# Km. Ruchi Tripathi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-ruchi-tripathi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51661
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401, 227 & 228 -
Revision
against
order
dated
01.02.2022
rejecting discharge application in Sessions Trial
No. 2567 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC - Held,
revisionist's application for discharge rightly
rejected as suicide note and video message by
deceased categorically implicated revisionist for
abetting suicide - Prima facie case established
based on material indicating revisionist's alleged
threats and abusive conduct - Court not
required to delve into deep inquiry at discharge
stage, only to ascertain if sufficient ground
exists for proceeding - No error in trial court's
order. (Para 19-21)
Revision dismissed at admission stage.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 28
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024

Km. Ruchi Tripathi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Santosh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401, 227 & 228 -
Revision
against
order
dated
01.02.2022
rejecting discharge application in Sessions Trial
No. 2567 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC - Held,
revisionist's application for discharge rightly
rejected as suicide note and video message by
deceased categorically implicated revisionist for
abetting suicide - Prima facie case established
based on material indicating revisionist's alleged
threats and abusive conduct - Court not
required to delve into deep inquiry at discharge
stage, only to ascertain if sufficient ground
exists for proceeding - No error in trial court's
order. (Para 19-21)
Revision dismissed at admission stage.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Naresh Kumar Vs St. of Har., Criminal Appeal
No. 1722 of 2010, decided on 22.02.2024

2. Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs St. of Karn.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011, decided on
01.03.2024

3. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs Dilip
Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715

4. Rajbir Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51
5. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs St. (NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 16 SCC 605

6. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460

7. St. of Maharashtra Vs Som Nath Thapa,
(1996) 4 SCC 659

8. St. of M.P. Vs Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62

9. P. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398

10. Asmathunnisa Vs St. of A.P., (2011) 11 SCC
259

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava
Advocate, the learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the
learned Additional Government Advocate
and Ms. Neetu Shukla, the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 and perused the
record.

2. By means of the instant revision
filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the
revisionist has assailed the validity of the
order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1,
Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.2567 of
2022 arising out of Case Crime No.79 of
2018 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station
Gazipur, Lucknow whereby the application
for discharge of the revisionist has been
rejected.

3. The aforesaid case has been
initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged by
opposite party No.2 on 05.02.2018 against
the applicant and her sister, stating that the
complainant's son was in a relationship
with the revisionist. Negotiations for
settlement of the marriage of complainant's
son with some other girl were going on and
3 All. Km. Ruchi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
upon coming to know about it, the accused
persons threatened to defame him in the
society, to stop his marriage and to entangle
him in a rape case, due to which the
complainant's son committed suicide by
hanging himself inside his room at 09:30
PM on 30.01.2018.

4. The deceased has left a suicide note
stating that the revisionist was responsible
for putting the deceased in agony; that he
too could have defamed the revisionist, but
he would not do so; that the revisionist had
compelled him to commit suicide and that
the deceased too had some intimate
pictures but that would not be seen by any
other person. The deceased had recorded a
video massage prior to committing suicide
wherein he categorically stated that the
revisionist alone was responsible for his
death and she had ruined his life. She had
done extremely bad things against him and
had insulted him beyond limits. He too
could have defamed the revisionist but he
refrained from doing so.

5. A charge-sheet for commission of
offence under Section 306 IPC was
submitted against the revisionist alone and
her
sister
was
exonerated
by
the
investigating officer.

6. The revisionist filed an application
for her discharge stating that the deceased
and the revisionist were descendents of a
common ancestor and they were related as
brother and sister and they resided in same
village. The deceased was infatuated to the
revisionist. On 30.01.2018, he had made a
telephone call to the revisionist and had asked
about her final decision regarding the
marriage. She declined to marry him and
thereafter he committed suicide. It was also
stated in the application seeking discharge
that the deceased was an ambitious person, he
was not satisfied with his job, he was
disturbed for numerous reasons and he was
suffering from depression, due to which he
had become habitual of consuming alcohol
and sleeping pills. The discharge application
further stated that no expert hand-writing
opinion has been obtained regarding the
suicide note.

7. The trial court rejected the
application for discharge by recording that
the investigating officer has mentioned in the
case diary that from an examination of the
Whatsapp Chat in the mobile phone of the
deceased, it transpired that the revisionist
used
to
abuse
the
deceased.
Some
independent witnesses have stated that she
had asked the deceased to commit suicide.
From the aforesaid material a prima facie
case of trial of the revisionist is made out.
Correctness of the allegations can only be
ascertained after conclusion of the trial. In
view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, no case for discharge of the revisionist
without her trial is made out.

8. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has submitted that the allegations
leveled in the FIR and the material collected
during investigation merely indicate that the
deceased and the victim were in some kind of
relationship and the deceased committed
suicide after the revisionist declined to marry
him. He has submitted that there is absolutely
no evidence to even prima facie establish that
the revisionist had incited or abetted the
deceased to commit suicide. He has placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar vs State
of Haryana : Criminal Appeal No.1722 of
2010 decided on 22.02.2024, wherein it has
been held that: -

"in order to convict a person
Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. Mere harassment is not
sufficient to hold an Accused guilty of
abetting the commission of suicide. It also
requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide. The
ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed
to be ostensibly present but has to be
visible and conspicuous."

9. The learned Counsel for the
revisionist has also placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of
Karnataka : Criminal Appeal No.1427 of
2011 decided on 01.03.2024, in which it
has been held that: -

"31. In India attempt to commit
suicide is an offence under Section 309
IPC. This section provides that whoever
attempts to commit suicide and does any
act towards the commission of such offence,
he
shall
be
punished
with
simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year or with fine or with both. But
once the suicide is carried out i.e., the
offence is complete, then obviously such a
person would be beyond the reach of the
law; question of penalising him would not
arise. In such a case, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide would be
penalised under Section 306 IPC. Section
306 IPC 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.

31.1. Thus, as per Section 306 of
IPC, if any person commits suicide, then
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.

32. The crucial word in Section
306 of IPC is 'abets'. 'Abetment' is defined
in Section 107 of IPC. Section 107 of IPC
reads thus:

107. Abetment of a thing- A
person abets the doing of a thing,
whoFirst-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 30 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.

32.1. From a reading of Section
107 IPC what is deducible is that a person
would be abetting the doing of a thing if he
instigates any person to do that thing or if
he encourages with one or more person or
persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or if he intentionally aids by any act
or illegal omission doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 clarifies that even if a person
by way of wilful misrepresentation or
concealment of a material fact which he is
otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily
causes or procures or attempts to cause or
3 All. Km. Ruchi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
procure a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing. Similarly,
it is clarified by way of Explanation-2 that
whoever does anything in order to facilitate
the commission of an act, either prior to or
at the time of commission of the act, is said
to aid the doing of that act.
* * *

47. Human mind is an enigma. It
is well neigh impossible to unravel the
mystery of the human mind. There can be
myriad reasons for a man or a woman to
commit or attempt to commit 43 suicide: it
may be a case of failure to achieve
academic
excellence,
oppressive
environment
in
college
or
hostel,
particularly for students belonging to the
marginalized
sections,
joblessness,
financial difficulties, disappointment in
love or marriage, acute or chronic
ailments, depression, so on and so forth.
Therefore, it may not always be the case
that someone has to abet commission of
suicide. Circumstances surrounding the
deceased in which he finds himself are
relevant.

10. Both the aforesaid judgments
relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
revisionist were passed in Criminal Appeals
filed against orders passed by the High
Courts affirming the conviction of the
accused after a full fledged trial by the
High Court and none of those considered
the scope of interference at the stage of
discharge of an accused without trial. As the
impugned order has been passed under
Section 227 Cr.P.C., it will be appropriate to
have a look at the aforesaid provision before
proceeding further. The aforesaid provision
reads as follows: -

"227.
Discharge.-If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and
the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons
for so doing."

11. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi
Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia,
(1989) 1 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Court while
examining the scope of Section 227 held as
under: -

"14. ... Section 227 itself contains
enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry
for the purpose of discharging an accused. It
provides that "the Judge shall discharge
when he considers that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused".
The "ground" in the context is not a ground
for conviction, but a ground for putting the
accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or
the innocence of the accused will be
determined and not at the time of framing of
charge. The court, therefore, need not
undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and
weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to
delve deep into various aspects. All that the
court has to consider is whether the
evidentiary material on record, if generally
accepted, would reasonably connect the
accused with the crime.'

12. In Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2006) 4 SCC 51 it was held that in
accordance with Section 227, the High Court
must ascertain whether there is "sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused"
or there is ground for "presuming" that the
offence has been committed.

13. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605,
wherein it was held that: -

"25. It is trite that at the stage of
framing of charge, the court is required to
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to finding out if the facts
emerging therefrom, taken at their face
value, disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence
or offences. For this limited purpose, the
court may sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at the initial stage to accept
as gospel truth all that the prosecution
states. At this stage, the court has to
consider the material only with a view to
find out if there is ground for "presuming"
that the accused has committed an offence
and not for the purpose of arriving at the
conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a
conviction."

