# Chitra @ Bebi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 782
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 737 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chitra-bebi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47265
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 306 &
107- Abetment of Suicide- Where the
charge is about abetment to commit
suicide, there are very subtle features of
evidence that may show the necessary
mens rea and the relevant persistent
conduct of the accused in driving the
deceased
to
commit
suicide.
The
proximate and immediate conduct of one
of the accused rendering the deceased
option-less to commit suicide, may not be
an impromptu action, provoked by the
action of the accused on occasion. It could
be the precipitating event behind which
stand a long trail of instigation or aid,
driven by persistent conduct of one or
more of the accused acting together.

The criminal intent to drive a person to commit
suicide can be inferred from the persistent
conduct over a long period of time.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 -
Matrimonial Cruelty- Suicide by Husband -
Section 107- Abetment of Suicide by
Relatives-A spouse at the receiving end of
matrimonial cruelty - mental and physical
or both, cannot be compared to a person
placed
in
a
different
situation
of
harassment, like an employee perceiving
or
being
actually
harassed
by
his
employer, or a student by his teacher. The
person actually involved in doing an act
proximate in point of time to the deceased
taking
his
life,
may
have
others
participating with him/her leading to the
'build-up', where the fatal event occurs.
These could be those persons who have
conspired with the instigator or the one
who actively aids the deceased through a
proximate act. The role of such persons in
the shadows who have conspired would in
no measure be less culpable and certainly
relevant under Section 107 IPC. Public
humiliation of a spouse, particularly, an
act of assault by the husband or the wife,
may, in the circumstances of long and
persistent misbehaviour and harassment,
drive a person to take the extreme step of
taking his/ her life.

In a case of suicide as a result of matrimonial
cruelty the persistent conduct of other relatives
over a long period of time would be a relevant
fact to constitute abetment of suicide.

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 306 -
Constituents of- Mere harassment of an
individual
by
another
or
oppressive
behaviour cannot be held to be in itself
constitutive of the offence of abetment to
commit suicide, but persistent acts of
harassment
by
the
accused
or
a
continuous course of conduct, that creates
a situation, "which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide" to borrow the words of
their Lordships in Ude Singh vs. State of
Haryana has been r

## Text

_Characters 0–39,876 of 73,265. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39876 for what follows._

782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The Supreme Court in Sanjay
Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another4
has
laid
down
guiding
principles, recounting earlier authority
about the legitimate use of power of
discharge by the trial court, and the scope
of the High Courts' power, while revising
an order refusing discharge under Section
397 of the Code. Their Lordships, while
discouraging compartmentalization of the
High Courts' power under Section 397 and
its power to scrutinize an order refusing
discharge, if it is a case of patent abuse of
process of law, held :

16. The correct position of law as
laid down in Madhu Limaye(supra), thus, is
that orders framing charges or refusing
discharge are neither interlocutory nor final
in nature and are therefore not affected by
the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That
apart, this Court in the above-cited cases
has unequivocally acknowledged that the
High Court is imbued with inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or
to secure ends of justice having regard to
the facts and circumstance of individual
cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the
High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect.
The discretion vested in the High Court is
to be invoked carefully and judiciously for
effective and timely administration of
criminal justice system. This Court,
nonetheless, does not recommend a
complete hands off approach. Albeit,
there should be interference, may be, in
exceptional cases, failing which there is
likelihood of serious prejudice to the
rights of a citizen. For example, when the
contents of a complaint or the other
purported material on record is a brazen
attempt to persecute an innocent person,
it becomes imperative upon the Court to
prevent
the
abuse
of
process
of
law.(emphasis by Court)

16. The guidance of their Lordships of the
Supreme Court unequivocally endorses the
principle that an absurd and incredible
prosecution, that is virtually persecution of an
innocent person, ought to be undone by the
High Court in whatever proceedings, a patent
abuse of process of comes to its notice. Here, as
said above, this Court has no manner of doubt
that the impugned prosecution giving rise to
these proceedings against the applicant, is a
patent abuse of process of court, founded on
incredible allegations.

17. In the result, this application succeeds
and is allowed. The proceedings of Case No.
1983/9 of 2019 (arsing out of Case Crime No.
224 of 2019), under Sections 395, 323, 307,
364, 506, 147, 149 IPC, Police Station -
Meerapur, District - Muzaffarnagar, pending
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 3, are hereby quashed, as against the
applicant.

18. Let this order be communicated to the
Magistrate concerned through the learned
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)07ILR A782
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 737 of 2020

Chitra @ Bebi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
783
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri Imran Khan, Sri Atul
Kumar, Sri Deepak Dubey, Sri M.J. Akhtar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Amit Daga

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 306 &
107- Abetment of Suicide- Where the
charge is about abetment to commit
suicide, there are very subtle features of
evidence that may show the necessary
mens rea and the relevant persistent
conduct of the accused in driving the
deceased
to
commit
suicide.
The
proximate and immediate conduct of one
of the accused rendering the deceased
option-less to commit suicide, may not be
an impromptu action, provoked by the
action of the accused on occasion. It could
be the precipitating event behind which
stand a long trail of instigation or aid,
driven by persistent conduct of one or
more of the accused acting together.

The criminal intent to drive a person to commit
suicide can be inferred from the persistent
conduct over a long period of time.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 -
Matrimonial Cruelty- Suicide by Husband -
Section 107- Abetment of Suicide by
Relatives-A spouse at the receiving end of
matrimonial cruelty - mental and physical
or both, cannot be compared to a person
placed
in
a
different
situation
of
harassment, like an employee perceiving
or
being
actually
harassed
by
his
employer, or a student by his teacher. The
person actually involved in doing an act
proximate in point of time to the deceased
taking
his
life,
may
have
others
participating with him/her leading to the
'build-up', where the fatal event occurs.
These could be those persons who have
conspired with the instigator or the one
who actively aids the deceased through a
proximate act. The role of such persons in
the shadows who have conspired would in
no measure be less culpable and certainly
relevant under Section 107 IPC. Public
humiliation of a spouse, particularly, an
act of assault by the husband or the wife,
may, in the circumstances of long and
persistent misbehaviour and harassment,
drive a person to take the extreme step of
taking his/ her life.

In a case of suicide as a result of matrimonial
cruelty the persistent conduct of other relatives
over a long period of time would be a relevant
fact to constitute abetment of suicide.

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 306 -
Constituents of- Mere harassment of an
individual
by
another
or
oppressive
behaviour cannot be held to be in itself
constitutive of the offence of abetment to
commit suicide, but persistent acts of
harassment
by
the
accused
or
a
continuous course of conduct, that creates
a situation, "which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide" to borrow the words of
their Lordships in Ude Singh vs. State of
Haryana has been regarded sufficient to
qualify for the requirement envisaged
under Section 306 IPC. If a person,
particularly one in a relationship of great
trust like man and wife, were to betray
that trust persistently and indulge in
harassment of the other in a manner that
the victim-spouse, could reasonably be
expected in the circumstances to be
driven to take the extreme step, the
precise kind of mens rea that would be
involved, may not be very relevant. The
necessary mens rea of whatever shade
and
fuelled
by
whatever
motivation,
would be inferable from the persistent
conduct of the accused.

It is not mere harassment but persistent acts of
harassment over a long period of time that
leaves the spouse no other option but to commit
suicide, that would makes out the offence under
Section 306 IPC. ( Para 22, 25, 27, 29)

Criminal Application rejected. (E-2)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Gurcharan Singh Vs St. of Punj, (2020) 10
SCC 200

2. Sudhakar Pathak Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Appeal
No. 2120 of 2018 ( Alld)

3. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Maha.
& ors, ( 2021) 2 SCC 427

4. Ude Singh Vs. St. of Har., (2019) 17 SCC 301

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. It is idiomatically said that 'Dead
men tell no tales'. But, sometimes, before a
man crosses over to the netherworld, he
may
speak
his
mind
or
tell
the
circumstances that led to his death -
homicidal or suicidal. In cases of suicide,
an authentic and dependable suicide note is
the most sterling evidence about what
drove the man to take his own life.

2. This application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 seeks
to challenge the impugned charge-sheet
bearing number 219A of 2019 dated
November the 15th, 2019 submitted in Case
Crime No. 223 of 2019, under Sections 306,
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, Police
Station - Meerapur, District - Muzaffarnagar
and the entire proceedings in Case No.
1984/9 of 2019, pending before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 3, Muzaffarnagar, as against the
applicant. This application calls in question
the aforesaid charge-sheet, primarily on the
ground that no prima facie case against the
applicant is disclosed on the basis of material
carried in the impugned charge sheet, about
her involvement in abetting the suicide
committed by her brother-in-law (her sister's
deceased husband), the Late Mohan Kumar.

3. This prosecution commenced on a
First Information Report3 lodged by the
deceased's brother, Rahul Kumar Sharma,
on 28.07.2019, about the suicidal death of
his brother on 25th of July, 2019. The FIR
nominates
the
deceased's
in
laws,
numbering seven, including his wife Smt.
Menka alias Monty, his mother-in-law
Smt. Kusum Lata, his three sisters-in-law,
to wit, Indu Sharma, Chhaya Sharma and
Romika Sharma, besides his brother-in-law
Rajat Sharma. Another person nominated is
one Rajendra Chaudhary, said to be an
uncle of sorts to the deceased's in-laws. The
applicant is not named in the FIR. The
substance of the information, addressed to
the police, says that the named in-laws of
the deceased were frequently troubling him
and he was in distress. Rajendra Chaudhary
had repeatedly threatened the deceased to
death and demanded money of him. The
deceased had shared the last mentioned fact
with the informant, but his in-laws would
not give up on their wayward conduct and
Rajendra Chaudhary and the other in-laws
would repeatedly demand money of the
deceased. It is reported that distressed over
this issue, on 25.07.2019, at 12 O' Clock,
the deceased jumped off the bridge built
over the Ganga barrage, and into the river,
committing suicide. It is also said that he
had left home, riding the informant's
motorcycle, which was later later on found.
A
suicide
note
in
the
deceased's
handwriting was found at the informant's
Dharm Kanta, wherein the deceased had
blamed harassment by his wife and in-laws
as the cause driving him to commit suicide.
It is said in the closing lines of the FIR that
the deceased did commit suicide because of
the harassment that his wife and in-laws
inflicted on him.

4. Heard Mr. V.M. Zaidi, leanred
Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Imran
Khan, learned Counsel for the applicant,
Mr. Amit Daga, learned Counsel appearing
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
785
on behalf of opposite party no. 2, and Mr.
Deepak
Mishra,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State.

5. Mr. V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior
Advocate, has primarily submitted that no
prima facie case is made out against the
applicant, as the allegations and the
material collected during investigation do
not show that there was any act done by the
applicant vis-à-vis the deceased, that may
be said to constitute either ''instigation' or a
''conspiracy' with the other co-accused, or
''aid' within the meaning of Section 107
IPC that led the deceased to commit
suicide. He submits that in the absence of
any material about an act or omission
constituting instigation, conspiracy or aid
on the applicant's part, that led the deceased
to commit suicide, no case worth trial
against the applicant is prima facie made
out. He submits that on this ground, the
impugned charge-sheet, as against the
applicant, deserves to be quashed, which, if
not done, would be an abuse of process of
Court and lead to ends of justice being
defeated. It is on the aforesaid case that Mr.
Zaidi has advanced his submissions before
this Court.

6. The learned Senior Advocate has
proceeded to point out that the applicant,
much unlike the other in-laws, has not been
nominated in the FIR. Her name has been
introduced on the basis of a second thought
by the informant and the other family
members of the deceased, who, according
to the learned Senior Advocate, in any case,
have launched a malicious and vindictive
prosecution against the deceased's wife and
in-laws for an oblique motive. That oblique
motive, according to the learned Senior
Advocate, is that the informant wants to
deprive
the
deceased's
wife
of
her
inheritance in her husband's property, both
movable and immovable. He has pointed
out that the entire prosecution is mala fide
and designed to achieve the last mentioned
purpose. He has been at pains to point out
that the informant has launched another
mala fide prosecution against deceased's inlaws, reporting them for an offence
involving a murderous assault on the
informant and his family, besides loot of
ornaments that belonged to the deceased's
wife. By a reference to the other
prosecution arising from an FIR registered
as Case Crime No. 224 of 2019, under
Sections 395, 323, 307, 364, 506, 145 IPC,
Police Station - Meerapur, District -
Muzaffarnagar, learned Senior Advocate
urges that it shows the underlying mala
fides
that
animate
the
impugned
prosecution and its oblique purpose. Mr.
V.M. Zaidi, further elaborating on his
submissions, says that the applicant was not
named in the FIR, and also in the earlier
statement of the first informant recorded on
28.07.2019, under Section 161 of the Code
or the statements of the other witnesses also
recorded under Section 161. It is pointed
out
that
the
applicant's
name
was
introduced for the first time in the
statement of one Sushil Kumar, about a
month after the incident, as a result of the
continuing
efforts,
to
bring
oblique
pressure upon the wife's family in order to
coerce the wife into giving up her share in
the deceased's property. The learned Senior
Advocate has also pointed out to the
various steps taken by the informant to get
his name mutated over the deceased's share
in the family's agricultural land and transfer
of funds done from the deceased's bank
account to his own.
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn
the Court's attention to a copy of the
mutation application dated 30.08.2019
moved by the informant before the
Consolidation
Officer-II,
Sadar,
Muzaffarnagar and registered as Case
no.520. This document is annexed to the
supplementary affidavit dated 10.09.2020,
as Annexure no. SA-4. Learned Senior
Counsel has also drawn the Court's
attention to a photostat copy of the
deceased's bank account statement, bearing
Account ID no. 1609010100512190, where
transfer of funds to the informant's Account
have been shown. A copy of the said
statement is annexed as part of Annexure
no. SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit,
last mentioned.

8. Mr. V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior
Counsel, in support of his submissions
noticed in the opening part of this judgment
about the absence of necessary ingredients
to make out a prima facie case of abetment
to commit suicide, has placed reliance upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of
Maharashtra and others4 and further on a
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab5.
Reliance has also been placed on a decision
of this Court in Sudhakar Pathak vs.
State of U.P.6. All these authorities have
been pressed in aid of the essential
submission
that
the
three
necessary
ingredients to attract an offence of
abetment to suicide, that is to say,
instigation, aid or conspiracy are at all not
discernible from the material collected
during investigation.

9. It must be remarked here that in aid
of the Application, the applicant has filed
three supplementary affidavits, to wit, the
one dated 09.10.2020, another dated
16.01.2020
and
still
another
dated
17.02.2020. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the complainant/ opposite
party, to which the applicant has filed a
rejoinder. The State have not come up with
any return, but at the hearing, supported the
impugned proceedings through Mr. Deepak
Mishra, learned A.G.A. The learned
A.G.A. says that the facts here show it to
be a triable case, which ought not to be
quashed.

10. Mr. Amit Daga, learned Counsel
appearing for the second opposite party/
informant submits that though the applicant
is not named in the FIR, but during the
course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer
found
material
showing
her
involvement in the crime. In this regard, he
has, particularly, referred to the text
messages sent by the deceased through his
mobile phone to the mobile phone of his
relatives, while alive. These messages have
also been treated as a part of the suicide
note and made part of the police papers.
These messages specifically carry the name
of the applicant as one of the persons
responsible for driving the deceased to
commit suicide. Learned Counsel for the
second opposite party, therefore, says that
it cannot be said that there is no material
against the applicant connecting her to the
crime. It is emphasized that the material
collected during investigation shows that
the applicant along with the other coaccused - all in-laws of the deceased
created such inexorable pressure, where the
deceased had no option except to put an
end to his life. It is pointed out with
reference to the averments in paragraph no.
9 of the counter affidavit and the suicide
note annexed as Annexure no. CA-1 to the
said affidavit that what the applicant has
annexed for the deceased's suicide note, is
not the complete document. It is pointed
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
787
out that the suicide note is a part of the case
diary, annexed to the second parcha dated
29.07.2019.

11. Learned Counsel for the second
opposite party submits that though the
suicide note, a copy whereof is annexed as
Annexure no. CA-1, does not specifically
carry the applicant's name, but read as a
whole,
squarely
blames
all
of
the
deceased's in-laws about that extreme
position, where he was impelled to end his
life. He submits that it is quite another
matter that the deceased has, particularly,
emphasized the malevolent role of his
brother-in-law, Rajat and sister-in-law,
Indu, but that, according to Mr. Daga,
learned Counsel for the second opposite
party, does not show that the applicant was
no part of the conspiracy or instigation, that
drove him to commit suicide. It is also
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
second
opposite
party,
relying
on
averments made in paragraph no.10 of the
counter affidavit that prior to scripting the
suicide note, the deceased sent WhatsApp
messages, carrying his photograph as well
as a video from his mobile no. 9997589058
to the mobile number of the informant's
elder brother, Sushil Kumar Sharma, where
he
specifically
blamed
the
applicant
alongwith the other co-accused as persons,
who had tortured and harassed him to an
extent that he had no option except to
commit suicide. Copies of those WhatsApp
messages are included in the case diary.

