Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttaranchal on 2 August, 2025
2025:UHC:6817
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2004
2nd August, 2025
Tribhuwan Singh -- Appellant
Versus
State of Uttaranchal --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 30.11.2004, passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial
No.20 of 2003 “State vs. Tribhuwan Singh and others”,
whereby the appellant has been convicted by the Trial
Court for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of seven years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
with default stipulation.
2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that the
father of the deceased moved a complaint to the Naib
Tehsildar, Didihat in writing Exhibit A-1, according to
which a FIR was lodged Exhibit A-8, stating therein that
his daughter (Smt. Kamla) was married to the appellant
Tribhuvan Singh on 24th April, 2002; thereafter, it is
alleged that the appellant committed cruelty with her for
1
2025:UHC:6817
demand of dowry and due to her dislike, on 15-4-2003 at
6 p.m., at the place Village Dhancha, Dunakot, Patti
Dunakot, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, she
committed suicide.
3. On the basis of said information, a chick FIR
Ex.Ka-8 was lodged with the police station; on completion
of investigation, charge sheet Ex.Ka-14 was submitted;
after compliance of provision of Sections 207 Cr.P.C., the
charges were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution was afforded opportunity to
adduce evidence to prove the charges levelled against the
accused. The prosecution has recorded the statements of
as many as six witnesses in support of its case. The
prosecution has produced PW1- Smt. Madhavi Devi
(mother of the deceased), PW2- Jagat Singh (father of
deceased), PW3- Dr. D.S. Nabiyal, PW4 Patwari Shankar
Ram, PW5 Keshar Singh and PW6 Nayab Tehshildar K.S.
Rawat.
5. PW-1 Madhavi Devi, mother of the deceased,
stated that her daughter Kamla was married to the
Tribhuvan Singh about one and a half years ago
according to Hindu customs. On the very day of the
marriage, in the wedding procession (mandap) itself, the
accused said that the girl is dark skinned and he will not
marry with her; that, he started leaving the mandap and
after intervention of respected guests and other relatives,
the marriage was solemnized; that, after third day of her
marriage, she came from her in-laws’ house and went
back the next day; that, she used to state that her
husband Tribhuvan Singh beats her for dowry; that, she
2
2025:UHC:6817
also used to complain about her sister-in-law and
mother-in-law. Thereafter, PW-2 submitted written report
Ex. Ka-8.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in
which he denied all the evidence and stated that he has
been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was
produced in defence.
7. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in
paragraph no.1 of the judgment.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this
Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as learned counsel for the State.
10. learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that only allegation, which has came up in the evidence
against the appellant is that at the time of marriage, the
appellant/husband allegedly said that the bride
(deceased in this case) was of dark complexion and after
marriage, she left the matrimonial home after four
months; that, when after about seven months she was
taken back to the matrimonial home, on the very third
day of her coming back to the matrimonial home she
committed suicide in an agricultural field away from the
house. He would further submit that the learned trial
court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of
the statements by holding that the appellant abuses the
deceased due to her dark complexion.
3
2025:UHC:6817
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that the relevant provisions of the IPC
that fall for consideration, which reads are as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
107. Abetment of a thing–A person abets the doing of a
thing, who–
First.– Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.–
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.– Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing. Explanation 2.– Whoever, either prior to
or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.”
12. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic
ingredients, first- the abetment to the said act by another
person(s), and second-an act of suicide by one person. In
order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it
must necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct
or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
13. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has
been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are
well established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the
accused, which must be in close proximity to the
4
2025:UHC:6817
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation
or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
14. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC,
there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It
also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased into such
a position that he committed suicide should be present.
In the present case these ingredients are missing,
therefore, the conviction of the applicant in absence of
any direct evidence that the act of the accused let to
commit suicide is not made out.
15. In order to buttress his argument, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kishori Lal
Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 3 SCC 701. The relevant
portion of this judgment reads as under:-
“7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the
husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is
not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P.].
Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is
ample evidence on record that the deceased was
disturbed because she had not given birth to any
child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated
that the deceased was disappointed due to the said
fact and her failure to beget a child and she was
upset due to this.”
16. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the
attention of this Court on the judgment of Hon’ble
5
2025:UHC:6817
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ude Singh vs.
