionist, the decease Priti Singh informed him that she did not want to stay with him and is going to commit suicide, and in his presence she took a table and a cloth, but Rishi Kumar Verma did not stop her and left the house locking her in the room, inspite of knowing that her parents were coming to settle the dispute between them. A photograph taken out from CCTV footage make it manifest that deceased was taking table in presence of Rishi Verma. The deceased had taken the phone from Rishi Kumar Verma who was talking with Diksha Sharma and thereafter hot talks were exchanged between the spouse, which is also recorded in the CCTV footage.
10. In Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Diksha Sharma before this Court, she had taken a plea that she was having affair with Rishi Kumar Verma. The anticipatory bail application of the revisionist was dismissed by court of session and this Hon’ble Court and ultimately anticipatory bail was granted to him on 17.05.2024 by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that counsel for respondent No.2 after taking various opportunities did not file any reply. The deceased was suffering from acute mental trauma due to ill treatment meted out to her by the revisionist and his extra marital relationship with co-accused Diksha Sharma.
11. Dr. Puneet Dixit who treated the deceased has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that deceased was under depression because of her husband’s affair.
12. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 242 in support of his contention.
13. Learned court below has dismissed the application for discharge filed by both the accused persons by a detailed order dated 15.06.2024 with conclusion that on the basis of material on record it is prima facie appears that marriage of the deceased and revisionist Rishi Kumar Verma was solemnized on 25.06.2014 and thereafter the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry. The accused Rishi Kumar Verma threatened her to divorce her, he was having extra marital relationship with co-accused Diksha Sharma and in this way he abeted the commission of suicide by the deceased at around 12:00 hours. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation a prima facie case is made out against accused persons to put them on trial, there are sufficient grounds to frame charge under Section 498A and 306 IPC against accused Rishi Kumar Verma and charge under Section 306 IPC against co-accused Diksha Sharma.
14. The law of discharge is elaborately dealtwith by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein Hon’ble Court observed as under:
“9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. Right from the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561], which was reiterated with approval in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], the courts have stated the principle that if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. It is further stated that the legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to have been committed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect materials for proving the offence. In Bhajan Lal‘s case (supra), the Court also stated that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of an FIR should be exercised, there are circumstances where the Court may be justified in exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by the police; where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code; and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Despite stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
10. The above-stated principles clearly show that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. If the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code in relation to quashing of an FIR is circumscribed by the factum and caution afore-noticed, in that event, the revisional jurisdiction, particularly while dealing with framing of a charge, has to be even more limited. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the ‘record of the case’ and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
11. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. We may refer to the well settled law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39:
“4. Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. If “the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing”, as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, “the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which– … (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused”, as provided in Section 228. Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. It the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.”
19. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be :
1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
4) Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
5) Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
6) The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
7) The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
8) Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
10) It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-
fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
11) Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
12) In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution.
13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
14) Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
{Ref. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 949]; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 709]; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 892]; Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Ors. [AIR 1996 SC 309; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 754]; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [AIR 2003 SC 1069]; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 128]; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705]; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. s. Bangarappa & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 41]; Zundu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Ors. [AIR 2005 SC 9]; M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 1869]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2009) 14 SCC 466]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2009) 7 SCC 234]; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. v. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 203]; Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 877]; State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma & Anr. [AIR 1991 SC 1260]; Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2001) 2 SCC 17]; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. [(2001) 8 SCC 645]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 12 SCC 338]; and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 659]}.”
15. Learned counsel the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017 which was filed at the instance of three accused sought to be prosecuted in connection with criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and the appeal is directed against the order passed by this Court on 10.03.2017 by which this court rejected the application filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of criminal proceeding against them. Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings pending in the court of CJM, Lucknow. Hon’ble Court observed in paragraph Nos. 18,19,20 and 21 held as under:-
” 18 This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under:-
“7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (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 act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
19 This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for 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, 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 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 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 perceiving 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 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 in Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:-
“44. …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 their 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
21 The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.
16. Learned counsel for the revisionist also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) wherein Hon’ble Court observed as under:-
“13. In this regard, Mr. Singh has drawn our attention to the authority in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat[3]. In the said case, the Court was dealing with as to whether relationship between the appellant and the second accused therein was extra-marital leading to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. Dealing with the extra-marital relationship, the Court has opined that marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their up-bringing, services in the home, support, affection, love, liking and so on, but extra-marital relationship as such is not defined in the IPC. The Court analyzing further in the context of Section 498A observed that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A IPC. The Court further elucidated that harassment need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one’s life. The Court ruled that in the facts of the said case the alleged extra-marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. The two-Judge Bench further opined that:-
“Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide which says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.” [emphasis added]
14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat[4], the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below:-
“True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.”
15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one’s endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.”
17. In the present case the evidence collected by investigating officer depicts that the informant and other family members of the deceased have alleged in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the revisionist subjected the deceased with matrimonial cruelty due to nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry and continued assaulting, abusing and harassing her as she was opposed to her extra marital relationship with one Diksha Sharma. The allegation of extra marital relationship of the revisionist with co-accused Diksha Sharma gets also fortified by CDR of their mobile phone regarding mobile chatting amongst the deceased, revisionist and co-accused, CCTV footage of the place of incident on the date of incident and of earlier dates established a sufficient prima-facie case against the revisionist that due to continuous torture, harassment and mental stress given by the revisionist to the deceased on account of his extra marital relationship with co-accused, the deceased was driven to commit suicide as she found herself helpless and in state of utter frustration and depression. The extracts of CCTV footage suggest that the deceased was preparing for committing suicide in living area of her house, but the revisionist did not try to restrain her to commit this act and save her from proposed act and instead he went away from the place of occurrence which gave the deceased ample space to commit suicide and reflects of utter insensitivity of the accused towards life and welfare of his wife that may amount to indirect abetment to his wife to commit suicide. Thus, the facts of present case are not similar to the facts involved in K.V. Prakash Babu (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under Section 306 IPC, which were being taken against the appellants.
18. In a recent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.2395 of 2023 observed that the question of framing of charge would arise only in a case where the court, upon such exercise satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against the accused concerned. In short, it can be said in that view of the matter that the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be made to stand the ordeal of trial only if ‘the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith’ discloses ground for proceeding against him. When that be so, in a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before the Court.
19. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reasons, though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection.
20. With foregoing discussions it cannot be held on the basis of material collected during the investigation that the charge against the accused is groundless or, there are not sufficient grounds to proceed against him in the trial. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr (1979) 3 SCC 4 held that where the materials placed before the court disclosed grave satisfaction against the accused which has not been explained properly, the court will be justified in framing charge against the accused and proceed with the trial.
21. A strong suspicion is made out against the revisionist for his involvement in commission of suicide by his deceased wife who was allegedly fed-up with matrimonial cruelty practiced by her husband coupled with extra matrimonial relationship and sexual escapades on the basis of evidence on record a prima facie case is made out against the revisionist to put him on trial for charge under Section 306 IPC, and I find no illegality, irregularity and perversity in the impugned order passed by learned court below. So far as determination of framing of charge against the revisionist is concerned. The revision is devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed.
22. The revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.01.2025
Ashish/-