# Smt. Maya Devi & Anr v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1872
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-10
- **Bench:** Aditya Nath Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maya-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-43872
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Appeal- I.P.C. - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 107 - Demand of dowry - Cruelty - Soon before
her death - Death within seven years of marriage - Hanging - Suicide note - Rs.800/- - Business loan -
Abetment to commit suicide - Explanation-1 - Section 113-A Evidence Act - Conviction under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC set aside - Conviction under Section 306 IPC - Appeal partly allowed - Sentence to period
already undergone.

Both these appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 19.05.1995 passed by the 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1992 whereby the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC.(Para 2)

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant's daughter namely Smt. Jai Shree was
solemnized with the appellant Rakesh on 12.05.1986 in which Rs.9000/- along with articles was given to the
appellants but the families were not satisfied by that amount and they used to torture the deceased and also
caused 'maar-peet' with her and compelled to bring more money and for happiness of her daughter, the
complainant continued to give money. On 15.04.1990, the appellants compelled the deceased to bring
Rs.1000/- more but the complainant could manage Rs.800/-. On 28.04.1990 at about 4.00 pm Dinesh, who
was resident of her village informed him that her daughter has committed suicide upon which she along with
her husband and daughter Rekha went to the house of the appellants and when the door was opened, she
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1873
saw that her daughter was hanging and she was having a paper (suicide note) in which it was written that
now she cannot bear for any more. That paper was taken into possession by the investigating officer and the
dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Since the complainant was sad, therefore, she could not
lodge the first information report in time. She believes that she has been killed for dowry. The application was
given on 08.05.1990 to the Superintendent of Police and by his order dated 12.06.1990, the first information
report was lodged at Case Crime No.136 of 1990 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. (Para 3)

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC.
The accused persons were charged for the said offences. They denied the charges and claimed trial. (Para 4)

Held: (Paras -47,48,51,52,54)
1.As discussed above, the main ingredients of the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC as
well as Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved beyond reasonable doubt because it has not been
proved that 'soon before her death' the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of
dowry. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage
and the death is otherwise than under normal

## Text

_Characters 0–39,617 of 54,374. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39617 for what follows._

1872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
43. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

44. Appellant is in jail. He will serve out remaining part of the sentence as ordered by the
learned trial court.

45. Let a copy of this order be certified to the learned trial court for its intimation and
necessary follow-up action.
-----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 270 Of 1995
&
Criminal Appeal No.- 320 Of 1995

Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Subodh Kr. Shukla, Bhola Singh Patel, D.K. Singh Somvanshi, Praveen Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Appeal- I.P.C. - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 107 - Demand of dowry - Cruelty - Soon before
her death - Death within seven years of marriage - Hanging - Suicide note - Rs.800/- - Business loan -
Abetment to commit suicide - Explanation-1 - Section 113-A Evidence Act - Conviction under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC set aside - Conviction under Section 306 IPC - Appeal partly allowed - Sentence to period
already undergone.

Both these appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 19.05.1995 passed by the 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1992 whereby the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC.(Para 2)

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant's daughter namely Smt. Jai Shree was
solemnized with the appellant Rakesh on 12.05.1986 in which Rs.9000/- along with articles was given to the
appellants but the families were not satisfied by that amount and they used to torture the deceased and also
caused 'maar-peet' with her and compelled to bring more money and for happiness of her daughter, the
complainant continued to give money. On 15.04.1990, the appellants compelled the deceased to bring
Rs.1000/- more but the complainant could manage Rs.800/-. On 28.04.1990 at about 4.00 pm Dinesh, who
was resident of her village informed him that her daughter has committed suicide upon which she along with
her husband and daughter Rekha went to the house of the appellants and when the door was opened, she
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1873
saw that her daughter was hanging and she was having a paper (suicide note) in which it was written that
now she cannot bear for any more. That paper was taken into possession by the investigating officer and the
dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Since the complainant was sad, therefore, she could not
lodge the first information report in time. She believes that she has been killed for dowry. The application was
given on 08.05.1990 to the Superintendent of Police and by his order dated 12.06.1990, the first information
report was lodged at Case Crime No.136 of 1990 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. (Para 3)

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC.
The accused persons were charged for the said offences. They denied the charges and claimed trial. (Para 4)

Held: (Paras -47,48,51,52,54)
1.As discussed above, the main ingredients of the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC as
well as Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved beyond reasonable doubt because it has not been
proved that 'soon before her death' the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of
dowry. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage
and the death is otherwise than under normal circumstances.