12. It is pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the second opposite party that
since the WhatsApp messages were sent on
the WhatsApp messenger of his elder
brother, Sushil Kumar Sharma, he was
unaware about these messages when he
lodged the FIR, or made his earlier
statement to the police. It was during the
course
of
investigation
that
Sushil
discovered these WhatsApp messages on
his phone and disclosed them to the police,
who made them part of the case diary. It is
these messages, which have shown the
complicity of the applicant and certainly
constitute material, on the basis whereof
cognizance ought to be taken. It is urged
with much emphasis on behalf of the
second opposite party that the continued
misbehaviour, torture, ill-treatment and
harassment by the deceased's wife and inlaws, including the applicant, drove him to
commit suicide and those acts do constitute
intentional aid within the meaning of
Section 107 IPC, besides conspiracy
involving all the accused, so as to attract
the provisions of Section 306 IPC.

13. This Court has keenly considered
the submissions advanced on both sides
and perused the record. It would be of
seminal importance to extract the suicide
note. The suicide note is part of CD no.2
dated 29.07.2019 and reads (in Hindi
vernacular):

"मै मोणहत शमाा आज दुखी होकर
आत्महत्या करने जा रहा हूँ, मेरी मौत की सारी
णजम्मेदारी मेरी ससुराल वालो की है, मेरी सबसे
बड़ी साली इन्दु शमाा, छाया, रजत शमाा, रोणमता
और सबसे खास राजेन्द्र चौिरी उर्ा चाचा और
मेरी सास कुसुमलता की है। ये सब मुझ पर
नाजायज दबाव बनाते है। मुझे णदन रात िमकी
देते रहते है। मुझे बहुत परेशान कर रखा है।
मेरी पत्नी का मुज0नगर में नाजायज ररश्ता है।
वो मुझ पर ससुराल के पास घर लेकर रहने का
दबाव बनाती है। मुझे गाली देती है। खाना तक
छीन लेती है। मेरी आप सबसे णबनती है णक मेरे
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
साले रजत को र्ॉसी और इन्दु को सजाये मौत
जरूर देना और मेरा कोई पुत्र नहीं है। मेरी सारी
सम्पणि मेरे णप्रय भाई राहुल कुमार को दे दी
जाये और गै आज दुखी होकर णजसका कारि
मेरी ससुराल के समस्त व्यज्यक्तगि है मैं आत्म
हत्या करने जा रहा हूँ।"

14. Quite apart from it, are the
contents of some WhatsApp messages, still
photograph and videos, sent by the
deceased to his elder brother, Sushil on
25.07.2019 at 11:26 a.m. in Hindi, but
written in Roman script, which read thus:

"Meri mout ki sari jimmedari
meri sasural wali ki meri sali Indu, Chhaya
Rajat, Chitra, romita, Rajendra Choudhary
(ChaCha). Ye sab mujh par najayaj dabav
banate rahten hai or Jaan se Marni ki
damki deten rahten hai"

15. This message shows that the
deceased was last seen on Thursday at
11:56 a.m.

16. There is yet another WhatsApp
message, which carries the same suicide
note,
that
was
recovered
from
the
informant's Dharm Kanta and made part of
the case diary. There is one oddity, or at
least a feature about the prosecution case,
which
shows
that
opportunity
came
knocking to save the deceased, but the one
who could did not act. There is a statement
attributed to one Faeemuddin, son of late
Badaruddin recorded under Section 161 of
the Code, where he says that the deceased
scripted the suicide note in his presence and
said that he was going to commit suicide,
driven to it by his wife, Menaka and the inlaws. It is rather baffling that if the witness
saw the deceased writing a suicide note,
why he did not prevent him from moving
away to accomplish his fatal intentions; but
that is all about it. This statement under
Section 161 may be true or not, but it does
not, of its own, render the prosecution case
incredible.

