# Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 586
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2000
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-prakash-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-50854
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section 306-Challenge toConviction-PW2-Raj
Kumar
has
been
declared hostile- PW5 who first informed
the brother of the deceased regarding this
incident, too has not supported the
prosecution case-he has demolished the
theory that the deceased was not good
looking
and
therefore
was
being
maltreated by her husband- he has not
been cross examined by the prosecutionThe
third
witness
,
in
his
chief
examination merely said that deceased
was maltreated because she was not good
looking but he has not stuck to this
version in his cross examination-In the
instant matter, the case of the prosecution
is
that
the
accused
instigated
the
commission of crime- There is not much
substance in the rhetoric of PW1 that
accused
persons
used
to
exhort
deceased's husband to marry again-The
evidence
on
such
theory
is
quite
inadequate
to
brand
it
as
truthfulMoreover there is no evidence to show
that just before the deceased took this
extreme step of taking of her life, there
was some immediate provocation from the
side
of
the
accused
person
which
propelled her to commit suicide- the
prosecution has failed to prove any
proximity between the act of suicide with
the act or conduct or treatment meted out
to the deceased by the accused- Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove that in fact
she was maltreated or harassed to such an
extent which shall essentially fall within
the
term
of
'instigation'
to
commit
suicide.(Para 1 to 26)

B. To convict a person under Section 306
IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to
commit offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which leads deceased to
commit suicide finding no other option
9 All. Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
587
and the act must be such reflecting
intention of the accused to push deceased
into such a position that he commits
suicide. The prosecution has to establish
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
the
deceased
committed
suicide.
In
the
present case, both the elements are
absent. (Para 21)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicants is allowed. In the event of arrest
/ appearance of applicant- Khalid Anwar
Alias Anwar Khalid before the learned
Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond and two solvent sureties,
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction
of
Officer/Court
concerned
on
the
following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court: -

(i). That the applicant shall
appear before the trial court on each date
fixed,
unless
personal
presence
is
exempted;

(ii). That the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). That the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witnes
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 586
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2000

Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr....Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri J.P. Awasthi, Sri Anuj Pandey, Sri
Sheikh Wali-Uz Zaman

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section 306-Challenge toConviction-PW2-Raj
Kumar
has
been
declared hostile- PW5 who first informed
the brother of the deceased regarding this
incident, too has not supported the
prosecution case-he has demolished the
theory that the deceased was not good
looking
and
therefore
was
being
maltreated by her husband- he has not
been cross examined by the prosecutionThe
third
witness
,
in
his
chief
examination merely said that deceased
was maltreated because she was not good
looking but he has not stuck to this
version in his cross examination-In the
instant matter, the case of the prosecution
is
that
the
accused
instigated
the
commission of crime- There is not much
substance in the rhetoric of PW1 that
accused
persons
used
to
exhort
deceased's husband to marry again-The
evidence
on
such
theory
is
quite
inadequate
to
brand
it
as
truthfulMoreover there is no evidence to show
that just before the deceased took this
extreme step of taking of her life, there
was some immediate provocation from the
side
of
the
accused
person
which
propelled her to commit suicide- the
prosecution has failed to prove any
proximity between the act of suicide with
the act or conduct or treatment meted out
to the deceased by the accused- Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove that in fact
she was maltreated or harassed to such an
extent which shall essentially fall within
the
term
of
'instigation'
to
commit
suicide.(Para 1 to 26)

B. To convict a person under Section 306
IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to
commit offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which leads deceased to
commit suicide finding no other option
9 All. Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
587
and the act must be such reflecting
intention of the accused to push deceased
into such a position that he commits
suicide. The prosecution has to establish
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
the
deceased
committed
suicide.
In
the
present case, both the elements are
absent. (Para 21)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mariano Anto Bruno & anr. Vs The Insp. of
Police CRLA No. 1628 of 2022

2. M. Arjunan Vs St. rep. by its Insp. of Police
(2019) 3 SCC 315

3. Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har. (2019) 17
SCC 301

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sheikh Wali-Uz Zaman,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for
the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed
by the appellants-Om Prakash @ Prakash
and Naresh @ Ram Naresh challenging the
order of conviction and sentence dated
08.02.2000 passed by the VIIth Additional
Sessions Judge, Hardoi in ST No. 652 of
1995 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under section 306 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 5
years.

3. A number of legal and factual
points have been raised by the appellants
which shall be dealt with at appropriate
stages in the body of the judgment.

