Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 March, 2025
2025:HHC:5590
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
14precisely, 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
15in 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
18the 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
23more 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
25ingrained 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
26hard 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
37offence. 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
42the 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)
[ad_1]
Source link