Tribhuwan Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

which a FIR was lodged Exhibit A-8, stating therein that his daughter (Smt. Kamla) was married to the appellant Tribhuvan Singh on 24th April, 2002; thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant committed cruelty with her for 1 demand of dowry and due to her dislike, on 15-4-2003 at 6 p.m., at the place Village Dhancha, Dunakot, Patti Dunakot, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, she committed suicide.

3. On the basis of said information, a chick FIR Ex.Ka-8 was lodged with the police station; on completion of investigation, charge sheet Ex.Ka-14 was submitted; after compliance of provision of Sections 207 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution was afforded opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused. The prosecution has recorded the statements of as many as six witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution has produced PW1- Smt. Madhavi Devi (mother of the deceased), PW2- Jagat Singh (father of deceased), PW3- Dr. D.S. Nabiyal, PW4 Patwari Shankar Ram, PW5 Keshar Singh and PW6 Nayab Tehshildar K.S. Rawat.

5. PW-1 Madhavi Devi, mother of the deceased, stated that her daughter Kamla was married to the Tribhuvan Singh about one and a half years ago according to Hindu customs. On the very day of the marriage, in the wedding procession (mandap) itself, the accused said that the girl is dark skinned and he will not marry with her; that, he started leaving the mandap and after intervention of respected guests and other relatives, the marriage was solemnized; that, after third day of her marriage, she came from her in-laws' house and went back the next day; that, she used to state that her husband Tribhuvan Singh beats her for dowry; that, she 2 also used to complain about her sister-in-law and mother-in-law. Thereafter, PW-2 submitted written report Ex. Ka-8.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the evidence and stated that he has falsely produced in defence. implicated. However, no evidence was

7. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State.

10. learned counsel for the appellant would submit that only allegation, which has came up in the evidence against the appellant is that at the time of marriage, the appellant/husband allegedly said the bride (deceased in this case) was of dark complexion and after marriage, she left the matrimonial home after four months; that, when after about seven months she was taken back to the matrimonial home, on the very third day of her coming back to the matrimonial home she committed suicide in an agricultural field away from the house. He would further submit that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of the statements by holding that the appellant abuses the deceased due to her dark complexion. 3

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration, which reads are as under: “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.

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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

12. Section 306 of IPC has two basic ingredients, first- the abetment to the said act by another person(s), and second-an act of suicide by one person. In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

13. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the 4 commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

14. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide should be present. In the present case these ingredients are missing, therefore, the conviction of the applicant in absence of any direct evidence that the act of the accused let to commit suicide is not made out.

15. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 3 SCC 701. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under:- “7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P.]. Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.”

16. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court on the judgment of Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted herein 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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and 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. committed

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 suicide had been persons who hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce 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 leads the deceased creates a situation which perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 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 6 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 surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. taking note of all facts, while

16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.”

17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3835, the relevant paragraph of the judgment extracted herein below:- “17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to 7 commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.”

18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, this Court has 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679:2024 INSC 960 relied on S.S. Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows: this, suicide. “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting prosecution must The demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and this, explicitly discernible. Without foundational establishing abetment under is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” requirement

19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a similar nature, this Court the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,14 laid down the parameters of what (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515 would be constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as follows:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and 8 specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Sadashiv Parbati Rapnawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Bom 2756 has held that the taunts regarding the dark complexion are quarrels or altercation arising from the matrimonial life are not criminal offence, they are just domestic quarrels, it cannot be said to be of such high degree, so as to compel people to commit suicide.

19. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would argue that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt; although, some witnesses are the relatives of deceased but these evidence cannot be discarded; the FIR was promptly lodged; there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below vide the impugned order.

20. The reasons for convicting the appellant by the trial court were that the appellant used to abuse the deceased on the basis of her dark complexion and further that he used to physically abuse her; that, the conclusion by which the trial court came to this conclusion only on the basis of statements of PW-1 and PW-2, mother and father of the deceased respectively; that, in the post- 9 mortem report it is reflected that the death was caused due to strangulation and some scratches were also found on the body of the deceased, to which the trial court has concluded that since there are allegations that the appellant used to physically abuse the deceased, thus, the scratches would have been caused by the accused on this basis, therefore, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC.

21. In the opinion of this Court, there was no active act or direct act in close proximity of the appellant, which lead deceased to commit suicide, beside this, the prosecution failed to prove the mens rea of the appellant instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Furthermore, the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that after three months of marriage, the deceased was living with her parents for last seven months and the appellant has himself came to the deceased parents’ house and took the deceased with him. It is settled proposition of law that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that she commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and appellant abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case both the elements are absent. Even taking the statement of PW1 & PW2, on its face value, the instance when the appellant abused the deceased for her dark complexion, was at the time of marriage i.e. on 24.04.2002 whereas the deceased 10 committed suicide on 15.04.2003, therefore, there is a gap of almost one year. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

22. On a totality of the consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the evidences are wholly unacceptable and the same cannot be acted upon to be the basis of conviction. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses fall short of the requirement of proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is thus, entitled to the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contrary view taken by the Trial Court is against the weight of evidence on record.

23. For the reasons, as recorded hereinabove, the appeal preferred by appellant Tribhuwan Singh allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

24. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below. ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 02.08.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0 2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553 DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 11