4. Relevant facts in nutshell are as
below:-

(i) The first informant Asharfi Lal
gave a type written report before the police
station concerned with the allegations that
his real sister-Ramladaiti was married to
Prakash about 7 years ago; she had two
daughters from this marriage alliance; the
members of her family used to harass her
because she was not good looking; the
accused persons used to threaten first
informant's sister saying that her husband
Prakash shall perform second marriage;
his sister had disclosed all the facts to the
first informant and he counseled his sister
and sent her to her matrimonial house
again; in the month of 'agahan' when he
went for 'vidah' of his sister, the accused
persons first refused to send her but when
he
persisted,
they
sent
her
after
physically assaulting her. In the morning
of
10.07.1995
the
first
informant's
brother in-law (chachera behnoi)-Braj
Mohan came and informed him that his
sister has hanged herself the previous
night; the first informant went to the
place of occurrence and found her
hanging with a plastic rope; her sister
was maltreated and put to misbehavior to
such an extent by Prakash and other
members of his family that she was
compelled to take her life.

(ii) As per prosecution case on
the basis of earlier written information
dated 10.07.1995 given by the first
informant-Asharfi Lal, the inquest on dead
body of the deceased was conducted on
10.07.1995
from
1pm
onwards
and
postmortem was conducted on 11.07.1995
at 3.30 pm.

(iii) On the basis of another type
written report case crime no. 174 of 1995
under section 306 IPC was registered on
11.08.1995 at 12.30 and investigated
upon.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The investigating officer proceeded
to inspect the site of the occurrence
collected
the
documentary
evidence,
recorded the oral evidence of the witness
and submitted a chargesheet against all the
accused persons under section 306 IPC.
The case proceeded and the Sessions court
framed charges under section 306 IPC
against both the accused persons.

6. The prosecution examined PW1Asharfi Lal (the informant), PW2-Raj
Kumar, PW3- Dr S.K. Rastogi, PW4-ASI
Dal Bahadur, PW5-Braj Mohan, PW6Ramkhelawan, PW7-SI Ram Sahai.

7. Following documentary evidence
was produced (i) Typed written tehrir dated
11.07.1995 (Exhibit Ka-1), (ii) Typed
written tehrir dated 09.08.1995 (Exhibit
Ka-2), (iii) Copy of GD dated 11.07.1995
(Exhibit Ka-6), (iv) Chik (Exhibit Ka-5),
(v) Copy of GD No. 14 dated 10.07.1995,
(vi) Copy of GD No. 32 dated 10.07.1995,
(vii) Memo seizure rope (Exhibit Ka-13),
(viii) Site Map (Exhibit Ka-14), (ix)
Postmortem (Exhibit Ka-4), (x) Inquest
(Exhibit Ka-3), (xi) Copy of GD No. 14
dated 10.07.1995 (Exhibit Ka-16), (xii)
Chargesheet (Exhibit Ka-15), (xiii) Hand
written
tehrir
of
Asharfi
Lal
dated
10.07.1995 (Exhibit Ka-10).

8. In the statement recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons
claimed to be innocent and denied having
any involvement in the offence. No
evidence has been produced in defence.

9. All the accused persons namely,
Om Prakash @ Prakash, Naresh @ Ram
Naresh, Ram Saran, Roop Rani and Smt.
Jaidevi were put to trial. Only two of them
were convicted by the trial court who are
now before this court in this appeal.

10. Before proceeding to evaluate the
evidence
given
on
behalf
of
the
prosecution, it shall be useful to briefly
refer to the oral evidence given by the
witnesses:-

(i) PW1-Asharfi Lal, the first
informant has stated that his sister was not
good
looking,
therefore
the
accused
persons used to beat her frequently and
used to commit physical and mental
atrocities on her; they demanded a 'buffalo'
from her; it is alleged by him that they
wanted his sister to leave the house so that
Om Prakash @ Prakash can remarry; he
has further stated that when he went to
receive his sister for her 'vida' to 'maika',
she was beaten by the accused persons in
his presence on two occasions.

(ii)
PW2-Raj
Kumar
is
essentially a witness of inquest and has no
useful
thing
to
say
in
support
of
prosecution story; he has in fact been
declared hostile and has declined to support
the prosecution case by saying that he
never gave a statement under section 161
Cr.P.C. that her husband, devar and saas
used to harass the deceased.

(iii)
PW3-Dr.
S.K.
Rastogi
conducted the postmortem and found
ligature mark on her neck and a lacerated
wound on the base of her right thumb and a
contusion on left heal.

