# Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 716
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2003
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-sut-ram-sukh-tiwari-v-the-state-of-u-p-50557
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 107 & 306 - Abetment of suicide -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against conviction -
Imprisonment
with
fine
-
No
other
witnesses
except
PW3
supported
prosecution case - Accused used to have
drinks frequently, not taking care of his
wife and children - Evidence by PW3
shows that wife was feeling harassed and
exasperated by conduct of her husband
and was cause of bickering between them
- On day of occurrence, he returned home,
asked for food, she said how food can be
cooked when there was no ration, enraged
over this reply, physically assaulted his
wife - She became disturbed, counselled
8 All. Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari Vs. The State of U.P.
717
by witness, decided to take her life, put
herself
on
fire,
proved
by
dying
declaration - In dying declaration, she said
her husband was drunkard, he harassed
her and sold of all property - Except this
St.ment,
she
said
nothing
which
compelled
her
to
take
her
life,
corroborated by PW3 - Act of accused may
be deplorable but do not amount to
instigation to commit suicide unless there
was something more to add upon - Thus,
impugned order set aside, acquitted. (Para
2, 18 to 20)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 17 SCC
301, (Para 16)

## Text

716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Amicus Curiae, this Court is of the
view that in light of the arguments
tendered, the case law adduced and also the
judgement of the Apex Court passed in
Moti Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47, the modification
application
is
allowed.
The
relevant
paragraph 15 of the said judgement reads
hereinunder:-

"15. It is interesting that American
criminological thinking and research had
legislative response and the Bail Reforms
Act, 1966 came into being. The then
President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain
observations at the signing ceremony :

Today, we join to recognize a major
development in our system of criminal
justice : the reform of the bail system.

This system has endured-archaic,
unjust and virtually unexamined-since the
Judiciary Act of 1789.

The principal purpose of bail is to
insure that an accused person will return
for trial if he is released after arrest.

How is that purpose met under the
present system ? The defendant with means
can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy
his freedom. But the poorer defendant
cannot pay the price He languishes in jail
weeks, months and perhaps even years
before trial.

He does not stay in jail because he is
guilty.

He does not stay in jail because any
sentence has been passed.

He does not stay in jail because he is
any more likely to flee before trial.

He stays in jail for one reason onlybecause he is poor...."

7. Let the applicant- Aftab Khan
involved in aforementioned case crime
number be released on bail with the
condition that the trial court shall take
every endeavour in light of paragraph 5 and
6 of the judgement passed in In Re Policy
Strategy For Grant of Bail (supra) and he
shall be enlarged on bail after furnishing
the personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject
to the conditions imposed on the applicant
vide order dated 25.1.2022 passed in the
present bail order.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 716
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2003

Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari
 ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
M.S. Khan, Pradeep Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 107 & 306 - Abetment of suicide -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against conviction -
Imprisonment
with
fine
-
No
other
witnesses
except
PW3
supported
prosecution case - Accused used to have
drinks frequently, not taking care of his
wife and children - Evidence by PW3
shows that wife was feeling harassed and
exasperated by conduct of her husband
and was cause of bickering between them
- On day of occurrence, he returned home,
asked for food, she said how food can be
cooked when there was no ration, enraged
over this reply, physically assaulted his
wife - She became disturbed, counselled
8 All. Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari Vs. The State of U.P.
717
by witness, decided to take her life, put
herself
on
fire,
proved
by
dying
declaration - In dying declaration, she said
her husband was drunkard, he harassed
her and sold of all property - Except this
St.ment,
she
said
nothing
which
compelled
her
to
take
her
life,
corroborated by PW3 - Act of accused may
be deplorable but do not amount to
instigation to commit suicide unless there
was something more to add upon - Thus,
impugned order set aside, acquitted. (Para
2, 18 to 20)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 17 SCC
301, (Para 16)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Jugal Kishore, learned AGA for
the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been
filed by the appellant- Pawan Sut @ Ram
Sukh Tiwari challenging the order of
conviction and sentence dated 24.04.2003
passed
by
the
Additional
Sessions
Judge/FTC III, Sultanpur in ST No. 37 of
2021 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under section 306 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8
years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further
6 months in default of fine.

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

4. Relevant facts in nutshell are as
below:-
(i) The informant Satya Narayan Tiwari
gave a written report before the police
station concerned with the allegations that
his sister-Meera Devi was married to
Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari; Pawan Sut
@ Ram Sukh (the accused), Ram Das,
Gurprasad, Sri Chand set her ablaze at
about 9.00 pm on 26.09.2000; it is alleged
in the FIR that her husband was selling of
all his property gradually and he used to
ask his sister that he should have brought
at least Rs. 10,000/- per month from her
'maika' to meet out his expenses; it is
further alleged that when his sister
disclosed all the matter to him, he
counseled her and left her at her husband's
place; he received the information of the
incident next day at about 4.00 pm,
therefore they reached the district hospital,
Sultanpur; his sister (the deceased) told
him that accused got annoyed when she
asked whether he had brought vegetables
or not; he poured kerosene oil on her and
rest of the accused persons assisted and she
was set to fire by her husband; her
condition deteriorated and she succumbed
to her injuries on 28.09.2000; on the basis
of this information, case crime no. 402 of
2000 under section 304 IPC was registered
and investigated upon; the postmortem of
the dead body was conducted; a dying
declaration was recorded; the statement of
witnesses were recorded and thereafter
accused Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari
was chargesheeted under section 306 IPC.

(ii) The prosecution examined PW1Satya Narayan (the first informant), PW2Hare Ram, Pw3-Ravi Dutt Tiwari, PW4Asharfi Lal (the witnesses of fact), PW5-Dr.
Anil Kumar, PW6-Dr. B.N. Tiwari, PW7ASI Pramod Kumar, PW8-Nayab Tehsildar,
PW9-Asha Ram (Nayab Tehsildar), PW10the investigating officer.
(iii) The statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; the
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused denied that his wife died of burn
injuries but admitted that his wife died on
28.09.2000 at about 6.30 am; after flatly
denying all other facts of the case, he stated
that the clothes of her wife caught fire when
she was cooking food and that he is
innocent.

5. Heard and perused the papers on
record in the light of the contentions of
both the sides.

6. PW1-Satya Narayan Tiwari who
admittedly is the real brother of the
deceased has chosen not to support the
prosecution case and denied that his sister
ever told him that the accused- Pawan Sut
@ Ram Sukh Tiwari (husband of the
deceased) poured kerosene oil and set her
ablaze; from the statement given by him
this fact is sufficiently proved that when he
visited his sister in the hospital, she was
lying there with extensive burn injuries on
her body and the next day she died.

7. PW2-Hari Ram denied having
knowledge of any bickering between the
deceased and her husband or that he ever
used to maltreat her; he said that he was not
in the village when the incident happened.

8. PW3-Ravi Dutt Tiwari, who
belongs to same family as that of accused,
has stated that Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh
Tiwari is a drunkard; he did not do any job
and that he was selling of all his property
gradually, therefore none was left to take
care of his children; he has stated that his
wife (the deceased) tried to check him from
indulging in such habit and also from
dissipating his property pleading that how
she and her children shall survive, if no
source of sustenance is left; he has further
stated that her children often used to go to
sleep hungry and many time it was him
who helped them out by providing meals;
he also used to quarrel with his wife on this
issue of neighbors providing meals to her
kids; his wife was much harassed by his
tactics and wanted that he shunned his habit
of having liquor; he used to physically
assault his wife time and again; deposing
about the occurrence he has said that on
that day accused returned to his house and
asked for meals; his wife retorted that when
there is no ration then how food can be
cooked; enraged over this reply, he began
beating his wife; his kids were crying
aloud; he (the witness) intervened and tried
to mediate and counsel them; the accused
exited out of his house and returned at
about 8 in the evening; he categorically
stated that at the time of departing from his
house, he taunted her by saying that she
should stay in the house and that he is
leaving; thereafter the deceased came to
the witness's house; the witness and others
tried to counsel her; after sometime he
heard loud cries; he rushed to the house of
Meera Devi and found smoke bellowing
out of the doors; the kids were crying; he
and other witness-Hari Ram etc reached
the place of incident; the deceased opened
the door and that her clothes had burnt
down; she was crying; she was made to
put on another set of clothes and was
taken to the hospital; she was referred to
the district hospital but she succumbed to
her injuries.

9. PW4-Asharfi Lal has not supported
the prosecution case.

10. PW5-Dr. Anil Kumar, who
conducted the postmortem has deposed that
except a small portion of the body, her
whole of the body was having burn injuries
and there were some blisters on certain
parts; she was having 80 to 90% of burn
injuries.
8 All. Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari Vs. The State of U.P.
719

11. PW6-Dr. B.N. Tiwari has given
statement that she was referred for taking
dying declaration before the S.D.M.

12. PW8-Nayab Tehsildar has proved
the dying declaration which is on record; in
her dying declaration she stated as below:-

Þesjk ifr 'kjkch gS jkst 'kjkc ihdj gesa
izrkfM+r djrk gS vkSj lkjh lEifRr csap Mkyk gS
ftlls rax vkdj eSaus [kqn vius 'kjhj esa vkx
yxkdj >qyl x;h gw¡A esjs cM+s yM+ds dk uke euh"k
mez yx0 9 o"kZ] nwljs yM+ds dk uke fofiu mez yx0
5 o"kZ gS rhljh lUrku yM+dh gS tks rhu o"kZ dh gS
esjs firk dk uke 'khryk izlkn frokjh fuoklh
pkSifM+;k Fkkuk yEHkqvk tuin lqyrkuiqj gSA vkx eSaus
viuh lkM+h esa yxk;h FkhA feV~Vh dk rsy vkfn ugha
Mkyk FkkA c;ku i<+dj lquk;k x;k rLnhd dh rFkk
gLrk{kj cuok;k tk jgk gSAß

13. Before proceeding to evaluate the
evidence produced by the prosecution, it
will be useful to first examine the scope of
section 306 IPC, the abetment to commit
suicide and see 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."

14. The essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are the
abetment and commission of suicide in
consequence thereof. The 'abetment' may
mean intentionally aiding or instigating or
engaging in a conspiracy.

15. 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
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Now coming back to the facts of
this case, no other witnesses except PW3Ravi Dutt Tiwari has supported the
prosecution case. The evidence on facts
given by him has been reproduced in para-8
of this judgment. If all the facts deposed by
him are taken at its face value or as being
credible and reliable, it appears that the
accused used to have drinks frequently and
was not taking enough care of his wife and
8 All. Pawan Sut @ Ram Sukh Tiwari Vs. The State of U.P.
721
children. He was squandering away his
property by selling it of and that was the
cause of confrontation between accused
and his wife. The evidence given by PW3
gives a very clear impression that the wife
was feeling harassed and exasperated by
the conduct of her husband and this was the
cause of frequent bickering between them.
On the day of the occurrence, he returned
home and asked for food, to this she
reacted by saying that how food can be
cooked when there is no ration; enraged
over this reply, he physically assaulted his
wife taunting that she may stay in the house
and he is leaving. The evidence given by
him further suggest that she became very
disturbed and was counseled by the
witness, however she decided to take her
life and put herself on fire. She put herself
on fire on her own, is a fact which has been
clearly
proved
by
her
own
dying
declaration. If the dying declaration is
perused, she has simply said that her
husband is a drunkard and used to harass
her and also squandered/sold of all the
property and added that ftlls rax vkdj eSaus
[kqn vius 'kjhj esa vkx yxkdj >qyl x;h gw¡A
Except the above statement, she has said
nothing
which
could
have
thrown
additional light on the circumstances which
compelled her to take her life. The
statement given by her in her dying
declaration is corroborated by the statement
given by PW3. There appears no reason to
doubt the above two important pieces of
evidence i.e., the dying declaration and the
other testimony of PW3. Now the short
question which arises whether these facts
and circumstances will constitute the
offence under section 306 IPC.

19. The pain and suffering of a wife
who was the mother of small kids, the
problem of sustenance she was facing, the
inability to mold her husband to see the
reason, the problem of poverty, the intricate
human equations between husband and
wife, the impact of such situations on
domestic peace etc. can easily be imagined.
The
habit
of
drinking,
the
act
of
squandering away the property, physical
assault, domestic dispute bickerings or
quarrels over not able to make two ends
meet, lack of money for taking good care of
children are quite unfortunate and arouse
empathy and emotions from everyone not
merely the people living in the vicinity,
near relatives or well-wishers of the
deceased and her children. But the court
has a duty to take decisions on the basis of
facts not on the basis of sentiments. In my
view the act of the accused may be
deplorable
but
do
not
amount
to
"instigation to commit suicide" unless
there was something more to add upon. In
my view, some more overt act, though may
be an indirect one, was required on the part
of the accused to bring his acts or conduct
within
the
meaning
of
the
word
"instigation".

20. The unfortunate story does not
end here. With a sense of guilt, I am
constrained to write that this appeal has
come up for hearing after the accused had
already undergone whole of the term of
sentence and was set free. In fact, he was
detained for a month over and above the
period of imprisonment by inadvertent turn
of events which need not be elaborated
here. Suffice it to say that chinks in the
majesty of law are wide open. The failings
and the frailty of justice delivery system is
showing by itself.

21. In view of the discussion in the
paras preceding para no. 20, the judgment
given by the learned Sessions Judge
convicting the accused is not sustainable
and the accused deserves to be acquitted.
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. The judgment and sentence order
dated 24.04.2003 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/FTC III, Sultanpur in ST
No. 37 of 2021, is set aside and the accused
is acquitted.

23. Accordingly, this criminal appeal
is allowed.

24. Let copy of the judgment be
immediately sent to the court concerned for
necessary action.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 722
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2015

Nangu @ Rambabu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
In Person, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 377/511 & 201 - Appeal
against
conviction
-
Extra-judicial
confession - Reliability - Benefit of doubt -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections
173(2),
207,
313
-
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - PW-2
and PW-7 informed to PW-1 that appellant
told
them
that
he
committed
huge
mistake and under influence of liquor and
ganja, he had taken deceased in bushes
for
sodomizing
and
later
on
killed
deceased, disposed dead body in pond -
Further St.d appellant requested them to
get matter compromised with PW1 by
taking money - PW-2 and PW-7 turned
hostile - PW-1 and PW-2 were close
relatives and had inimical terms with
appellant - PW-1 admitted proceedings
u/s 107/16 Cr.P.C. drawn against PW-1
and appellant - PW-2 not admitted of
having any criminal case, but admitted
appellant abused PW-2 after drinking -
Except for extra-judicial confession made
by appellant before PW-2, no other
evidence proving involvement of appellant
in crime - No recovery on pointing out of
appellant and clothes recovered from
place of incident, never sent for forensic
examination, no evidence of last seen
against appellant. (Para 29 to 31, 33)

Jail Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Lal Vs St. of H.P. reported in (2019) 17
SCC 411, (p. 418, para 14)

2. R. Vs Warwickshall: (1783) 1 Lesch 263

3. St. of Raj. Vs Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8
SCC 180, (SCC p. 192, para 19 & 20)

4. Balwinder Singh Vs St. of Punj. reported in
1996 SCC (Cri) 59, (SCC p. 265, para 10)

5. Pakkirisamy Vs St. of T. N. reported in (1997)
8 SCC 158, (SCC p. 162, para 8)

6. Kavita Vs St. of T. N. reported in (1998) 6
SCC 108, (SCC p. 109, para 4)

7. Aloke Nath Dutta Vs St. of W.B. reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 230, (SCC pp. 265-66, paras 87
& 89)

8. Sansar Chand Vs St. of Raj. reported in
(2010) 10 SCC 604, (SCC p. 611, paras 29-
30)

9. Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod Vs St. of
Guj. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 740, (SCC pp.
772-73, para 53)

10. Sk. Yusuf Vs St. of W.B. (2011) 11 SCC 754

11. Pancho Vs St. of Har. (2011) 10 SCC 165