17. The material collected during
investigation by the police shows that there
are statements of the informant Sushil
Sharma, the deceased's sister-in-law Smt.
Nirupama Sharma wife of Sushil Sharma,
Smt. Priyanka Sharma, another sister-inlaw of the deceased, Sonu Dhimaan, an
unrelated witness, who happened to pass by
the deceased's residence on 25.07.2019,
and another unrelated witness Akash
Rastogi, who also passed by the deceased's
house on 25.07.2019; and all of them saw
the deceased's wife misbehave with him.
The statements of the informant and the
two sisters-in-law of the deceased show,
amongst other things, that the deceased's
wife would often stay at her parents' place,
rather than her matrimonial home. She
would
repeatedly
ask
for
money,
apparently to meet her expenses and
enforce her demand by show of anger and
misbehaviour towards her husband. The
deceased's wife wanted him to sell his
property at Town Meerapur, District
Muzaffarnagar and move over to her place
at Patel Nagar, Muzaffarnagar. She was
persuaded by the deceased's family not to
indulge in that kind of behaviour, but she
was aided in her pernicious conduct by her
sisters, Chhaya, Romita, Indu, Chitra
(applicant), her mother Kusum Lata and
uncle Rajendra. All of them would coerce
the deceased to part with money, and upon
refusal, would threaten him with death.

18. There is a particular instance that
appears in the statements of Smt. Nirupama
Sharma, Smt. Priyanka Sharma and the two
passersby, Sonu Dhimaan and Akash
Rastogi, which indicate that the deceased
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
789
Mohit Sharma and his wife were seen
outside their house and the deceased's wife
was misbehaving with him. The two
sisters-in-law have said that the deceased's
wife, Menaka beat him up publicly, a fact
which
many
saw.
The
two
public
witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed
the occurrence on 25.07.2019, have said
that they saw the deceased, Mohit Sharma's
wife misbehaving with him while they
were passing by. She is alleged to have
asked the deceased go somewhere and die.
These
witnesses
also
said
that
the
deceased's wife said that when she
demands money of him, he does not pay
nor does he go over to Muzaffarnagar. It is
said that thereafter Menaka beat him up. To
the same effect is the statement of Akash
Rastogi. All these statements have been
recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
The moot question is that, do all these
statements taken together as material
collected during investigation and the
suicide
note,
besides
the
WhatsApp
messages disclose a triable case of
abetment to suicide against the applicant?

19. Gurcharan Singh vs. State of
Punjab7 relied upon much by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant
was a case that came up before the
Supreme Court in appeal from an order of
conviction for an offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC. The deceased was the
wife of one Dr. Jaspal Singh, whereas the
appellant Gurcharan Singh was Dr. Jaspal
Singh's brother. The victims were three in
number, that is to say, Surjit Kaur, wife of
Dr. Jaspal Singh and their two daughters,
Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul. Apparently,
four persons were charge sheeted after
investigation, to wit, Satnam Kaur, who
died
pending
committal
proceedings,
Gurcharan
Singh,
Ajit
Kaur
and
Sukhvinder Singh alias Goldy. All of
them were in-laws of the deceased, Surjit
Kaur. At the conclusion of trial, Ajit Kaur
was acquitted, whereas Gurcharan Singh
and Sukhvinder Singh were convicted of
the charge punishable under Section 306
IPC. The Trial Court awarded each of the
accused a term of six years rigorous
imprisonment. On appeal to the High
Court, the conviction was upheld, but the
sentences were reduced to five years'
rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to their
Lordships of the Supreme Court by Special
Leave preferred by Gurcharan Singh, the
conviction
was
overturned
and
the
appellant acquitted. The facts giving rise to
the prosecution can no better be described
than in their Lordships' words, where these
are recorded thus:

"3.
The
fascicule
of
facts,
indispensable to comprehend the backdrop
of the prosecution, has its origin in the
inexplicable abandonment of the deceased
Surjit Kaur and her two daughters, namely;
Geet Pahul and Preet Pahul by Dr Jaspal
Singh,
their
husband
and
father
respectively, about two years prior to the
tragic end of his three family members as
above. The prosecution version is that Dr
Jaspal Singh, who was initially in the
government service, had relinquished the
same and started a coal factory at Muktsar.
He suffered loss in the business and
consequently failed to repay the loan
availed by him in this regard from the bank.
As he and his brother Gurcharan Singh
(appellant herein) and others succeeded to
the property left by their predecessors, he
started medical practice in private.