(iv) PW4- ASI Dal Bahadur, a
formal witness who has proved the chik
and the copy of G.D of different dates,
which shall be referred to at appropriate
places in this judgment.

(v)
PW5-Braj
Mohan,
the
winess who gave the information about
death of Ramladaiti to her brother, has said
9 All. Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
589
in his statement that the deceased was,
though not very beautiful but was not bad
either; he has said that the accused persons
never threatened her by saying that Prakash
will remarry some other woman.

(vi) PW6-Ram Khelawan has
supported the prosecution case in his chiefexamination saying that the accused Om
Prakash and Naresh (devar) and other
members of the family used to maltreat and
humiliate her saying that she was not
beautiful enough.

(vii) PW7-SI Ram Sahai, the
investigating officer who has, besides
proving the inquest report, related papers,
the site map, the chargesheet etc. has also
stated about the evidence of the witnesses
recorded by him.

11. In his testimony PW1, who is the
first informant as well as the real brother of
the deceased, has alleged that the deceased
was being harassed by her husband Prakash
and other accused persons to attain an
objective that she leaves the house so that
her husband can remarry; it is added that
she was not good looking, therefore he
wanted to marry some other woman;
Secondly, the accused were demanding a
'buffalo' from her. In his testimony, he said
that two times it happened that his sister
was physically assaulted by her in-laws in
his presence.

This is all the witness has to say
regarding
the
facts
preceding
the
commission of suicide.

12. As regards filing of an FIR, PW1
has said that he reached the place of
occurrence, the 'chappar'/house of her sister at
about 9.30 in the morning; they reached at the
Police Station-Beniganj at about 12 in the
afternoon and told everything to the police
officer there; the written report regarding the
incident was prepared with the help of one
Lalaji (the scribe of the tehrir); he has denied
the suggestion that he never went to the
police station concerned on that day. He has
stated that copy of the chik FIR was handed
over to him the same day and he delivered
that paper to a lawyer on 3rd day after the
incident; he gave a written report to the
District Magistrate; he received the copy of
that report after a month. This witness has
given
divergent
statements
as
regard
reporting the matter to the police. The PW1
has stated as below:-

"eSa blds ckn eqfYte vkse izdk'k ds
?kj ds vUnj tkdj ns[kk rks eqfYtek t; nsoh ds
vykok ?kj esa vU; dksbZ lnL; ekStwn ugha FkkA
vk/kk ?kUVk rd :dus ds i'pkr eSa Fkkuk csuhxat
fjiksVZ djus x;kA Fkkuk csuhxat esa eaq'kh dks EkSaus
?kVuk dk tckuh gky crk;k Fkk ijUrq eqa'khth us
tSlk eSus crk;k Fkk oSlk gky eqa'khth us ugha fy[kk
FkkA blds ckn eSa njksxk jkelgk; ls feykA rks
mUgksus eq>s MkaV&QVdkj dj Hkxk fn;kA eSa ykSVdj
xzke [ksjok ykSV vk;kA blds ckn iksLVekVZe gksus
ds nwljs fnu ,d izk0i= ftyk eftLVsaV] dIrku
rFkk CO dks fn, FksA eSaus ;g izk0 i= jftLVah fd,
FksA dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksus ij eSus ,d eghus ckn
,d izk0i= CO l.Mhyk dks fn;k FkkA eSa vkt
jftLVah j'khn rkjh[kh 11-7-95 vUMjiksfLVax
lVhZfQdsV fpfdRlkf/kdkjh gjnksbZ fnukad 11-7-95
rFkk vius nLr[krh izk0i= dh izfr ftl ij esjs
gLrk{kj gSA"

The witness has proved the type
written reports dated 11.07.1995 and
09.08.1995 Exhibit Ka-1 and Ka-2. In his
cross examination he has given inconsistent
statements as is evident from his cross
examination on page nos. 7 and 8 of his
testimony.

13. Admittedly, this FIR was
registered on the basis of a type written
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report which is Exhibit Ka-2 and proved by
PW1; this type written report dated
09.08.1995 was addressed to Additional
Superintendent of Police, Sandila, Hardoi
and it named five persons. The first
informant in this written report has
mentioned that the accused persons used to
harass her because she was not good
looking and used to exhort Prakash to
marry a second time. There is one more
written report which again has been proved
by the prosecution Exhibit Ka-1 which
mentions not 5 persons but merely 4
persons; Nothing of this sort has been
mentioned in this written report. Exhibit
Ka-1 dated 11.07.1995 does not say
anything about threats of remarriage
because of the reason that his sister was not
good looking; Instead in type written report
dated 11.07.1995, it is alleged that because
the demand for 'buffalo' etc could not be
fulfilled, therefore they had killed his sister.

