# Amit Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. &Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 694
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2017
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44542
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Ms Parul Kant

A.
Criminal
Revision-
Discharge
application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. rejected-
Section
306
and
506
IPC
-
love
relationship between the revisionist and
deceased - father of revisionist did not
approve of marriage - suicide out of
frustration and anger - ingredients of
abatement under Section 107 IPC not
made
out-
trial
futile
exercise-
revisionist discharged- revision allowed.

Chronological List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the prosecutrix has not been recorded. If this is
correct, the trial court is directed to conclude
the trial expeditiously because keeping pending
such trial for long period, would defeat the ends
of justice and various provisions of law.

16. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on merits
of the case and the trial court would be at
liberty to decide the trial strictly in
accordance with law on the basis of
evidence so adduced by the parties.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

Criminal Revision No. 950 of 2017

Amit Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. &Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sobha Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms Parul Kant

A.
Criminal
Revision-
Discharge
application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. rejected-
Section
306
and
506
IPC
-
love
relationship between the revisionist and
deceased - father of revisionist did not
approve of marriage - suicide out of
frustration and anger - ingredients of
abatement under Section 107 IPC not
made
out-
trial
futile
exercise-
revisionist discharged- revision allowed.

Chronological List of Cases Cited: -
1. (2002) 5 SCC 371 Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

2.(2005) 2 SCC 659 Natai Dutta Vs. Satte of
W.B. (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shobh Nath Pandey,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms
Parul Kant, learned counsel for the State.
None for respondent no.2 though served.

2. Revision is formally admitted for
hearing and, with the consent of parties,
heard finally.

3. Challenge in the instant revision
is to the order dated 9.6.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.257 of
2016, whereby the court below has
rejected the application as filed by the
revisionist-Amit Kumar under Section
227 of Cr PC, seeking discharge.

4. Brief facts of the present case are
that on 24.1.2016, FIR was lodged by Smt.
Sunita Devi, mother of deceased Priyanka,
alleging in it that on 20.1.2016, her daughter
had gone somewhere and returned at 5:00
am on 21.1.2016. When she asked her
daughter as to from where she is coming, her
daughter informed that throughout the night
she was with revisionist Amit Kumar, son of
Arjun Yadav (co-accused). She further
informed her that she loves Amit Kumar and
wants to marry him. Smt. Sunita Devi
disclosed this fact to her mother-in-law Smt.
Prema Devi and told her daughter that this is
not good. FIR further states that Smt. Sunita
Devi called Arjun Yadav, father of the
revisionist (co-accused) and informed him
about the affair between the revisionist and
deceased Priyanka. In reply, it was told by
Arjun Yadav that as long as he is alive,
revisionist and Priyanka cannot marry. She
states that saying this, co-accused Arjun
Yadav had left her house and upon hearing
his reply, at about 9:00 am, deceased
Priyanka bolted herself inside the room and
1 All. Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
695
set herself on fire. Efforts were made to open
the door which was ultimately broken and
then dead body of the deceased was found.
Based on this FIR, offence under Sections
306 and 506 of IPC was registered against
revisionist-Amit Kumar and his father Arjun
Yadav (co-accused).

5. Diary statements of Smt. Sunita
Devi, Smt. Prema Devi, Smt. Rita Devi and
Smt. Amrawati Devi were recorded and all of
them have stated almost the same version as
has been made in the FIR.

6. On 9.11.2016, revisionist-Amit
Kumar filed an application (Annexure-4)
under Section 227 of Cr PC, seeking
discharge. In this application, it has been
submitted by the revisionist that even if
the entire prosecution case is taken as it
is, considering the FIR and the statements
of various witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of Cr PC, no case whatsoever
is made out against him and, therefore, he
be discharged from the alleged offence.

7. By the impugned order, the trial
Judge has rejected the said application
holding that merit of the case cannot be
discussed at this stage. Hence, this
revision.

8. Counsel for the revisionist
submits:

(i) that the court below has erred in
law in passing the impugned order;

(ii) that even if the entire prosecution
case is taken as it is, offence under
Sections 306 and 506 of IPC is not made
out against the revisionist.

(iii) that mere fact that the revisionist
was having affair with the deceased does
not constitute any offence especially
when no role of instigation or abetment
has been assigned to him;

(iv) that learned trial Judge has
rejected the application of the revisionist
in a mechanical manner without applying
correct principle of law.

9. On the other hand, supporting the
order impugned, it has been argued by
learned State Counsel that the order
impugned is in accordance with law and
there is no infirmity in the same.