4. Be that as it may, before
leaving
his
family,
he
addressed
a
communication to the bank concerned
expressing his inability to repay the loan in
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
spite of his best efforts as he was not
possessed of any property in his name. Dr
Jaspal Singh was thereafter not to be
traced. Following this turn of events,
according to the prosecution, his wife Surjit
Kaur and his daughters shifted from
Jalalabad where they used to stay to
Abohar and started residing in a rented
house of one Hansraj (PW 3). According to
them, they had no source of income and
further, they were also deprived of their
share
in
the
property
and
other
entitlements,
otherwise
supposed
to
devolve on Dr Jaspal Singh. They were
also not provided with any maintenance by
the family members of her husband --
Jaspal Singh and instead were ill-treated,
harassed and intimidated.

5. While the matter rested at that,
on 3-10-2000 at about 10.30 p.m., Hansraj,
the landlord of the deceased Surjit Kaur,
being suspicious about prolonged and
unusual lack of response by his tenants,
though the television in their room was on,
informed the brother of the deceased Surjit
Kaur. Thereafter they broke open the door of
the room and found all three lying dead. The
police was informed and FIR was lodged.

6. In course of the inquisition, the
investigating officer collected a suicide
note in the handwriting of Surjit Kaur and
also subscribed to by her daughter Preet
Bahul. The suicide note implicated the
appellant, his wife Ajit Kaur and the
convicted co-accused Sukhvinder Singh
alias Goldy as being responsible for their
wretched condition, driving them in the
ultimate to take the extreme step. A
notebook containing some letters, written
by
deceased
Geet
Pahul
was
also
recovered. On the completion of the
investigation, which included, amongst
others the collection of the post-mortem
report which confirmed death due to
consumption of aluminium phosphide, a
pesticide,
charge-sheet
was
submitted
against
the
three
persons
named
hereinabove along with Satnam Kaur under
Sections 306/34 IPC."

20. It must be remarked here for the
purpose of emphasis, though already
apparent, that the decision in Gurcharan
Singh came on appeal before their
Lordships, where there was the advantage
of all evidence recorded during trial being
available and analyzed by the Courts below
threadbare. The case did not arise on a
petition to quash proceedings at the
threshold. It was after a consideration of
the evidence on record that it was held in
Gurcharan Singh :

"21. It is thus manifest that the
offence punishable is one of abetment of
the commission of suicide by any person,
predicating existence of a live link or nexus
between the two, abetment being the
propelling causative factor. The basic
ingredients of this provision are suicidal
death and the abetment thereof. To
constitute abetment, the intention and
involvement of the accused to aid or
instigate the commission of suicide is
imperative. Any severance or absence of
any of these constituents would militate
against this indictment. Remoteness of the
culpable acts or omissions rooted in the
intention of the accused to actualise the
suicide would fall short as well of the
offence of abetment essential to attract the
punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC.
Contiguity, continuity, culpability and
complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of
abetment.
Section
306
IPC,
thus
criminalises the sustained incitement for
suicide.

22. Section 107 IPC defines
"abetment" and is extracted hereunder:
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
791

"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 doing.

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."

Not only the acts and omissions
defining the offence of abetment singularly
or in combination are enumerated therein,
the explanations adequately encompass all
conceivable facets of the culpable conduct
of the offender relatable thereto.

27. The pith and purport of
Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated
by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of
Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] ,
and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set
out hereunder: (SCC p. 134, paras 12-13)

"12. Abetment involves a mental
process
of
instigating
a
person
or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of
a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would
involve that mental process of entering
into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is
required before a person can be said to be
abetting the commission of offence under
Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal
Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal,
(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] ,
this Court has observed that the courts
should be extremely careful in assessing
the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for
the purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end the life by committing suicide. If
it transpires to the court 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 should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found
guilty."(emphasis supplied)

28.
Significantly,
this
Court
underlined by referring to its earlier
pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal [State of
W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 107] that courts have to be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case to ascertain as
to whether cruelty had been meted out to
the victim and that the same had induced
the person to end his/her life by committing
suicide, with the caveat that if the victim
committing
suicide
appears
to
be
hypersensitive
to
ordinary
petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life,
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quite common to the society to which he or
she belonged and such factors were not
expected
to
induce
a
similarly
circumstanced individual to resort to such
step, the accused charged with abetment
could not be held guilty. The above view
was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of
W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.,
(2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
896].

