# State of U.P v. Prem Kumari @ Gayatri And Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 676
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-12
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 309 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-prem-kumari-gayatri-and-ors-44539
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. IPC. Section 306-Abetment of suicide-
merely
because
of
registration
of
criminal case, no prudent man would
commit suicide. Condition precedent is
abetment. The intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased
to commit suicide is necessary. Requires
an active act or direct act, which lead the
deceased to commit suicide. (Para-4)

B. IPC. Section 107 of I.P.C - Abetment
of a thing - active participation for
commission of offence of abetment given
Held:- The basic constituents of an offence
punishable under section 306 I.P.C. are
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Prem Kumar @ Gayatri And Ors.
677
suicidal death and abetment thereof as has
been
propounded
by
Apex
Court
in
Sangarabonia Sreenu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1997) 4Supreme 214. (Para 3)

It was held to be suicide owing to lodging of
case of cruelty with regard to demand of
dowry by accused persons and deceased
persons being behind bar for two to three
days in above case. This was presumption of
informant and other witnesses of fact. The
alleged suicidal notes were neither proved nor
were produced in original before the trial
Judge, hence not admissible.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF CASES CITED: -
1.(1997) 4Supreme 214 Sangarabonia Sreenu
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

2.AIR 2011 SC 1238 M. Mohan Vs. State (E-7)

## Text

676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. As we have found that in Rule 8
of the Service Rules, 1991, as applicable
at the relevant time, one of the alternative
essential qualifications was diploma from
Board of Technical Education, Uttar
Pradesh or from any other Institution
recognised by the Government in the
trades specified, non possession of
certificate in the respective trade / course
from the National Council for Training in
Vocational Trade would not be fatal to
their appointment on the post of Instructor
if they hold the alternative eligibility
qualification. We further find that the
trade of Carpenter is one of the Trades
enlisted in Rule 8 for which a diploma in
Wood Working is required. The writ
petitioners in paragraph 5 of the writ
petition claimed that they possess diploma
in Wood Working of which there is no
specific denial in the counter affidavit, as
noticed above. Under the circumstances,
the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellants that the writ petitioners do
not possess the necessary qualification for
the post has no legs to stand.

16. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that
the two institutes, namely, GITI and the
ITI were merged in the year 1989 and a
solitary cadre of Instructors, though in
different trades, in the ITI was created as
would be clear from Rule 4 of the Service
Rules, 1991. The Service Rules, 1991 do
not carve out higher and lower grade for
the post of Instructor. Further, at the time
of merger of GITI and ITI, admittedly, the
writ petitioners were in service as
Instructors in GITI, therefore, post merger,
when the Service Rules, 1991 provided a
solitary cadre of Instructors, they cannot be
deprived of the pay scale attached to the
post of Instructors, by artificially carving
out distinction, when there exists none,
particularly, when it has not been
demonstrated that their initial appointment
was in any way illegal or that the duties
assigned to them are functionally different
from that of the other InstructOrs.

17. For all the reasons recorded
above, we are of the view that the learned
Single Judge was justified in allowing the
writ petition and providing pay parity to
the writ petitioners. The appeal is
dismissed.

18. There is no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 309 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant.
Versus
Prem Kumari @ Gayatri And Ors.
 ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. IPC. Section 306-Abetment of suicide-
merely
because
of
registration
of
criminal case, no prudent man would
commit suicide. Condition precedent is
abetment. The intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased
to commit suicide is necessary. Requires
an active act or direct act, which lead the
deceased to commit suicide. (Para-4)

B. IPC. Section 107 of I.P.C - Abetment
of a thing - active participation for
commission of offence of abetment given
Held:- The basic constituents of an offence
punishable under section 306 I.P.C. are
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Prem Kumar @ Gayatri And Ors.
677
suicidal death and abetment thereof as has
been
propounded
by
Apex
Court
in
Sangarabonia Sreenu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1997) 4Supreme 214. (Para 3)

It was held to be suicide owing to lodging of
case of cruelty with regard to demand of
dowry by accused persons and deceased
persons being behind bar for two to three
days in above case. This was presumption of
informant and other witnesses of fact. The
alleged suicidal notes were neither proved nor
were produced in original before the trial
Judge, hence not admissible.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF CASES CITED: -
1.(1997) 4Supreme 214 Sangarabonia Sreenu
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

2.AIR 2011 SC 1238 M. Mohan Vs. State (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This Government Appeal under
Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been proposed
by State of U.P. against Prem Kumari @
Gayatri and four others against judgment
of acquittal dated 12.3.2019 passed by
Court of Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Mahoba, in S.T. No. 04 of 2009,
State of U.P. Vs. Prem Kumari @ Gayatri
and others, u/s 306 I.P.C. arising out of
Case Crime No. 2341 of 2008, P.S.
Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba, upon
information lodged by Dr. Narendra
Kumar Vaidhya about suicide by three
persons in their house because of
abetment caused by accused persons, who
got a false case registered regarding
cruelty with regard to demand of dowry
for which deceased persons were enlarged
on bail after being in jail for 2-3 days.
They were mentally tortured and were
harassed by accused persons, which
compelled
deceased
persons
for
committing suicide and it was in close
proximity of the date on which they were
to appear before the trial court at Banda
and this was proved by informant-PW1
Dr. Narendra Kumar Vaidhya, another
witness PW2 Smt. Divya Vaidhya, PW6-
Ram Kumar Soni, registration of case
crime number was formally proved by
PW7- Constable Kushalpal Singh. This
testimony was having corroboration by
medical evidence of PW3- Dr. D. K.
Sullerey, who had conducted autopsy
examination on persons of deceased
Pramod Soni, Smt. Asha @ Sarman and
Amod. PW4-Constable Vinod Kumar
Nigam, secondary evidence of S.I. Om
Prakash Sharma and HCP Raghuvanshi
Rathore. But the trial court passed
judgment of acquittal. Hence, this was a
result of perversity, wherein relevant and
admissible
evidence,
produced
by
prosecution,
were
not
taken
into
consideration. Hence this application with
a prayer for grant of leave to appeal.