2.As far as appellant Ganga Ram is concerned, there appears to be no abetment on their part but by the
information furnished by Ganga Ram-appellant as Ext. Ka-20, his son Rakesh and daughter-in-law were all
alone in the home. There appears to be no reason to believe the information as Ext. Ka-20 and in view of this
information, the statement of appellant Rakesh under section 313 Cr.P.C. do not inspire confidence that he
was also not present on the date of incident as he has stated in his statement under section 131 Cr.P.C that
he had gone to Kanpur but any evidence in this regard has not been adduced by Rakesh - appellant. It is
established that the deceased died due to hanging, although there was no other injury of her body. It is also
established that her all ornaments were found intact on her body. It is also established that the deceased has
shown her willingness to deliver all the goods and ornaments to her younger sister Rekha and which has also
been delivered to her. Therefore, from any corner of evidence, offence punishable under section 498-A IPC,
304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved against any of the appellant but the offence
punishable under section 306 IPC is proved against the appellant Rakesh because at the time of incident, he
and his deceased wife were all alone in the house. If his wife had bolted the room from inside, there must be
some hot talks or circumstance due to which she had bolted the door of the room. In these circumstances, it
was the duty of the appellant Rakesh either to have broken the door or to have call the neighbours or to have
call the police.

3.In the present case, the charge for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC has also been framed
against the appellant but the learned Trial Court has not discussed this aspect for the simple reason that trial
court was of the view that the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC were made out. The
appellant Rakesh who was all alone along with his wife on the date of incident had omitted and has not made
any attempt to save his wife.

4.For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal of appellant Ganga Ram deserves to be allowed and his conviction
deserves to be set aside. The appeal of Rakesh is partly allowed to the extent that conviction for the offence
punishable under section 498-A and 304-B IPC is set aside but he is found guilty for the offence punishable
under section 306 IPC and liable to be punished accordingly.

5.Accordingly, as per the record, the appellant has remained in jail for about twenty one months. The
occurrence took place in the year 1990 for which about 26 years have already passed. Thus, in my opinion,
the ends of justice shall meet if the appellant is sentenced to period already undergone along with fine of
Rs.25000/- (Twenty Five Thousand), out of which Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) shall be paid to the
1874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant, if she is alive otherwise the same shall be paid to her legal heirs. In default of payment of fine,
the appellant Rakesh shall further undergo an imprisonment of one year.

6.In view of the above, the appeal of appellant Ganga Ram is allowed while the appeal of Rakesh is partly
allowed.

Case Law discussed:
1.Satvir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2001) 8 SCC 633 - para 22
2.Hira Lal and others vs. State (Govt. NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80 - paras 23, 24
3.Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 664 - paras 26, 27
4.Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 - para 27
5.Yashoda vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98 - para 27
6.Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 - para 30
7.Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 - para 31

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.)