14. There is yet another hand written
report dated 10.07.1995 admittedly signed
by the first informant-Asharfi Lal, and
proved by the prosecution witness PW7 in
which simply an information to police
station has been given stating that at about
5 in the morning his brother in-law Braj
Mohan (chachera behnoi) came to his
house and informed him that the first
informant's sister had died and her dead
body was hanging inside her house; there is
none in her house except her mother inlaw; on receiving such information, the first
informant immediately rushed to his sister's
place taking with himself the co-villagers
Suraj Prasad Pal, Chandra Bhal, Shiv Raj
Pal and Majir Ali; he found that she was
hanging by a rope inside the chappar.

I perused this paper. Importantly,
this report bears date 10.07.1995 i.e., just a
day before Exhibit Ka-1 was type written
and this paper does not mention anything
about illegal demand for 'buffalo' or
maltreatment or threats of remarriage.

15. On the basis of the above facts, it
has been vehemently argued that the
prosecution has gradually improved and
developed a story to convert an unfortunate
incident into an offence under section 306
IPC; it is argued that there is no truth in the
allegations; the most important witness
PW1, who is the first informant and on
whose instance three reports were prepared,
has not, in his testimony denied having
prepared these three reports as aforesaid. In
his cross examination, he could not give
any satisfactory explanation regarding
insertion of newer allegations in the reports
which were subsequent to previous one; at
this juncture, it may be noted that in this
case on the basis the report dated
10.07.1995, the inquest and the postmortem
was conducted. In this case the FIR has
been registered almost a month after
conduct of postmortem and inquest etc. The
prior reports which have been proved by
the
prosecution
cannot
be
ignored
altogether.
Though
reports
dated
10.07.1995 and 11.07.1995 are not being
treated as a first information but they are
definitely relevant and admissible in
evidence.

16. In the background of facts as
mentioned above, the evidence of PW1
needs to be evaluated. It is more than
evident that there has not been any whisper
of the fact that she was being maltreated for
not being so good looking, in earlier
information which the deceased's brother
tried to give to the police station. Later on,
the case was registered on the basis of
Exhibit Ka-2 which contained a fact of
demand for buffalo as well as illtreatment
for deceased being not good looking.
9 All. Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
591

In my view the intermediate
period afforded an opportunity to the first
informant to insert embellished and false
facts; The factors which motivated him to
file
an
FIR
may
include
anger,
dissatisfaction or to take revenge for
untimely death of his sister or any other
fact of like nature.

17. Before I draw any conclusion on
the basis of most important witnesses and
the prosecution papers, it may be noted that
PW2-Raj Kumar has not supported the
prosecution case and has been declared
hostile; PW5-Braj Mohan who, as per
prosecution story, first informed the brother
of the deceased regarding this incident, too
has not supported the prosecution case; he
has demolished the theory that the deceased
was not good looking and therefore was
being maltreated by her husband; this is
quite surprising that despite not supporting
the prosecution case he has not been cross
examined by the prosecution.

18. The third witness of fact Ram
Khelawan has, in his chief examination
merely said that Om Prakash and another
used to maltreat deceased Ramladaiti
because she was not good looking; he has
not stuck to this version in his cross
examination.

19. Before proceeding to draw a
conclusion, it will be useful to first
examine the scope of section 306 IPC, the
abetment to commit suicide and to examine
broadly what kinds of acts can be construed
as bringing the matter within the confines
of section 306 IPC.

Section 306 IPC is as below:-

"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."

Abetment
is
defined
under
Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-

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

First- Instigates any person to
do that thing; or Secondly- Engages
with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing
of
that
thing;
or
Thirdly-
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1- A person who by
wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure,
a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.

Explanation 2- Whoever, either
prior to or at the time of the commission of
an act, does anything in order to facilitate
the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act."

20. For the application of section 306
IPC, the law requires that there should be a
proximity between the act of suicide with
the acts and conduct or treatment meted out
by the accused to the victim or acts which
would amount to intentionally aiding or
instigating or abetting the deceased to take
his/her life.
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. A two Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301
observed as below:-

"16. In cases of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be a proof of direct
or indirect act/s of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behavior and
responses/reactions.
In
the
case
of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not
suffice unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each
case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding
out if a person has abetted commission of
suicide by another; the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act
of instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in
the decisions above-

referred, instigation means to
goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty
of abetment of suicide. But, on the other
hand, if the accused by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct creates a
situation
which
leads
the
deceased
perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four-corners ofSection 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing
the self- esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question
of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or
snap show of anger, a particular case may
fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by
words or deeds until the deceased reacted
or was provoked, a particular case may be
that of abetment of suicide. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human
behaviour, each case is required to be
examined on its own facts, while taking
note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the
accused and the deceased."