2. Perusal of impugned judgment
and
record
reveals
that
criminal
machinery was put into motion by way of
registration of Case Crime under section
306 I.P.C. by way of F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1)
lodged by Dr. Narendra Kumar Vaidya
with this contention that owing to
registration of a false case of cruelty with
regard to demand of dowry under
conspiracy and connivance of accused
persons Prem Kumari @ Gayatri, Dilip
Soni, Phoolwati @ Kalawati, Dayawati
and Bhola Prasad @ Kamta Prasad, the
deceased persons were put behind bar and
were granted bail resulting mental torture
of them and thereby they after bolting
door from inside took some poisonous
substance and died. There was recovery
of suicidal note from the place of
occurrence.
Investigation
resulted
in
submission of charge sheet. But in the
trial neither suicidal notes were proved
nor were admissible because of lack of
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their proof. Though death by consuming
some poisonous substance after bolting
door from inside by deceased persons was
undisputed fact. Previous registration of a
case regarding offence of cruelty with
regard to demand of dowry was also
undisputed fact. But merely because of
registration of this case crime number or
pendency of case, no prudent men will
commit suicide. Moreso, for an offence
punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. the condition
precedent is abetment because this
offence itself is for 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 i.e. abetment for attempting
to
commit
suicide
is
a
condition
precedent.

3. It has been held that once offence
of abetment of committing suicide is
clearly made out against accused, the
offence punishable under section 306
I.P.C. shall be made out. The basic
constituents of an offence punishable
under section 306 I.P.C. are suicidal death
and abetment thereof as has been
propounded
by
Apex
Court
in
Sangarabonia Sreenu Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214.

4. To attract ingredients of abetment,
the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide is necessary. In order to convict a
person under section 306 I.P.C. there has
to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act, which lead the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this
act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he/ she
committed
suicide.
This
has
been
propounded in M. Mohan Vs. State, AIR
2011 SC 1238.

5. In the present case no such cogent
evidence is there. Neither informant-PW1
nor PW2 was present at the place of
occurrence either on the date of the
occurrence or in close proximity of time
of occurrence. Rather they received
information of this untoward happening
of
bolting
door
from
inside
and
consuming some poisonous substance
resulting death of those persons. It was
held to be suicide owing to lodging of
case of cruelty with regard to demand of
dowry by accused persons and deceased
persons being behind bar for two to three
days in above case. This was presumption
of informant and other witnesses of fact.
The alleged suicidal notes were neither
proved nor were produced in original
before
the
trial
Judge,
hence
not
admissible.

6. The active participation for
commission of offence of abetment given
u/s 107 I.P.C. was not there. Section 107
of I.P.C. provides abetment of a thing- a
person abets the doing of a thing, who-
firstly, instigates any person to do that
thing; or secondly, engages with one or
more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or thirdly,
intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing i.e.
active
instigation
or
entering
in
conspiracy or intentionally aids by any act
or
illegal
omission
are
conditions
precedent for constituting offence of
abetment. But in the present case no such
ingredients were either proved or placed
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain
679
on record before trial Judge. As a result
the judgment of acquittal was passed.
There is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment requiring a ground
for grant of leave for this appeal.

7. Accordingly, this prayer is
rejected.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 450 of 1993

State of U.P. ...Revisionist.
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Jain ...Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Revisionist:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Ajay Kumar
Pandey

A. Criminal Revision - discharge order
under challenge- Section 162 Indian
Penal
Code-
bribery
by
Lekhpal
(accused)- forgery against Rup Singh-
Section 420, 120B, 463, 466, 468 and
471 of Indian Penal Code- unreasonable
to again remand for trial - 27 years
elapsed- disposed of. (Para 12,13,16 &19)

B. Sanction by Competent Authority-
sanction to prosecute Lekhpal- public
servant
u/s
6(c)
of
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, 1977- refused by SubDivisional
Magistrate-
granted
by
Governor- grant of sanction is a solemn
and
sacrosanct
act
to
protect
the
government servants.
Under the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 the
State Government had conferred the power of
appointment on the Assistant Collectors as
well right dismiss or remove him from office as
well. This implies that the sanction for
prosecution can be granted by the officer
similar to the rank who appointed him and not
below his rank. Therefore, sanction granted by
the Governor holds good.

C. Prevention of Corruption Act- incident
took place on 19.07.1988- Act of 1977
applicable- not amended Act
Chronological list of Cases Cited: -

1. AIR 1968, All 207 SIta Ram Vs State

2. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 405 State of T.N Vs. T.
Thulasingam

3. MANU/SC/0045/1954 Mahesh Prasad Vs.
State of U.P.

4. (2015) 14 SCC 186 Nanjappa Vs. State of
Karnataka (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Rastogi, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satish
Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the opposite party.

2. This Criminal Revision has been
preferred by the State against the judgment
and order dated 24.12.1992 passed by 5th
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra
in S.T. No. 2 of 1991, (State Vs. Rajendra
Kumar Jain), under Section 162 I.P.C., P.S.
Etmaddaula, District Agra and it is prayed
that the said order of discharge passed by the
trial court be set-aside and the accusedrespondents be convicted according to law.

3. It is mentioned in the
grounds of the revision that opposite party
no. 2 was Lekhpal, who was trapped by
police for accepting Rs. 6,000/- as bribe
from Rup Singh, which was organized on
an application of Rup Singh. It was stated