14. The difference between the
approach with which the Court should
examine the matter in while considering an
application for discharge under Section 227
Cr. P.C. and while framing charge under
Section 228 of the Code has been explained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460, in the following words:-

"17. Framing of a charge is an
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in
terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the
accused is discharged under Section 227 of
the Code. Under both these provisions, the
court is required to consider the "record of
the
case"
and
documents
submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may either discharge the accused or where
it appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, it shall
frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the
court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the
accused and frame the charge accordingly.
This presumption is not a presumption of
law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of
an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case. There is a fine
distinction
between
the
language
of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section
227 is the expression of a definite opinion
and judgment of the Court while Section
228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the
stage of framing of charge, the Court
should form an opinion that the accused is
certainly guilty of committing an offence, is
an approach which is impermissible in
terms of Section 228 of the Code.
* * *

30. We have already noticed that
the legislature in its wisdom has used the
expression "there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an
offence". This has an inbuilt element of
presumption once the ingredients of an
offence with reference to the allegations
made are satisfied, the Court would not
doubt the case of the prosecution unduly
and extend its jurisdiction to quash the
charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
(1996) 4 SCC 659 referred to the meaning
of the word "presume" while relying upon
Black's Law Dictionary. It was defined to
mean "to believe or accept upon probable
evidence"; "to take as proved until
evidence to the contrary is forthcoming".
In other words, the truth of the matter has
to come out when the prosecution evidence
is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by
the defence, the incriminating material and
evidence is put to the accused in terms of
Section 313 of the Code and then the
accused is provided an opportunity to lead
defence, if any. It is only upon completion
of such steps that the trial concludes with
the court forming its final opinion and
3 All. Km. Ruchi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33
delivering its judgment. Merely because
there was a civil transaction between the
parties would not by itself alter the status
of the allegations constituting the criminal
offence."

15. Thus the law regarding the
approach to be adopted by the court while
considering an application for discharge of
the accused persons under Section 227 and
approach while framing charges under
Section 228 of the Code, is that while
considering an application for discharge of
the accused under Section 227 of the Code,
the Court has to form a definite opinion,
upon consideration of the record of the case
and the documents submitted therewith,
that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. However,
while framing charges, the Court is not
required to form a definite opinion that the
accused is guilty of committing an offence.
The truth of the matter will come out when
evidence is led during the trial. Once the
facts and ingredients of the Section exist,
the court would presume that there is
ground to proceed against the accused and
frame the charge accordingly and the Court
would
not
doubt
the
case
of
the
prosecution.

16. The learned A.G.A. has relied
upon the judgment in the case of State of
M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62, which
was passed in an appeal against a judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
discharging the respondent from charges
framed by the trial Court under Section 306
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
victim had consumed poison at her
residence, she was immediately moved to
the District Hospital for treatment, where
her dying declaration was recorded. The
relevant part of the dying declaration is
extracted below:

"Question : What has happened
to you?

Answer : I have consumed
poison.

Question
:
Why
you
have
consumed poison?

Answer : I am not able to get the
job, wherever I go, Deepak Bhamawat R/o
Jeeran, gets me sacked out from the job.
Earlier he had molested me, on which, I
had instituted a case against him, since
then, he is harassing me.

Question : Whether you want to
say anything else?

Answer : No."

17. While setting aside the order of
the High Court discharging the accused, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"10. The High Court did not at
all apply the relevant test, namely, whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused or whether there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence. If the answer is in
the affirmative an order of discharge
cannot be passed and the accused has to
face the trial. The High Court after merely
observing that 'as the firing was aimed at
the other persons and accidentally the
deceased Pooja Balmiki was passing
through that way and she was hit' and
further observing that 'the applicant
neither intended to kill the deceased nor
was she aimed at because of the reason that
she was a Scheduled Caste' set aside the
order by which the charges had been
framed against Respondent 2. There can be
no manner of doubt that the provisions of
Section 301 IPC have been completely
ignored and the relevant criteria for
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judging the validity of the order passed by
the learned Special Judge directing framing
of charges have not been applied. The
impugned order is, therefore, clearly
erroneous in law and is liable to be set
aside."

18. In State of M.P. v. Deepak
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the well established principle of
law that: -

"16. It was also noted that at the
stage of framing of charges, the Court has
to consider the material only with a view to
find out if there is a ground for
"presuming"
that
the
accused
had
committed the offence"

19. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
mentioned cases, it appears that the
categorical assertions made by the deceased
in his suicide note and in the video message
recorded by him immediately before
committing suicide, which have been
referred to above, a case for trial of the
applicant for the offence under Section 306
I.P.C. is made out, as there is no ground for
presuming that she has not committed the
offence.

20. There is no error in the impugned
order which may call for interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the revision is dismissed at the
admission stage.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 34
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 312 of 2024

Smt. Seeta Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ambika Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 397, 401 & 156(3) -
Revision
against
order
dated
21.12.2023
rejecting application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. - Allegations of rape and assault by
opposite parties on revisionist's minor daughter
- Held, trial court rightly rejected application
due
to
unnatural
circumstances,
lack
of
witnesses, absence of medico-legal evidence,
and significant delay in reporting (two months)
without
explanation
-
Allegations
appear
motivated to counter FIR against revisionist's
son under Section 306 IPC - Judicial mind
applied as per Priyanka Srivastava guidelines -
No illegality in trial court's order. (Para 7-10)

Revision dismissed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 6
SCC 287

2. Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar
Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1

3. Anju Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC
384

4. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439

5. Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs Ajay Arora, (2013) 10
SCC
581