The Supreme Court in Mariano
Anto Bruno and Another vs. The Inspect
of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No.
1628 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022 observed as
below:-

"25. The ingredients of Section
306 IPC have been extensively laid out in
M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police; (2019) 3 SCC 315
which are as under: -
9 All. Om Prakash @ Prakash & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P.
593

"The essential ingredients of the
offence underSection 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using
abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless
the
ingredients
of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied, accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 I.P.C."

In
the
same
judgment
the
Supreme Court observed in Para nos. 36
and 38 as below:-

"36. To convict a person under
Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens
rea to commit offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which leads
deceased to commit suicide finding no
other option and the act must be such
reflecting intention of the accused to push
deceased into such a position that he
commits suicide. The prosecution has to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide and Appellant
No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of
the deceased. In the present case, both the
elements are absent.

37. .................

38. This Court has time and
again reiterated that before convicting an
accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court
must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess
the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether cruelty and harassment
meted out to the victim had left the victim
with no other alternative but to put an end
to her life. 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
suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without their being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence
on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is
not sustainable."

22. The Supreme Court cautioned by
observing that each suicide is a personal
tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an
individual and has a continuing ripple
effect, dramatically affecting the lives of
families,
friends
and
communities,
however,
the
court
of
law
while
adjudicating is not to be guided by
emotions or sentiments but the dictum is
required to be based on analysis of facts
and evidence on record.

23. In the instant matter, the case of
the prosecution is that the accused
instigated the commission of crime. As has
been held by the Supreme Court, the
'instigation' means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act".
Obviously the intention is to be gathered on
the
basis
of
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances of each and every case. No
formula for general application can be laid
down.

24. There are ample indicators in the
evidence produced by the prosecution to
give an impression that the prosecution
story has been developed later on. Had
there been truth in the allegations that the
deceased was being harassed for being not
so good looking, this fact would certainly
have been mentioned in the previous
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application/written
reports
admittedly
prepared by her real brother. Lack of any
whimper in Exhibit Ka-1 and tehrir dated
10.07.1995 creates reasonable doubts. For
the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that
whatever has been said in the FIR or in the
evidence given by PW1 is reasonably true,
even then this will not amount to an act of
instigation to commit suicide. There is not
much substance in the rhetoric of PW1 that
accused persons used to exhort deceased's
husband to marry again. The evidence on
such theory is quite inadequate to brand it
as truthful. Moreover there is no evidence
to show that just before the deceased took
this extreme step of taking of her life, there
was some immediate provocation from the
side of the accused person which propelled
her to commit suicide. In my firm opinion,
the prosecution has failed to prove any
proximity between the act of suicide with
the act or conduct or treatment meted out to
the deceased by the accused. In my opinion
the prosecution has failed to prove that in
fact she was maltreated or harassed to such
an extent which shall essentially fall within
the term of 'instigation' to commit suicide.

25. The judgment and sentence order
dated 08.02.2000 passed by the VIIth
Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in ST
No. 652 of 1995, is hereby set aside and the
accused persons are acquitted.

26. Accordingly, this criminal appeal
is allowed.

27. Let copy of the judgment be
immediately sent to the court concerned for
necessary action.

28. The appellant shall before the
court concerned, within a period of next
four weeks, execute bail bonds with two
sureties and personal bond of the same
amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, to ensure his appearance before
the higher court as and when such court
issues notice in respect of this case. Such
bail bonds shall be in force for a period of
six months from the date of execution
thereof.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 594
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2020

Sameer Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Abhineet Jaiswal,
Anuj Tandon, Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 27 & 13
(1) (d) r/w section 13 (2)-Challenge toConviction- the appellant was appointed
on the post of Village Development Officer
on 22.06.1999. He submits that there are
inconsistencies and variations in the
statements of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1
and PW-2. The statement of PW-5 and
PW-7 are also inconsistent who are
husband
and
wife.
PW-7
is
the
beneficiary. He also submits that there are
also inconsistencies in the statements of
PW-1, PW-8 (IO) and PW-9. The demand
and acceptance of bribe is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt-The place of
occurrence has been made doubtful in
view of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2there are serious inconsistencies between