1. Both these appeals arise out from the same judgement and order dated 19.05.1995 and
they are being taken up together.

2. Both these appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and order dated
19.05.1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.145 of 1992
whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC
and 304-B IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant's daughter namely Smt.
Jai Shree was solemnized with the appellant Rakesh on 12.05.1986 in which Rs.9000/- along with
articles was given to the appellants but the families were not satisfied by that amount and they used
to torture the deceased and also caused 'maar-peet' with her and compelled to bring more money
and for happiness of her daughter, the complainant continued to give money. On 15.04.1990, the
appellants compelled the deceased to bring Rs.1000/- more but the complainant could manage
Rs.800/-. On 28.04.1990 at about 4.00 pm Dinesh, who was resident of her village informed him
that her daughter has committed suicide upon which she along with her husband and daughter
Rekha went to the house of the appellants and when the door was opened, she saw that her daughter
was hanging and she was having a paper (suicide note) in which it was written that now she cannot
bear for any more. That paper was taken into possession by the investigating officer and the dead
body was sent for post-mortem examination. Since the complainant was sad, therefore, she could
not lodge the first information report in time. She believes that she has been killed for dowry. The
application was given on 08.05.1990 to the Superintendent of Police and by his order dated
12.06.1990, the first information report was lodged at Case Crime No.136 of 1990 under sections
498-A, 304-B IPC.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under section
498-A and 304-B IPC. The accused persons were charged for the said offences. They denied the
charges and claimed trial.
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1875
5. During the trial, Smt. Shiv Pyari (PW-1) has supported the version of the first
information report and stated that her daughter was married with Rakesh in which there was no
mention of dowry. After the marriage, her daughter continued to go and come but she made
complaint that she was beaten by the accused persons. About 12 days ago from the incident, her
daughter came to her house and asked for Rs.1000/- upon which she gave Rs.800/- to her. After 12
days, Dinesh told him that her daughter has committed suicide upon which she went to the home of
her daughter and saw that the appellant was present there along with other villagers and found that
her daughter was hanging from a iron gurder. She was having one letter in his hand, in which it was
written that she is committing suicide. The first information report has been proved as Ext. Ka.1.

6. Km. Rekha as been examined as PW-2, who is the sister of the deceased has also
supported the statement of the complainant and has stated that her sister used to tell that appellant
Rakesh (husband), Ganga Ram (father in law) and Maya Devi (mother in law) used to beat her and
ask for more money. Her father had given Rs.1000/- and just twelve days before, further gave
Rs.800/- to her. Upon the information of death, she also went to the spot where appellant and
villagers were present. The letter, which was recovered from the spot has been proved as Ext. Ka 2,
stating that it is written by deceased.

7. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal has been examined as PW-3, who has stated that he is doing the
business of ice and when he went to Akbarpur for purchase of ice, then he came to know that one
girl has committed suicide. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that Jai Shree has committed suicide,
regarding which he had given the information to the complainant.

8. Dr. V.K. Verma has been examined as PW-4, who has proved the post-mortem report of
the deceased and has stated that there was a ligature mark all around the neck. The post-mortem
report has been proved as Ext. Ka-3.

9. Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh has been examined as PW-5, who has stated on
28.04.1990, he was posted as Chowki Incharge and for enquiry he had gone to the house of Ganga
Prasad. The door was closed. It was broken and he found that the dead body of Jai Shree was
hanging by the roof and near the dead body, one letter was recovered, which was identified by her
sister. That letter was taken into custody. Inquest report has been proved as Ext. Ka-4. Photo dead
body; Challan; Report R.I; Report C.M.O.; and sample of seal have been proved as Ext. Ka-5 to
Ka.-9 and then the deady body was sent for post-mortem.

10. Head Constable Ram Shyam Mishra has been examined as PW-6, who has stated that
he was posted as Head Moharrir on 28.04.1990 and at G.D. No.26, Ganga Prasad Jaiswal has given
a written information that on 26.04.1990, he had gone to a marriage party and his son Rakesh
Kumar and his wife were alone in the house. On the night of 27/28.04.1990 his daughter in law did
not open the door. Therefore, the matter was reported to the police. This report has been proved as
Ext. Ka.11.
1876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. Station House Officer Mohd. Akhtar has been examined as PW-7 who has stated that
he has handed over the investigation of the case and prior to it, it was investigated by the C.O. S. K.
Chatarjee. On 15.03.1991, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and verified the side
plan prepared by previous I.O., which has been proved as Ext. Ka.12. This witness has further
stated the dates on which, he has taken the statements of other witnesses. The charge-sheet has
been proved as Ext. Ka-13 and Ka-14.

12. Sri Prakash Chandra Pathak, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has been examined
as PW-8, who has stated that on 12.07.1990, the disputed documents Q-1 and Q-2 were sent for
examination. Admitted handwriting of the deceased was marked as A-1 to A-21 and after scientific
examination, he came to the conclusion that the person who has written the admitted specimen A-1
to A-21 has also written the disputed documents Q-1 and Q-2. The report has been proved as Ext.
Ka-15 and Ka-16. Photographs have been proved as material Ext. 2 to 14. The reasons for the
report has been proved as Ext. Ka-16.

13. Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh has been recalled and re-examined and he has proved the
search memo as Ext. Ka-19.

14. Atul Shukla has been examined as CW-1 who has stated that on 28.04.1990, Ganga
Prasad got scribed the report, which was read over to Ganga Prasad who has signed it and it has
been marked as Ext. Ka-20.

15. Atique Ahmad has been examined as CW-2, who has stated that he knows the accused
persons who are his neighbours. The wife of Rakesh was very modern and fancier of things and her
parental home was at a distance of three kilometres where she used to visit alone. She first wanted
to commit suicide at her parental home but her mother said that whatever you want to do, you do at
your matrimonial home. The deceased told this thing to him.

16. Shri Raees Ahmad has been examined as CW-3, who has stated that the marriage of
Rakesh was solemnized six - seven years ago and the wife of Rakesh was very adamant. She used
to visit her parental home all alone. The door was broken in his presence and he saw that her dead
body was lying on the cot.

17. After prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they had denied the evidence.

18. In defence, Om Prakash Singh has been examined as DW-1, who has stated that his
marriage was to be solemnized on 26.04.1990 in which Ganga Prasad and Maya Devi who are his
'Bua' and 'Foofa' came on 25.04.1990 and stayed up to 28.04.1990. On 28.04.1990. They received
the information that their daughter in law had committed suicide upon which they returned to their
home.
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1877
19. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned court below came to the conclusion
that the appellants are guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A, and 304-B IPC and
accordingly convicted them. Out of the aforesaid appellant, the appellant no.1 of Appeal no. 270 of
1995, namely-Smt. Maya Devi had died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence her appeal
stands abated.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident took place on
28.04.1990 while the first information report was lodged on 12.06.1990. Therefore, there is delay
in lodging the first information report by one month and twelve days. It has also been submitted
that the appellant Ganga Prasad had himself informed the appellant on 28.04.1990 about the
incident and at the time of inquest, the father of the deceased was also present but no such
suspicion as to dowry death was raised. In the suicide note, there is no mention of any torture or
cruelty but it is regarding Rs.800/-. It has also been submitted that the demand of Rs.1000/- was not
with regard to dowry because the complainant has admitted that the said amount of Rs.800/- was
given for business purposes. It has also been submitted that the deceased could not gave birth to
any child, therefore, she was sad and committed suicide. It has also been submitted that the door
was closed from inside and there was no injury found on the body of the deceased except the
ligature mark. Even the ornaments which she used to wear were found on the body of the deceased
and they were not taken away by the accused persons. It has also been submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove the demand of dowry as well as causing cruelty or torture to the
deceased soon before her death. It has also been submitted that in the first information report itself,
no such allegation of dowry has been made.

21. Learned AGA has defended the impugned judgement and has submitted that the
demand of dowry has been established and the suicide note itself shown the abetment to commit
suicide.

22. It is not disputed that the deceased has died within seven years of marriage under
unnatural circumstances. In the case of Satvir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another
reported in (2001) 8 SCC 633 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"The essential components of Section 304-B are: (i) Death of a woman occurring
otherwise than under normal circumstance, within 7 years of marriage, (ii) Soon before her death
she should have been subjected to cruetly and harassment in connection with any demand for
dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled, the husband or his relative, who subjected her to
such cruelty or harassment, can be presumed to be guilty of offence Under Section 304-B. To be
within the province of the first ingredient the provision stipulates that "where the death of a woman
is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstance". It
may appear that the former limb which is described by the words "death caused by burns or bodily
injury" is a redundancy because such death would also fall within the wider province of "death
caused otherwise than under normal circumstances". The former limb was inserted for highlighting
that by no means death caused by burns or bodily injury should be treated as falling outside the
ambit of the offence".
1878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal and others vs. State (Govt.NCT) Delhi
reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80 has held as under:-

"A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B Indian
Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or
accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of "death occurring otherwise than in normal
circumstances". The expression "soon before" is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act and Section 304-B Indian Penal Code are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to
show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case
presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution".