29. That the intention of the
legislature is that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC, there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit an offence
and that there ought to be an active or
direct act leading the deceased to commit
suicide, being left with no option, had been
propounded 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].

30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal
v. State of Gujarat [Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC
48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 801] , this Court, with reference
to Section 113-A of the Evidence Act,
1872, while observing that the criminal law
amendment bringing forth this provision
was necessitated to meet the social
challenge of saving the married woman
from being ill-treated or forced to commit
suicide by the husband or his relatives
demanding dowry, it was underlined that
the burden of proving the preconditions
permitting the presumption as ingrained
therein, squarely and singularly lay on the
prosecution. That the prosecution as well
has to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that the deceased had committed suicide on
being abetted by the person charged under
Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.

31.
The
assessment
of
the
evidence on record as above, in our
considered opinion, does not demonstrate
with unqualified clarity and conviction, any
role of the appellant or the other implicated
in-laws of the deceased Surjit Kaur, as
contemplated by the above provisions so as
to return an unassailable finding of their
culpability under Section 306 IPC. The
materials on record, to reiterate, do not
suggest even remotely any act of cruelty,
oppression, harassment or inducement
so as to persistently provoke or compel
the deceased to resort to self-extinction
being left with no other alternative. No
such continuous and proximate conduct
of the appellant or his family members
with the required provocative culpability
or lethal instigative content is discernible
to even infer that the deceased Surjit
Kaur and her daughters had been
pushed to such a distressed state,
physical or mental that they elected to
liquidate themselves as if to seek a
practical
alleviation
from
their
unbearable earthly miseries."(Emphasis
by Court)

21. In Sudhakar Pathak and others
vs. State of U.P. and others8 which is
again a case that arose on appeal by a
convicted husband before this Court -
convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide by his
wife, this Court after a complete review of
evidence on record and the law applicable
held:

"15. Though, Gurucharan (supra)
was a case based on dowry harassment, the
last four lines mentioned in bold letters are
still relevant and they require specific
incident, and not general allegations,
having provocative capability to drive the
deceased to such distressed state, mental
and physical that she could elect to end her
life. Routine behaviour, remark or quarrel
by husband in matrimonial life in a drunken
7 All. Chitra @ Bebi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
793
state cannot be taken to be sufficient to the
extent
to
constitute
abetment
unless
something
extra-ordinary,
more
than
normal wear and tear of married life, is
shown on or just before the date of
incident. In this instant case where
admittedly the deceased was suffering from
mental illness or disease, the burden of
proving close link, in proximity of time
between abetment and suicide, heavily lies
on prosecution and the prosecution has
utterly failed in discharging this burden.

16. This is no principle of law
that wherever wife commits suicide, the
husband will bear the responsibility and
will be held liable. No doubt that in such
cases, if the prosecution has discharged its
initial burden of proof of guilt and has
proved the relationship between abetment
by husband and suicide by wife, the
accused may be required in view of section
106 of the Evidence Act to explain the
circumstances in which the wife committed
suicide. But when mental illness of the wife
is admitted much before in time from the
date of death and the husband is habitual
drunkard since marriage and in the habit of
causing harassment in drunken state and
both have passed more than 15 years of
marriage as such giving birth to four
children, general allegation of harassment
cannot be sufficient to hold him guilty for
the offence of abetment of suicide,
particularly when the presence of husband
in the house around the incident is not
established."

22. This Court must still again remark
that cases where the charge is about
abetment to commit suicide, there are very
subtle features of evidence that may show
the necessary mens rea and the relevant
persistent conduct of the accused in driving
the deceased to commit suicide. There
could be cases where on the material
collected during investigation, there is
hardly anything to show that the accused or
one of them ex facie committed an act
proximate in point of time that could drive
the deceased to take his life.