10. Before I proceed further, it
would be appropriate to consider the
definition of Section 306 of IPC, which
reads as under:

"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."

11. 'Abetment' has been defined in
Section 107 of Chapter V of IPC and the
same reads as under:

"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
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 facilitate the commission thereof,
is said to aid the doing of that act."

12.

Considering
the
above
definitions in the case of Sanju Alias
Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya
Pradesh1,
while
considering
the
quashment of FIR, it has been held by the
Apex Court:

6. Section 107 IPC defines
abetment to mean that a person abets the
doing of a thing if he firstly, 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.

7. Before we advert further, at
this stage we may notice a few decisions
of this Court, relevant for the purpose of
disposal of this case.

8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v.
State of MP, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the
appellant was charged for an offence
under Section 306 IPC on the ground that
the appellant during the quarrel is said to
have remarked the deceased "to go and
die" . This Court was of the view that
mere words uttered by the accused to the
deceased 'to go and die' were not even
prima facie enough to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide.

9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of
MP, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the
appellant was charged for an offence
under Section 306 IPC basically based
upon the dying declaration of the
deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p.
731, para 1)

"My mother-in-law and husband
and
sister-in-law
(husband's
elder
brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me
and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has
illicit connections with my sister-in-law.
Because of these reasons and being
harassed I want to die by burning."

10. This Court, considering the
definition of 'abetment' under Section 107
IPC, found that the charge and conviction
of the appellant for an offence under
Section 306 is not sustainable merely on
the allegation of harassment of the
deceased. This Court further held that
neither of the ingredients of abetment are
attracted on the statement of the deceased.

11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, this
Court while considering the charge
framed and the conviction for an offence
under Section 306 IPC on the basis of
dying
declaration
recorded
by
an
Executive Magistrate, in which she had
stated that previously there had been
quarrel between the deceased and her
husband and on the day of occurrence she
had a quarrel with her husband who had
said that she could go wherever she
wanted to go and that thereafter she had
poured kerosene on herself and had set
herself on fire. Acquitting the accused this
Court said: (SCC p. 620)

"A word uttered in a fit of anger
or
emotion
without
intending
the
consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation. If it transpires to the
court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
1 All. Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
697
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 should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that
the accused charged for abetting the
offence of suicide should be found
guilty."
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both
the
courts
below
have
erroneously
accepted the prosecution story that the
suicide by the deceased is the direct result
of the quarrel that had taken place on 257-1998 wherein it is alleged that the
appellant had used abusive language and
had reportedly told the deceased "to go
and die". For this, courts relied on a
statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of
the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr
PC when reportedly the deceased, after
coming back from the house of the
appellant, told him that the appellant had
humiliated him and abused him with
filthy words. The statement of Shashi
Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr
PC is annexed as annexure P-3 to this
appeal and going through the statement,
we find that he has not stated that the
deceased had told him that the appellant
had asked him "to go and die". Even if we
accept the prosecution story that the
appellant did tell the deceased "to go and
die", that itself does not constitute the
ingredient of "instigation". The word
"instigate" denotes incitement or urging to
do some drastic or inadvisable action or to
stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of
instigation. It is common knowledge that
the words uttered in a quarrel or on the
spur of the moment cannot be taken to be
uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of
anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged
abusive words, said to have been told to
the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued
by a quarrel. The deceased was found
hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the
deceased had taken the abusive language
seriously, he had enough time in between
to think over and reflect and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the abusive language,
which had been used by the appellant on
25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit
suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-71998 is not proximate to the abusive
language uttered by the appellant on 25-71998.
The
fact
that
the
deceased
committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would
itself clearly point out that it is not the
direct result of the quarrel taken place on
25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the
appellant had used the abusive language
and also told the deceased to go and die.
This fact had escaped notice of the courts
below."

13. Further, in the case of Netai
Dutta v. State of WB, it has been held by
the Apex Court:

5.
There
is
absolutely
no
averment in the alleged suicide note that
the present appellant had caused any harm
to him or was in any way responsible for
delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased
was very much dissatisfied with the
working conditions at the work place.
But, it may also be noticed that the
deceased after his transfer in 1999 had
never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha
Road, Kolkata and had absented himself
for a period of two years and that the
suicide took place on 16.2.2001. It cannot
be said that the present appellant had in
any way instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or he was responsible for
the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence under Section 306 IPC would
stand only if there is an abetment for the
commission of the crime. The parameters
of the "abetment" have been stated in
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 107 says that a person abets the
doing of a thing, who instigates any
person to do that thing; or 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, or the
person should have intentionally aided
any
act
or
illegal
omission.
The
explanation to Section 107 says that any
wilful
misrepresentation
or
wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, may also come within
the contours of "abetment".

