Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pritam Lal vs Gopal Dass on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Sr. No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl R No.04/2025 Reserved on : 06.08.2025
Pronounced on : 20.08.2025
Pritam Lal
S/o Sawan Mal
R/o BheriTaryai Tehsil
Jourian, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India
....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate
V/s
1.Gopal Dass
S/o Gulu Ram
R/O BheriTaryai Tehsil Jourian, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir,
India
2. Rama Devi
W/o Gopal Dass
R/O BheriTaryai Tehsil Jourian, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir,
India
3. U.T of Jammu & Kashmir,Through Commissioner/Secretary,
Home Department, Civil Sectt.
Jammu.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Akhnoor, Jammu.
....Respondents(s)
Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy.AG
Mr. Pawan K. Kundal, Advocate
CORAM :
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The present petition, filed under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short, “BNSS”), calls in question the order dated
28.10.2024 passed by the court of 3rdAdditional Sessions
2
Judge, Jammu (for short, “Trial Court”) whereby the
accused/respondents have been discharged in a case arising
out of FIR No.110/2023, in which charge sheet had been filed
for commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner,
inter alia, on the following grounds:
i. That the trial Court erred in concluding that the suicide note
and the statements of witnesses, including the father of the
deceased, were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
abetment of suicide.
ii. That while framing charges, the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record to ascertain whether the
facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the
existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
iii. That Section 306 IPC mandates that abetment must be
established through acts, omissions, or conduct that
intentionally aid or instigate the victim to commit suicide, and
the presence of mens rea is critical, which may be inferred from
prima facie evidence, including a suicide note and witness
statements.
iv. That in the present case, the challan discloses sufficient
material to justify framing of charges under Section 306 IPC; a
prima facie case of abetment along with clear mens rea stands
established, showing that the accused created circumstances
that led to the alleged suicide.
v. That the trial Court misinterpreted the suicide note and,
without assigning cogent reasons, discharged the
accused/respondents.
3. Mr. Mayank Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submitted that
the Trial Court has failed to apply its mind to the evidence on
record. He also contends that nearly four pages of the
impugned order has been devoted to summarize judicial
precedents without discussing their applicability to the facts of
3
the present case, thereby reflecting absence of judicial
reasoning.
4. Mr. Pawan K. Kundal, learned counsel for respondents 1
and 2, has contended that no infirmity can be found in the
impugned order whereby the accused/respondents have been
discharged. He submits that the trial Court, while relying upon
the settled position of law and the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, has rightly concluded that there
was no evidence against the accused/respondents, and has
recorded cogent reasons in support thereof by referring to the
statements of the father of the victim as well as other witnesses.
It is urged that the trial Court has committed no error in
passing the impugned order, inasmuch as, in the absence of
legal evidence, no person can be compelled to face trial. He
further submits that there is a complete lack of legal evidence
to prima facie indicate the involvement of the
accused/respondents in connection with the commission of
suicide by the deceased, and that there is nothing on record to
establish that the accused/respondents created circumstances
which compelled the victim to commit suicide. Accordingly,
while supporting the impugned order, he prays for dismissal of
the instant petition.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record, including the impugned order.
4
6. Section 227 Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 250
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with
discharge of an accused; it reads as under: –
“227. Discharge. –If, upon consideration of the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith,
and after hearing the submissions of the accused and
the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing.”
7. The provision mandates that the Judge must record
reasons if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. At the stage of Section 227
Cr.P.C., the Judge is required merely to sift the evidence in
order to ascertain whether or not there exists sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.The expression “sufficiency
of ground” includes within its ambit the nature of the evidence
collected by the police or the documents produced before the
Court which, on the face of it, disclose suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to justify the framing
of a charge. If the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to
adduce, even if fully accepted as true before being subjected to
cross-examination or rebuttal by defence evidence, is incapable
of establishing that the accused committed the offence, then
there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial.Therefore, while discharging an accused, the Court must
be satisfied that there is no ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence. Section 227 Cr.P.C. itself
5
requires that, for arriving at such a conclusion, the trial Court
must record cogent reasons in support thereof.