State of Haryana , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, the
relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein
below:-
“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
behaviour 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 the accused is
otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce 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 such6
2025:UHC:6817nature 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.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could
be affected and could react in myriad ways; and
impact of one’s action on the mind of another carries
several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt
with differently by different persons; and so far a
particular person’s reaction to any other human’s
action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or
yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in
regard to the factors related with the question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to
the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a
young girl could also vary for a variety of factors,
including those of background, self-confidence and
upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt
with on its own facts and circumstances.”
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Prakash and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another (2024) SCC OnLine SC
3835, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is
extracted herein below:-
“17. This Court held that abetment involves the
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid a person in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court
further observed that the intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under Section
306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to7
2025:UHC:6817commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no other option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such
a position that he committed suicide. However, this
Court has cautioned that since each person reacts
differently to the same provocation depending on a
variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a
straightjacket formula to deal with such cases.
Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.”
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat,
this Court has 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679:2024
INSC 960 relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that
the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed
or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly
discernible. Without this, the foundational
requirement for establishing abetment under the
law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to
provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would
remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:
“18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC,
it is a well-established legal principle that the
presence of clear mens rea–the intention to abet
the act–is essential. Mere harassment, by itself,
is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of
abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by the
accused that led the deceased to take his/her own
life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be
presumed or inferred; it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing
abetment under the law is not satisfied,
underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and
conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the
act of suicide.”
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of
instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While
dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court
in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh,14 laid down the parameters of
what (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515 would be
constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court
observed as follows:-
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
8
2025:UHC:6817
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not
a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was
left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.”
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
rendered in the case of Sadashiv Parbati Rapnawar vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) SCC OnLine
Bom 2756 has held that the taunts regarding the dark
complexion are quarrels or altercation arising from the
matrimonial life are not criminal offence, they are just
domestic quarrels, it cannot be said to be of such high
degree, so as to compel people to commit suicide.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would
argue that the prosecution has proved the case against
the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt; although,
some witnesses are the relatives of deceased but these
evidence cannot be discarded; the FIR was promptly
lodged; there is no infirmity in the conviction and
sentence recorded by the Court below vide the impugned
order.
20. The reasons for convicting the appellant by the
trial court were that the appellant used to abuse the
deceased on the basis of her dark complexion and further
that he used to physically abuse her; that, the conclusion
by which the trial court came to this conclusion only on
the basis of statements of PW-1 and PW-2, mother and
father of the deceased respectively; that, in the post-
9
2025:UHC:6817
mortem report it is reflected that the death was caused
due to strangulation and some scratches were also found
on the body of the deceased, to which the trial court has
concluded that since there are allegations that the
appellant used to physically abuse the deceased, thus,
the scratches would have been caused by the accused on
this basis, therefore, the appellant was convicted for
offence under Section 306 IPC.
21. In the opinion of this Court, there was no
active act or direct act in close proximity of the appellant,
which lead deceased to commit suicide, beside this, the
prosecution failed to prove the mens rea of the appellant
in instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
Furthermore, the trial court failed to appreciate the fact
that after three months of marriage, the deceased was
living with her parents for last seven months and the
appellant has himself came to the deceased parents’
house and took the deceased with him. It is settled
proposition of law that for an offence under Section 306
IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It
also requires an active act or direct act which leads
deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and
the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused
to push deceased into such a position that she commits
suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide
and appellant abetted the commission of suicide of the
deceased. In the present case both the elements are
absent. Even taking the statement of PW1 & PW2, on its
face value, the instance when the appellant abused the
deceased for her dark complexion, was at the time of
marriage i.e. on 24.04.2002 whereas the deceased
10
2025:UHC:6817
committed suicide on 15.04.2003, therefore, there is a
gap of almost one year. 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.
22. On a totality of the consideration of all relevant
facts and circumstances and the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of
the unhesitant opinion that the evidences are wholly
unacceptable and the same cannot be acted upon to be
the basis of conviction. The evidence of all the
prosecution witnesses fall short of the requirement of
proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The
appellant is thus, entitled to the benefit of doubt in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The contrary view
taken by the Trial Court is against the weight of evidence
on record.
23. For the reasons, as recorded hereinabove, the
appeal preferred by appellant Tribhuwan Singh is
allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, as
mentioned hereinabove, is hereby set aside. He is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
24. A copy of this judgment and order along with
the LCR be transmitted to the Court below.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 02.08.2025
BS
BALWANT
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0
2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553
DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.07 16:13:39 +05’30’
11