6. In the suicide note, except
referring to the name of the appellant at
two places, there is no reference of any
act or incidence whereby the appellant
herein is alleged to have committed any
wilful act or omission or intentionally
aided or instigated the deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag in committing the act of
suicide. There is no case that the appellant
has played any part or any role in any
conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or
resulted in the commission of suicide by
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.

7. Apart from the suicide note,
there is no allegation made by the
complainant that the appellant herein in
any way was harassing his brother,
Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered
against the appellant is without any
factual foundation. The contents of the
alleged suicide note do not in any way
make
out
the
offence
against
the
appellant.
The
prosecution
initiated
against the appellant would only result in
sheer harassment to the appellant without
any fruitful result. In our opinion, the
learned Single Judge seriously erred in
holding that the First Information Report
against
the
appellant
disclosed
the
elements of a cognizable offence. There
was absolutely no ground to proceed
against the appellant herein. We find that
this is a fit case where the extraordinary
power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We
quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellant and accordingly
allow the appeal."

14. If above proposition of law is
applied in the present case, what emerges
is that the revisionist and the deceased
were having affair and a night prior to the
incident, the deceased was with the
revisionist. In the morning when she
returned, she informed her mother that
throughout the night she was with the
revisionist and that she loves him and
wants to marry him. Upon hearing this,
father of the revisionist, Arjun Yadav (coaccused) was called, who disclosed that as
long as he is alive, he would not permit
the revisionist and the deceased to marry.
Thereafter, out of anger and frustration,
deceased entered her room and committed
suicide by setting herself on fire. This is
not only the case of prosecution as per
FIR, but also as per the statements of
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
Cr PC. None of the witnesses has
assigned any role of instigation or
abetment to the revisionist, nor coaccused has stated anything against him.
At no stretch of imagination, involvement
of the revisionist in commission of
offence
has
been
proved
by
the
prosecution. Even if the entire case of the
prosecution is taken as it is, offence under
Section 306 of IPC is not made out
against the revisionist as basic ingredients
of Section 107 of IPC are completely
1 All. Aditya Narayan Mangla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
699
missing. Allowing the court below to
frame charge against the revisionist and to
go with trial would simply be a futile
exercise and cannot be permitted to do so.
The trial Court has erred in law in
rejecting the application as filed by the
revisionist under Section 227 of Cr PC,
seeking discharge.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the
order impugned is set aside. Application
filed by the revisionist under Section 227
of Cr PC, seeking discharge, is allowed
and revisionist-Amit Kumar is discharged
from the alleged offence.

16. Criminal Revision is allowed.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 569 of 2017

Aditya Narain Mangla ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. &Anr.. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri C.B. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Prachish Pandey, Ms Mahima Pahwa

A. Criminal Revision- maintenance- Section
12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. (Para 10 , 11 & 15)

B. Section 23 read with 20 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 - interim maintenance - son and
wife
-
granted
Rs.
1,00,000/-
maintenance on higher side- wife earlier
working and drawing salary Rs. 20,000/-
maintenance not charity- capable to give
such amount as maintenance to his wife
and son. (Para 13)

C. Jurisdiction - Of High Court at
Lucknow - never lived in Lucknow-
father mother of wife reside at Lucknow
- no merit- application dismissed.

Chronological list of cases cited: -

1. (2016) 2 SCC 705 Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs.
Sarathi Choudhury and Anr.

2. (2012) 3 SCC 183 V.D. Vhanot Vs. Savita
Bhanot

3. (2014) 3 SCC 712 Saraswathy Vs. Bahu

4. (2015) 5 SCC 705 Shamima Farooqui Vs.
Shahid Khan

5. (1997) 7 SCC 7 Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs.
District Judge, Dehradun

6. (2008) 2 SCC 316 Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai

7. (1978) 4 SCC 70 Chander Kaushal Vs.
Veena Kaushal

8.(2005) 3 SCC 636 Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujrat
9.1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 Chander Prakash
Bodh Raj Vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash

10.Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2018 Reema
Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan

11. AIR 2014 SC 2875 Bhuwan Mohan Singh
Vs. Meena

12.2019 SCC Online SC 493 Rupali Devi Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

Sri C B Pandey, learned counsel for
the revisionist, Sri Prachish Pandey,
learned counsel for the State and Ms
Mahima Pahwa, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.