The learned Judge, while proceeding further and interpreting the expression "soon
before", opined thus:-

"The determination of the period which can come within the term "soon before" is
left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice,
however, to indicate that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval
should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There
must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand
and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale
enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence".

It is relevant to refer here the provision of Section 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence
Act, which read as under:-

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman,- When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any
relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven
years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of
the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Section 113-B, which provides for presumption as to dowry death, was inserted with
a view to fight against the plague of dowry death. The said provision is as follows:-

113-B Presumption as to dowry death.

When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death.
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1879

Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same
meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code".

23. In the case of Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported at (2013)
1 SCC (Cri) 664, it has been held as under:

In order to convict an accused for offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC,
the following essentials must be satisfied:

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for
dowry.

When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence,
such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have
caused her death. If the above-mentioned ingredients attract in view of the special provision, the
court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by the
accused. However, it is open to the accused to adduce such evidence for disproving such
compulsory presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such
burden by getting an answer through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing
evidence on the defence side.

24. It has also also been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh'
case (supra) that :

to attract the provisions of Section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence
which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment "for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The expression "soon before her
death" used in Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of
proximity test. In fact, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no
proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. With regard to the said claim, we shall
advert to the same while considering the evidence led in by the prosecution. Though the language
used "soon before her death", no definite period has been enacted and the expression "soon before
her death" has not been defined in both the enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the
period which can come within the term "soon before her death" is to be determined by the courts,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would
1880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment
and the death in question. In other words, there must be existence of a proximate and live link
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the alleged
incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. These principles have been
reiterated in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828 and Yashoda vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98.

25. In this case, the suicide note has been recovered from the spot at the time of recovery of
the dead body. That suicide note reads as under:

"vk[kjh gekjs ekW cki dk I;kj lc yksx gekjs ekW cki lcj fnYkkuk jksus er nsuk esjk lkjk lkeku js[kk
dks ns fn;k tk; vEek vius 800 :i;s lcj djuk eS tk jgh gwW rqe yksx lcj djuk A viuk lkeku ys ysuk A eS ftruk
igus gWw lc js[kk dks fnyk nsuk A
 vEek cIik rqe jksuk ugh"

26. The aforesaid letter has been scientifically examined by the handwriting and finger
print expert, who has given his opinion that this letter has been written by the same person who has
written the contents at A-1 to A-21.

27. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. Reported at
(2005) 2 SCC 659, has held as under :

"4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s M.L.Dalmiya & Co. Ltd.
During the course of his employment, he had been posted at various work sites of the company and
on 11.9.1999 he was transferred to the work site of the company's stores located at 160, B.L. Saha
Road, Kolkata. It seems that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab Kumar Nag did not join duty
and after a period of about two years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his own hand
wherein he expressed his grievance of stagnancy of salary and also alleged that he was a victim of
unfortunate circumstances. The company accepted his resignation with immediate effect. On
16.2.2001, a dead body was found at the railway tracks near Ballygunge railway station and it was
revealed that it was the body of Pranab Kumar Nag. His brother went to the office where Pranab
Kumar Nag had worked and made enquiries. The dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag was released to
his brother after the post-mortem examination on 19.2.2001. After a period of two months, a
complaint was lodged before the police post on the basis of a suicide note allegedly recovered from
the dead body of Pranab Kumar Nag. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the
appellant and some others. A translated copy of the suicide note is produced before us by the
appellant. We have carefully read the alleged suicide note.The substance of this suicide note is that
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag alleged that appellant Netai Dutta and one Paramesh Chatterjee
engaged him in several wrong-doings (he has shown as a type of torture) and at the end of the
letter, a reference is also made to Paramesh Chatterjee and Netai Dutta alleging that he reported
certain incidents to them. A reading of the letter would show that deceased Pranab Kumar Nag
was not very much satisfied with the working conditions in the office. In the letter he has stated that
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1881
he had to be at the work place sometimes throughout the day and night and he had to remain in the
company of some drivers who had been sometimes in drunken condition at about one o' clock or
two o' clock in the night. It is also alleged that the drivers who had been present at the work place
had been having non-vegetarian food. He also complained that he had to work even on Sundays.
He further stated that one day he could leave the work place at 8 o' clock in the evening and all the
restaurants were closed and that he reported the matter to the present appellant.

