State v. Ashutosh Jaiswal and others), arising out of Case Crime No

Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/first informant/complainant.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024 (State versus Ashutosh Jaiswal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. A charge sheet was submitted, and thereafter, on further investigation, the charge sheet was modified and submitted under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel revisionists has submitted deceased/victim was not mentally fit, and that she was under consistent treatment for schizophrenia and depression. He further submits that there is no close proximity indicating abetment. He has further submitted that there are only general allegations against all the accused/revisionists. The cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, is ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia. There is no evidence that she was abetted by the revisionists/accused persons, nor is there any close proximity between the alleged acts of torture and harassment and the commission of suicide.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the law laid down by 2 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. He has relied particularly on paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 34. He submits that, as per paragraph 15, the law relating to abetment has been crystallized by a plethra of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular act. To bring a charge under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a positive act of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Without such mens rea being apparent on the face of the record, a charge under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the decision in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, where the appellant had been convicted under Section 306 I.P.C., whereas the present matter concerns the question of discharge at the initial stage. He further relies on paragraph 17 of Prakash (supra), where the Supreme Court observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Court are clear that, in order to convict a person under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active or direct act that drove the deceased to commit suicide, leaving no other option and intending to push the deceased into such a position.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon paragraph 34 of Prakash (supra), wherein the Court held that there was sufficient gap between the incidents to render the alleged instigation nugatory. He emphasizes that there must be close proximity between the allegations, the alleged act of abetment, and the commission of suicide.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied on Criminal Revision No. 5794 of 2023 (Rachana Devi and two others vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 08.09.2025; 2025: AHC: 169239. He relies upon paragraph 32 to argue that if there are previous cases of matrimonial discord, such as under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the same should be treated as ordinary matrimonial disputes and cannot, by themselves, constitute abetment.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there are consistent allegations of 3 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 torture, cruelty, and harassment.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/complainant has supported the same.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the deceased was mentally ill and was suffering from schizophrenia and depression, for which psychiatric treatment was ongoing.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage of the deceased/victim took place on 27.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. After one and a half years of marriage, consistent demands of dowry, physical and mental torture began. She was called the "daughter of a beggar" and was taunted for bringing no dowry. She consistently informed her family members of these events with great pain.

13. Hence, in view of the above, there must be some direct or indirect torture upon a woman who is consistently harassed, humiliated, and subjected to dowry demands. Her deteriorating mental condition, therefore, prima facie appears to have been caused by the acts of the revisionists/accused persons. Thus, no final finding can be given at this stage. The learned trial court has rightly passed a detailed order rejecting the discharge application, noting that the victim had been suffering from depression since 2015. There is consistent matrimonial litigation in Case Crime No. 175 of 2020 and Case Crime No. 497 of 2020. There is CCTV footage showing the victim in the hand of her husband. There are pending proceedings under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. (Complaint No. 62 of 2018).

14. There is prima facie material indicating consistent cruelty and torture. Initially, the charge sheet was filed under Section 302 I.P.C., and after further investigation, under Section 306 I.P.C. All the accused/revisionists are on bail. Others were granted bail by the Sessions Judge; the husband's bail was granted by this Court.

15. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the consistent cruelty, since after one and a half years of marriage, appears to have caused mental illness starting with depression and culminating in schizophrenia. In behavioral medicine and psychological science, depression often precedes chronic mental disorders such as schizophrenia. There is also consistent matrimonial litigation between the complainant and the accused persons, 4 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 along with recurring allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. No final finding can be rendered at this preliminary stage. The prosecution evidence placed before the trial court is sufficient for framing of charges. The revisionists are not entitled to discharge at this stage.

16. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024 (State vs. Ashutosh Jaiswal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

17. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. December 2, 2025 K.K. Maurya (Abdul Shahid,J.)

Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/first informant/complainant.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024 (State versus Ashutosh Jaiswal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. A charge sheet was submitted, and thereafter, on further investigation, the charge sheet was modified and submitted under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel revisionists has submitted deceased/victim was not mentally fit, and that she was under consistent treatment for schizophrenia and depression. He further submits that there is no close proximity indicating abetment. He has further submitted that there are only general allegations against all the accused/revisionists. The cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, is ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia. There is no evidence that she was abetted by the revisionists/accused persons, nor is there any close proximity between the alleged acts of torture and harassment and the commission of suicide.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the law laid down by 2 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. He has relied particularly on paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 34. He submits that, as per paragraph 15, the law relating to abetment has been crystallized by a plethra of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular act. To bring a charge under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a positive act of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. Without such mens rea being apparent on the face of the record, a charge under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the decision in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, where the appellant had been convicted under Section 306 I.P.C., whereas the present matter concerns the question of discharge at the initial stage. He further relies on paragraph 17 of Prakash (supra), where the Supreme Court observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Court are clear that, in order to convict a person under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active or direct act that drove the deceased to commit suicide, leaving no other option and intending to push the deceased into such a position.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon paragraph 34 of Prakash (supra), wherein the Court held that there was sufficient gap between the incidents to render the alleged instigation nugatory. He emphasizes that there must be close proximity between the allegations, the alleged act of abetment, and the commission of suicide.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied on Criminal Revision No. 5794 of 2023 (Rachana Devi and two others vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 08.09.2025; 2025: AHC: 169239. He relies upon paragraph 32 to argue that if there are previous cases of matrimonial discord, such as under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the same should be treated as ordinary matrimonial disputes and cannot, by themselves, constitute abetment.

9. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there are consistent allegations of 3 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 torture, cruelty, and harassment.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/complainant has supported the same.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the deceased was mentally ill and was suffering from schizophrenia and depression, for which psychiatric treatment was ongoing.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage of the deceased/victim took place on 27.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. After one and a half years of marriage, consistent demands of dowry, physical and mental torture began. She was called the "daughter of a beggar" and was taunted for bringing no dowry. She consistently informed her family members of these events with great pain.

13. Hence, in view of the above, there must be some direct or indirect torture upon a woman who is consistently harassed, humiliated, and subjected to dowry demands. Her deteriorating mental condition, therefore, prima facie appears to have been caused by the acts of the revisionists/accused persons. Thus, no final finding can be given at this stage. The learned trial court has rightly passed a detailed order rejecting the discharge application, noting that the victim had been suffering from depression since 2015. There is consistent matrimonial litigation in Case Crime No. 175 of 2020 and Case Crime No. 497 of 2020. There is CCTV footage showing the victim in the hand of her husband. There are pending proceedings under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. (Complaint No. 62 of 2018).

14. There is prima facie material indicating consistent cruelty and torture. Initially, the charge sheet was filed under Section 302 I.P.C., and after further investigation, under Section 306 I.P.C. All the accused/revisionists are on bail. Others were granted bail by the Sessions Judge; the husband's bail was granted by this Court.

15. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the consistent cruelty, since after one and a half years of marriage, appears to have caused mental illness starting with depression and culminating in schizophrenia. In behavioral medicine and psychological science, depression often precedes chronic mental disorders such as schizophrenia. There is also consistent matrimonial litigation between the complainant and the accused persons, 4 CRLR No. 8029 of 2025 along with recurring allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. No final finding can be rendered at this preliminary stage. The prosecution evidence placed before the trial court is sufficient for framing of charges. The revisionists are not entitled to discharge at this stage.

16. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2024 (State vs. Ashutosh Jaiswal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

17. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. December 2, 2025 K.K. Maurya (Abdul Shahid,J.)