Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 11.03.2025 vs Sunil Kumar And Another on 19 March, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 354 of 2015 Reserved on : 11.03.2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh .....Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar and another ......Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondents: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment dated 25.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP, in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2014, whereby the accused persons, namely Sunil Kumar and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) Sanjay Kumar, were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on receipt of a telephonic information from the Medical Officer, CHC, Barsar on 15.09.2013 to the effect that one Pooja Devi, wife of Sunil Kumar had been brought to the hospital with an alleged history of consumption of some poisonous substance, the police visited the hospital and moved an application to the Medical Officer to record the statement of Pooja Devi, but she was found unfit to make the statement and after sometime, she had expired. The police procured MLC of the deceased alongwith sample of gastric lavage and thereafter her dead body was taken to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur for postmortem. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Sukh Dev, father of the deceased, under Section 154, Cr.P.C on 16.09.2013, wherein he disclosed that the marriage of his deceased daughter Pooja Devi was solemnized with accused Sunil Kumar on 20.07.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, one son was born. In the month of June, 2013, when he visited his native place, then he called deceased Pooja 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) Devi to his house, but she refused to come without giving any reason. On this, he along with his nephew Manoj Kumar went to her matrimonial home at Bal, where she disclosed that accused Sunil Kumar used to ill-treat and harass her. Earlier also, she had disclosed the said fact to him, but at that time he made her to understand. Thereafter, he also brought the said fact to the notice of Udham Singh, who had arranged the said marriage. He alongwith his relatives once or twice visited the house of accused Sunil Kumar to make him understand, but he did not pay any heed and whenever accused Sunil Kumar used to come to their house to drop deceased Pooja Devi, he used to drop her upto the road and used to return therefrom only. On 15.09.2013, his nephew Manoj Kumar told him that Pooja Devi had died in Barsar Hospital, but accused Sunil Kumar or any of his relatives did not disclose the said fact to them. Thereafter, on reaching home, he came to know that accused persons Sunil Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, under the influence of liquor, used to tease the deceased and due to their ill- treatment and harassment, she got fed-up and committed suicide. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. During further course of the investigation, the police prepared the spot map, clicked the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) photographs and after conducting the postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to accused Sanjay Kumar. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. They also examined one witness in their defence.
4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 25.02.2015, acquitted the accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.
5. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts and is based upon mis-appreciation of evidence, which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice, as such, the same is liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) Trial Court has not only failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence but has also set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence of the prosecution. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused persons be convicted.
6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. He further contended that there was nothing against the accused persons and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus, the instant appeal, which sans merits, be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the entire records.
8. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
9. The scope of power of Appellate Court in case of appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, which reads as under:
"10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, ".....the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years.
11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed:
"7...........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."
12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu [3], Madan Mohan Singh [4], Atley [5] , Aher Raja Khima [6], Balbir Singh [7], M.G. Agarwal [8], Noor Khan [9], Khedu Mohton [10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade [11], Lekha Yadav [12], Khem Karan [13], Bishan Singh [14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai [15], K. Gopal Reddy [16], Tota Singh [17], Ram Kumar [18], Madan Lal [19], Sambasivan [20], Bhagwan Singh [21], Harijana Thirupala [22], C. Antony [23], K. Gopalakrishna [24], Sanjay Thakran [25] and Chandrappa [26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:
(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal,
(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and
(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-
appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & another, (2022) 3 SCC 471, observed as under:
"31. The circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court may be summarized as follows:
31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when the order of acquittal has been confirmed up to the High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of U.P. v. Sahai (1982) 1 SCC 352] Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court. [Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297] An appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an unassailable, logical 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) conclusion which justifies acquittal. [State of Haryana vs. Lakhbir] 31.2. However, this Court has on certain occasions, set aside the order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The circumstances under which this Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction, may be summarized as follows:
31.2.1. Where the approach or reasoning of the High Court is perverse;
(a) Where incontrovertible evidence has been rejected by the High Court based on suspicion and surmises, which are rather unrealistic. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393] For example, where direct, unanimous accounts of the eyewitnesses, were discounted without cogent reasoning. [State of U.P. vs. Shanker 1980 Supp SCC 489]
(b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of relatives, living in the same house as the victim, were discounted on the ground that they were "interested" witnesses. [State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh (1980)
(c) Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC 393]
(d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim was rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant ground that they did not explain the injury found on one of the persons present at the site of occurrence of the crime. [Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297]
(e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic standard of "implicit proof" rather than that of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and therefore evaluated the evidence in a flawed manner. [State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram (1986) 4 SCC 99]
(f) