# Jagveer Singh @ Bantu (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 226
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagveer-singh-bantu-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47563
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 498A & 306- Conviction under-
Prosecution witness PW1- and PW2- have
failed
to
prove
the
version
of
FIR
regarding
the
demand
of
additional
dowry, torture and killing the deceased by
administering the poison to her. The
version of the First Information Report is
the genesis of this case, but during the
course of investigation the suicide-note of
deceased was found and it changed the
entire story of the prosecution.

Where the prosecution changes the entire story
subsequently and fails to prove the initial
version alleged in the FI.R, which is the genesis
of the case of the prosecution, then the same
renders the story of the prosecution doubtful.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 107 & 306- Abetment of Suicide-
Before a person may be said to have
abetted the commission of suicide, he
must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide. As per
provision of Section 107 IPC, it is very
much clear that for abetment a person
should do something to instigate any
person to do something or engages with
one or more persons in any conspiracy to
do that thing or intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omissions, to do that
particular thing.

Settled law that to make an offence of suicide, it
is essential to prove that the accused had
intentionally instigated the deceased to commit
suicide.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 107 & 306- There is absolutely
nothing in the suicide-note suggesting
abetment to commit suicide. There is
nothing in the suicide note which can be
said to be proximate reason to commit
suicide by the deceased. The aforesaid
suicide note does not show any mens rea
on the part of the appellant. No guilty
mind of appellant is shown by any
statement in suicide note as referred by
the trial court. Further, suicide note does
not show the fact that there was any
instigation or even cruelty on the part of
appellant due to which the deceased was
left with no option but to commit suicide
because if the appellant had separated the
deceased
from
his
life,
it
was
not
compelling reason which put the deceased
in a situation where she had no option but
to commit suicide.

Where the suicide note fails to show that there
was any proximate reason to commit suicide or
there was any criminal intent, instigation or
even cruelty of the accused compelling the
deceased to commit suicide, then conviction of
the accused on basis of such suicide note
cannot be upheld. ( Para 12, 16, 20)

Criminal appeal allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-
9 All. Jagveer Singh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.
227

## Text

226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act,
1959, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of
charges framed against him. Appellant's
personal bond is cancelled and sureties
stand discharged.
----------
(2021)09ILR A226
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2011

Jagveer Singh @ Bantu
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastav, Sri R.P.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 498A & 306- Conviction under-
Prosecution witness PW1- and PW2- have
failed
to
prove
the
version
of
FIR
regarding
the
demand
of
additional
dowry, torture and killing the deceased by
administering the poison to her. The
version of the First Information Report is
the genesis of this case, but during the
course of investigation the suicide-note of
deceased was found and it changed the
entire story of the prosecution.

Where the prosecution changes the entire story
subsequently and fails to prove the initial
version alleged in the FI.R, which is the genesis
of the case of the prosecution, then the same
renders the story of the prosecution doubtful.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 107 & 306- Abetment of Suicide-
Before a person may be said to have
abetted the commission of suicide, he
must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide. As per
provision of Section 107 IPC, it is very
much clear that for abetment a person
should do something to instigate any
person to do something or engages with
one or more persons in any conspiracy to
do that thing or intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omissions, to do that
particular thing.

Settled law that to make an offence of suicide, it
is essential to prove that the accused had
intentionally instigated the deceased to commit
suicide.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 107 & 306- There is absolutely
nothing in the suicide-note suggesting
abetment to commit suicide. There is
nothing in the suicide note which can be
said to be proximate reason to commit
suicide by the deceased. The aforesaid
suicide note does not show any mens rea
on the part of the appellant. No guilty
mind of appellant is shown by any
statement in suicide note as referred by
the trial court. Further, suicide note does
not show the fact that there was any
instigation or even cruelty on the part of
appellant due to which the deceased was
left with no option but to commit suicide
because if the appellant had separated the
deceased
from
his
life,
it
was
not
compelling reason which put the deceased
in a situation where she had no option but
to commit suicide.

