Anshima Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 by which the discharge application of the applicant has been rejected and also order dated 20.08.2025 by which charges have been framed against the applicant in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2024; State Vs. Anshima Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof. The challenge laid to the impugned rejection order passed on an application, moved by the applicant, on the ground that even, assuming the whole story of the prosecution is correct, no offence is made out, but without going into the facts and evidences, the discharge application has been rejected and charges have been framed. He submits that, in fact, the husband of the applicant, namely, Vivek Verma committed suicide by shooting him with his service revolver at a rented room and the elder brother lodged the First Information Report against four accused persons, including the present applicant. He added that the allegation is apparent not only from the suicide note but also from the narration of the First 2 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 Information Report that the wife of the deceased used to talk to some other Constables of the department, but what in fact the material, during the course of conversation between the wife of the deceased as well as the applicant and other co-accused persons, has never been disclosed and even the Investigating Officer never reached to any conclusion regarding any material which can substantiate that the applicant has ever made any incitement or abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. He also added that there is no any act on the part of the wife of the deceased or any evidence collected with respect to any act of the applicant that she has ever committed any incitement or abetment, so as to deceased lead to suicide. He also added that the learned trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has overlooked the aforesaid facts and circumstances and has, in a blatant manner, rejected the discharge application, moreso, the charges have also been framed under Section 306 of IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, reported in [2024 SCC Online SC 4091] and has referred Para nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereunder: "21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In 3 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient. 4 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 (b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide? (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out? (d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity.

24. The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given case.

25. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned as well as the order framing charges against the applicant may be set aside. Learned AGA appearing for the State, though, opposed the matter on facts but he has failed to substantiate his argument regarding the settled law on constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC, in absence of any incitement or abetment to commit suicide. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the deceased has committed suicide, while leaving a 'suicide note' which is apparent in some conversation with his colleagues, who were also posted as Constables misreputate the deceased and his family members in the society, in the applicant was allegedly the police department and that since that was likely his understanding, but there, prima facie, seems to be no evidence that there is any kind of element which could constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. This Court has also noticed that this case is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid in the case of Nipum Aneja (supra), thus, the matter requires consideration. 5 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, further criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2024; State Vs. Anshima Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, shall remain stayed. September 22, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 by which the discharge application of the applicant has been rejected and also order dated 20.08.2025 by which charges have been framed against the applicant in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2024; State Vs. Anshima Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof. The challenge laid to the impugned rejection order passed on an application, moved by the applicant, on the ground that even, assuming the whole story of the prosecution is correct, no offence is made out, but without going into the facts and evidences, the discharge application has been rejected and charges have been framed. He submits that, in fact, the husband of the applicant, namely, Vivek Verma committed suicide by shooting him with his service revolver at a rented room and the elder brother lodged the First Information Report against four accused persons, including the present applicant. He added that the allegation is apparent not only from the suicide note but also from the narration of the First 2 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 Information Report that the wife of the deceased used to talk to some other Constables of the department, but what in fact the material, during the course of conversation between the wife of the deceased as well as the applicant and other co-accused persons, has never been disclosed and even the Investigating Officer never reached to any conclusion regarding any material which can substantiate that the applicant has ever made any incitement or abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. He also added that there is no any act on the part of the wife of the deceased or any evidence collected with respect to any act of the applicant that she has ever committed any incitement or abetment, so as to deceased lead to suicide. He also added that the learned trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has overlooked the aforesaid facts and circumstances and has, in a blatant manner, rejected the discharge application, moreso, the charges have also been framed under Section 306 of IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, reported in [2024 SCC Online SC 4091] and has referred Para nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereunder: "21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In 3 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

23. In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect. The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape? To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred to by us were sufficient. 4 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 (b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide? (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out? (d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity.

24. The aforesaid are just illustrations that could be considered as abetment under the law in the facts & circumstances of a given case.

25. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned as well as the order framing charges against the applicant may be set aside. Learned AGA appearing for the State, though, opposed the matter on facts but he has failed to substantiate his argument regarding the settled law on constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC, in absence of any incitement or abetment to commit suicide. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the deceased has committed suicide, while leaving a 'suicide note' which is apparent in some conversation with his colleagues, who were also posted as Constables misreputate the deceased and his family members in the society, in the applicant was allegedly the police department and that since that was likely his understanding, but there, prima facie, seems to be no evidence that there is any kind of element which could constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. This Court has also noticed that this case is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid in the case of Nipum Aneja (supra), thus, the matter requires consideration. 5 A482 No. 8003 of 2025 Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, further criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2024; State Vs. Anshima Verma, arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, shall remain stayed. September 22, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)