5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present
appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to
deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the
working conditions at the work place. But it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer
in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a
period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16.2.2001. It cannot be said that the present
appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the
suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an
abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment" have been stated in
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing,
who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The
explanation to Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".

6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places,
there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have
committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab
Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any
part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of
suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.

7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that
the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case
registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged
suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated
against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful
result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First
Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was
absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where
the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.

28. In Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another; (2010) 8 SCC 628,
Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
1882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The further complaint in that so-called suicide note appears to be that the driver
was not given a fixed vehicle though all the drivers were given fixed vehicles to drive. There is also
a complaint against one Raghunathan suggesting that he misled the DGM and had given him a
very bad vehicle to drive. By way of example, it was pointed out that the keys of the vehicle were
taken in the absence of Incharge, M.K. Sovangya without giving any reasons verbally. Then he was
not given any charge of the vehicle and running log book. Thirdly, he was sent the transfer order
by post. The attendance of the office staff was not maintained and he was transferred and the
vehicle was given to a regular labour. There is also a complaint about the salary of 15 days which
was deducted by Madan Mohan Singh. A fair inquiry was sought for by the said driver. It was
suggested that his retirement date was 25.12.2012 and salary should be recovered from Madan
Mohan Singh as he had harassed him without giving any concrete reason.

10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR
which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306, IPC. We could
not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment
to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the
deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and
lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.

11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and
the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a
departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which
he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused
ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did
anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that
the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office
itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide
because of this.

12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the
suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the
accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular
offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being
any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.

13. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend
to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus
between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and
any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution
under Section 306, IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful
as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless,
therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential
5 All. Smt. Maya Devi & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.

1883
one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not
exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in the present case who is serving in a
responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd
allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs. State
of W.B.[2005 (2) SCC 659], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused.

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we
can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had
wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as
expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide.
If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior
officer even to work.

15. It was tried to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant that at this stage, we should not go into the merits of the FIR or the said suicide note.
It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the
ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for this reason that we
very closely examined the FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence
under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC.

16. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in
the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the
cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior
officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was
wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It
will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the
allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused
to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the concerned person by his acts,
words etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short.

18. For all these reasons, we are of the clear opinion that the High Court erred in
not quashing the proceedings. Allowing this appeal,we set aside the order of the High Court and
allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant-accused, the questioned
proceedings are quashed."

29. The main question for consideration is whether there was any demand of dowry from
the deceased or from her parents and she was subjected to cruelty and torture or not in connection
with demand of dowry.

30. It has also to be considered that whether a sum of Rs.800/- was given as dowry or
whether it was given as a loan for business. It is not disputed that the dead body of the deceased
was found hanging in the room which was bolted from the inside and it was opened upon the
1884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information of Ganga Prasad, the appellant. In this connection, it has to be seen whether there was
any abetment to commit suicide or not?

31. From the perusal of the suicide note, it appears that a sum of Rs.800/- was the main
cause for committing suicide. The victim also intended that her all ornaments etc. should be given
to her younger sister Rekha. It is not disputed that when the dead body was recovered after
breaking the door of the room, the said jewellery was intact. The complainant Smt. Shiv Pyari has
admitted in her statement that a sum of Rs.800/- has been returned to her along with interest and the
total amount which she had taken back is Rs.1000/-.