Where the suicide note fails to show that there
was any proximate reason to commit suicide or
there was any criminal intent, instigation or
even cruelty of the accused compelling the
deceased to commit suicide, then conviction of
the accused on basis of such suicide note
cannot be upheld. ( Para 12, 16, 20)

Criminal appeal allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-
9 All. Jagveer Singh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.
227
1. Amalendu Pal Vs. St. of W.B. (2010) 1 SCC
707

2. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12
SCC 190

3. Rajesh Vs. St. of Har. 2019 (1) JIC 791 (SC)

4. Gurcharan Singh Vs. St. of Punj. 2020 (4) JIC
336 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the appellant-Jagveer Singh @ Bantu
against the judgement and order dated
28.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.02, Pilibhit, in Session
Trial No.179 of 2009 (State Vs. Jagveer
Singh @ Bantu) arising out of Case Crime
No.1657 of 2008, under Sections 498-A &
306 IPC and Section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition
Act,
1961,
Police
Station-Jahanabad,
District- Pilibhit, by which the learned trial
court
convicted
and
sentenced
the
appellant- Jagveer Singh @ Bantu for five
years
rigorous
imprisonment
and
Rs.10,000/-
fine
(three
months
imprisonment for default of fine) under
Section 306 IPC and two years rigorous
imprisonment and Rs.3,000/- fine (one
month imprisonment in default of fine) for
the offence under Section 498A IPC. All
sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief relevant facts of this case
are that on 14.12.2008, informant Madan
Lal submitted a written report in P.S.-
Jahanabad, District- Pilibhit, with the
averments
that
his
grand-daughter
(daughter of his daughter) Laxmi Devi was
married to Jagveer Singh @ Bantu s/o
Khoob Chandra resident of Village-Jalipura
in April, 2008. They have given sufficient
dowry according to their financial capacity
but Jagveer Singh and his parents were not
satisfied with the dowry. So, they used to
torture Laxmi Devi. Laxmi Devi on several
occasions made complaints regarding the
demand of additional dowry and torture
due to non-fulfillment of the demand.
Several times they tried to convince
Jagveer Singh, but Jagveer Singh used to
quarrel with them also. Villagers of Jagveer
Singh's village informed us in the morning
at 10 O'clock through telephone that Laxmi
Devi has been killed. It was evident that
she was given poison.

3. On the above written report, the
Case Crime No.1657 of 2008, under
Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3⁄4
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
1961,
was
registered at P.S.- Jahanabad, District-
Pilibhit on the same day against the
appellant- Jagveer Singh and his parents.
Postmortem of Laxmi Devi was conducted
and
cause
of
death
could
not
be
ascertained,
therefore,
viscera
was
preserved. After inquest of the dead-body
of the deceased, report from Forensic
Science Laboratory, Lucknow (Ex.ka7)
was received. In the report, aluminum
phosphide poison was found in viscera of
the deceased, therefore, charge sheet was
submitted against Jagveer and his father
Khoob Chandra under the above mentioned
offences.

4. Learned trial court framed charges
under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3⁄4
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against both
the accused persons. Learned trial court,
after conducting full trial, acquitted Khoob
Chandra for all charges framed against him,
but convicted Jagveer Singh @ Bantu
under Section 306 IPC for five years
rigorous imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine
and under Section 498A IPC for two years
rigorous imprisonment and Rs.3,000/- fine.
Hence, this appeal.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar
Srivastav, learned counsel for the appellant
and Shri S.S. Sachan, learned AGA,
appearing for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case by the informant and
wrongly convicted by the trial court. No
offence is made out against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted
that
initially
a
case
was
registered against the appellant under
Section 304B, 498A IPC and 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, and it was alleged in
the First Information Report that appellant
and his parents were not happy and
satisfied with the dowry given in the
marriage of the deceased and they used to
demand additional dowry and also used to
torture for non-fulfillment of the dowry, but
no such evidence has come out on the
record and learned trial court acquitted the
accused- Khoob Chandra for all the charges
and convicted the appellant- Jagveer Singh
under Section 306 IPC only, therefore, it is
clear from the judgement of the learned
lower court that prosecution story was not
believed to be true by the trial court and
allegations of demand and torture were
found false. Learned counsel for the
appellant argued that when prosecution
story was not found true then trial court
should have acquitted the appellant also.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
next submitted that in this case a suicidenote had come into the picture. Suicidenote was found from the room of the
deceased by the Investigating Officer.
Entire case is based on it and in the entire
suicide-note there is no allegation of
demand of dowry or torture and moreover
there is no allegation against the appellant
for instigating the deceased to commit
suicide, but learned trial court did not
consider
the
suicide-note
in
right
perspective. Learned counsel for the
appellant
further
submitted
that
the
informant, who is Nana of the deceased
and real brother of the deceased Rakesh @
Satish Kumar admitted in their statements
that suicide-note was written in the handwriting of the deceased, therefore, there
was no dispute regarding the suicide-note
and prosecution witnesses admitted it to be
in the hand-writing of deceased-Laxmi
Devi. There is no averment in the suicidenote regarding abetment on the part of
appellant to commit suicide. Appellant and
deceased had cordial relations. Learned
trial court has quoted the suicide-note in the
judgement, which does not disclose any
abetment even then trial court convicted the
appellant and sentenced him under Section
306 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued that for abetment, there should be
immediate instigation, but it is not so in
suicide-note. In this way, appellant is
wrongly convicted by the trial court,
therefore, the instant appeal may be
allowed.