8. While perusing the impugned order, it is manifest that
the trial Court has not assigned any reason on the basis of
which it has arrived at a conclusion that there was no sufficient
evidence. From paragraphs 1 to 5 of the impugned order, the
trial Court has merely narrated the facts of the case, the
arguments advanced by the parties, the judgments relied upon,
as well as the statement of the father of the victim, and has
thereafter concluded with the discharge of the accused.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order read as under:-
“7.During the course of arguments, it has also been
brought to the notice of the Court that the deceased
and the daughter of the accused who were in love
affair with each other belonged to two extreme Varnas
of Hindu religion and in a society like Jammu, when
two adults of different Varnas have love affair, there is
always strong opposition on behalf of the families of
the two parties and same was the case herein, it has
been brought to the notice of the Court during
arguments that a stage came when the girl party
agreed for the marriage but the boy party which
belonged to upper Verna refused to marry the loving
partners. In other cases, when such are the
circumstances, even the families/parents of the adults
scold, abuse and even sometimes beat the adults
engaged in love, so as in the instant case, allegations
of abusing, threatening to beat and harassment of the
deceased, although, not specific by mentioning time,
place, date and the actual words used and the
description of incidents, so cannot be relied upon but
such occurrences are very common and natural in
other cases, in the facts and circumstances when two
adults of different Varnas are in love affair, so the
mens rea of the accused cannot be gathered from the
mere allegations of scolding, abusing and harassing, as
mentioned in the suicide note and statement of the
father of the deceased.
8. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case,
contents of suicidenote, statement of the father of the
deceased and other witnesses,law and case-law
applicable to the facts, this Court is not convinced
that charge against the accused persons is prima facie
6made out forcommission of offence of abetment to
commit suicide, madepunishable under Section 306
IPC and the Court is further of theopinion that framing
of charge and further trial would be a futile
exercise. So, the accused are discharged for the
commission ofoffences under Section 306 IPC. Challan
is dismissed. Personal and surety bonds of the accused
are cancelled. File after its duecompilation be
consigned to records.”
9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would become
evident that the Trial Court has not recorded any reason and
has discharged the accused/respondents. It may be noticed
that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression „there
is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence‟. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the
ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made
are satisfied.The Court would not doubt the case of the
prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the
charge in haste.
10. In case titled State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
&Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659,a Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
referred to the meaning of the word „presume’ while relying
upon the Black‟s Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean „to
believe or accept upon probable evidence‟; „to take as proved until
evidence to the contrary is forthcoming‟. In other words, the
truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution
evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the
defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the
accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the
accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is
7
only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes
with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its
judgment.
11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled Amit Kapoor
vs. Ramesh Chander ad another, 2013 SCC CR 1 986, in
Paras 31 and 35 observed as under:-
“31.This was not a case where the allegations were so
predominately of a civil nature that it would have
eliminated criminal intent and liability. On the
contrary, it is a fact and, in fact, is not even disputed
that the deceased committed suicide and left a suicide
note. May be, the accused are able to prove their non-
involvement in inducing or creating circumstances
which compelled the deceased to commit suicide but
that again is a matter of trial. The ingredients
of Section 306 are that a person commits suicide and
somebody alone abets commission of such suicide
which renders him liable for punishment. Both these
ingredients appear to exist in the present case in
terms of the language of Section 228 of the Code,
subject to trial. The deceased committed suicide and
as per the suicide note left by her and the statement
of her son, the abetment by the accused cannot be
ruled out at this stage, but is obviously subject to the
final view that the court may take upon trial. One very
serious averment that was made in the suicide note
was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the
accused persons took possession of the ground floor of
her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused
to vacate the same. It is possible and if the Court
believes the version given by the prosecution and finds
that there was actual sale of property in favour of the
accused, as alleged by him, in that event, the Court
may acquit them of not only the offence under Section
306 IPC but under Section 107 IPC also. There appears
to be some contradiction in the judgment of the High
Court primarily for the reason that if charge
under Section 306 is to be quashed and the accused is
not to be put to trial for this offence, then where
would be the question of trying them for an offence of
criminal trespass in terms of Section 448 IPC based on
some facts, which has been permitted by the High
Court.
35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case
of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] to contend that the
offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC
is completely made out against the accused. It is not
the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the
records for the purposes of determining whether
8offence under these provisions has been committed or
not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the
basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No
doubt that the word „instigate‟ used in Section 107 of
the IPC has been explained by this Court in the case
of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9
SCC 618] to say that where the accused had, by his
acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide, an
instigation may have to be inferred. In other words,
instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances
of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in
regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the
suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances
created by the accused are such that a person feels
totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue
existence. Husband of the deceased was a paralysed
person. They were in financial crises. They had sold
their property. They had great faith in the accused and
were heavily relying on him as their property
transactions were transacted through the accused
itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the
suicide note and the statement made by the son of the
deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and
not giving monies due to them are the circumstances
stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The
Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at
this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the
presumption referred to under Section 228 of the
Code.
12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned
order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned 3rdAdditional
Sessions Judge, Jammu, is set aside. The matter is
remanded to the trial Court to hear the parties afresh and to
pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon
consideration of the material on record and keeping in view
the observations made hereinabove.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
BIR
20.08.2025
9
BIR BAHADUR SINGH
2025.08.21 11:23
I am the author of this
document