8. Learned AGA submitted that there
was cruelty against the deceased by
appellant and due to this cruelty trial court
convicted the appellant for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC. Learned AGA
next submitted that suicide-note shows that
appellant had driven out the deceased from
his life due to which the deceased was
mentally disturbed and could not tolerate
keeping herself out of life of the appellant.

9. Learned AGA also submitted that
although in suicide-note, deceased has
written to his brother that her husband and
her-in-laws should not be harassed and no
case should be registered against them after
her death, but law will take its own course.
9 All. Jagveer Singh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.
229
Learned trial court, after believing the
averments of the suicide-note, came to the
conclusion
that
deceased
was
very
uncomfortable
and
under
mental
disturbance when the appellant drove out
her from his life, although, they were
residing together. Due to this mental agony
and disturbances, she committed suicide for
which appellant was responsible and,
therefore,
learned
trial
court
rightly
convicted the appellant under Section 306
IPC.

10. Prosecution case is that appellant
and his parents were not satisfied with the
dowry given in marriage of deceased and
they used to demand additional dowry and
torturing the deceased for not meeting out
the same. Prosecution has also brought this
case before the court that due to nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry,
Laxmi Devi was killed by poison. To prove
its
case,
prosecution
produced
two
witnesses of fact, PW1- Madan Lal and
PW2- Rakesh Kumar @ Satish Kumar.
PW-1 is the informant and Nana of
deceased and PW-2 is the real brother of
the deceased. In their respective statements,
both the witnesses have reiterated the
demand of Rs.50,000/- and a four wheeler
as additional dowry from the family of the
deceased. Both the above witnesses have
stated in their examination-in-chief that due
to non-fulfillment of demand of additional
dowry, deceased was killed by poison.
Both the witnesses supported the version of
first
information
report
in
their
examination-in-chief, but a suicide note,
written by the deceased, is the main basis
of this case, which was found by
Investigating Officer from the room of the
deceased. On believing the averments of
suicide-note, trial court acquitted Khoob
Chandra, father of the appellant and
convicted the appellant, not for offence of
dowry death but for the offence of
abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The learned trial court has opined in the
judgement that this fact is not proved on
the basis of evidence available on record
that husband or father-in-law of deceased
have ever tortured her in connection with
demand of dowry and trial court gave
finding that appellant has separated the
deceased from his life which comes in the
category of mental cruelty which is clear
from the suicide-note, therefore, in this
way, the appellant had created such a
circumstance and situation before the
deceased, which inspired the deceased to
commit suicide by consuming the poison
and, therefore, the appellant was solely
responsible for abetting the deceased to
commit suicide.

11. This Court is not at all convinced
with the above findings of the trial court
regarding mental cruelty and abetment to
commit suicide by the appellant.

12. Prosecution witness PW1- Madan
Lal and PW2- Rakesh Kumar have failed to
prove the version of FIR regarding the
demand of additional dowry, torture and
killing the deceased by administering the
poison to her. The version of the First
Information Report is the genesis of this
case, but during the course of investigation
the suicide-note of deceased was found and
it changed the entire story of the
prosecution.

13. Learned trial court found that
appellant tortured the deceased mentally
and he had created such a situation before
the deceased by separating her from his life
that she was not left with any other option
but to commit suicide. This finding of trial
court is not in-consonance with the settled
position
of
law
regarding
abetment.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Abetment to suicide is provided under
Section 306 IPC as under:-

"Section 306 in The Indian
Penal Code

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."

14. Before discussing the law of
abetment it is relevant to quote the
provision of Section 107 IPC which is as
under:-

"Section 107 in The Indian
Penal Code

107. Abetment of a thing.--A
person abets the doing of a thing, who--

(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. 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. Illustration A, a public
officer, is authorized by a warrant from a
Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B,
knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby
intentionally
causes
A
to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation
the apprehension of C. 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."

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
in Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West
Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 that "it is also to
be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of the suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without there
being any positive action proximate to the
time of the 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."

16. Before a person may be said to
have abetted the commission of suicide, he
must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to
facilitate the commission of suicide. As per
provision of Section 107 IPC, it is very
much clear that for abetment a person
should do something to instigate any
person to do something or engages with
one or more persons in any conspiracy to
do that thing or intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal omissions, to do that
particular thing. In this case, it was
necessary for appellant to be convicted him
for the offence under Section 306 IPC that
he should have instigated the deceased to
commit suicide or he should have engaged
with one or more persons in any conspiracy
to abet the deceased to commit suicide or
he should have intentionally aided by any
act for abetting her to commit suicide.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Chheena
Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12
SCC 190 held that abetment involves a
9 All. Jagveer Singh @ Bantu Vs. State of U.P.
231
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate
or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. It is also held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in that judgement that in order
to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a 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.

18. In Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana
2019 (1) JIC 791 (SC), Hon'ble Apex
Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation
of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of the
occurrence on the part of the accused,
which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide. In order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306 IPC,
there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission
of the suicide must have played an active
role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of
the suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment
by the person charged with the said office
must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.

19. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab 2020 (4) JIC 336 (SC) held that "as
in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of
abetment, as specified under Section 107
IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to
determine the culpability in order to prove
mens rea, there has to be something on
record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in
furtherance of that state of mind, abetted
the suicide of the deceased.

20. In the case in hand, the trial court
has referred the suicide-note left by the
deceased which shows the sole reason of
committing the suicide by the deceased was
that she was separated by the appellant
from his life. In the opinion of this Court,
the aforesaid reason could not be the reason
which could come under the category of the
abetment. There is absolutely nothing in the
suicide-note, which would make him
responsible for an offence under Section
306 IPC. This Court finds nothing in the
suicide-note
suggesting
abetment
to
commit suicide. There is nothing in the
suicide note which can be said to be
proximate reason to commit suicide by the
deceased. The aforesaid suicide note does
not show any mens rea on the part of the
appellant. No guilty mind of appellant is
shown by any statement in suicide note as
referred by the trial court. Further, suicide
note does not show the fact that there was
any instigation or even cruelty on the part
of appellant due to which the deceased was
left with no option but to commit suicide
because if the appellant had separated the
deceased from his life, it was not
compelling reason which put the deceased
in a situation where she had no option but
to commit suicide. Learned trial court has
given finding that there was mental cruelty
on the part of appellant towards the
deceased and on the basis of this finding,
appellant was convicted under Section
498A IPC, but this Court is not convinced
with this finding also because firstly there
was no averment of demand of additional
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and a four wheeler in
the FIR. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2
show that they did not state this fact before
the Investigating Officer also, both the above
witnesses have stated the fact of demanding
Rs.50,000/- and a four wheeler for the first
time before the trial court, therefore, these
averments will come under the category of
improvement. Moreover, entire suicide-note
does not contain any such demand of dowry
or torturing the deceased. Learned trial court
has wrongly given the finding of mental
cruelty on the basis that appellant drove out
the deceased from his life. In the absence of
mens rea and proximate cause for abetting
the suicide, learned trial court has wrongly
appreciated the law regarding the abetment.

21. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the definite opinion that
learned trial court did not appreciate the
evidence on record in right perspective and
wrongly convicted the appellant for the
offence under Sections 306 IPC and 498A
IPC.

22. Hence, the appeal is liable to be
allowed.

23. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. Conviction and sentence of
appellant as awarded is hereby set aside.
Appellant is on bail, his bail bond is
cancelled and sureties are discharged.
----------
(2021)09ILR A232
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1534 of 2020

Vinod Mali ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shiv Vilas Mishra, Sri Vinod Kumar
Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860-
Section 413- Code of Criminal Procedure
1973- Section 313- Confession under-
Appellant-accused was held guilty and
sentenced by the trial court on the basis of
his confessional statement made before
the learned trial court. Confession made
by the accused, shall be taken as a whole.
It cannot be in parts because it was made
regarding same occurrence and he made
confession
with
his
own
freewill
-
Offences committed by the appellant
which he confessed include offence under
Section 413 I.P.C. also. After confession
made by the appellant, no other evidence
was required to convict him. When
conviction is made as a whole regarding
any occurrence or set of occurrences, it
shall be taken as a whole. It cannot be
fragmented
into
pieces
and
accused
cannot
at
later
stage
claim
that
confessional statement made by him,
should be considered regarding some of
the offences only.

Where
the
accused
makes
a
confession
voluntarily then the same will be taken as a
whole and would apply to other offences also
with which he is charged and conviction on the
basis of such confession shall also be taken as a
whole and for all the offences - No further
evidence is required to be adduced by the
prosecution after confession by the accused.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860-
Section 413- For convicting the accused
under
Section
413
I.P.C.
it
is
not
mandatory particularly after confession,
that accused should have already been
convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. twice
or more than twice because accused
appellant has himself made confession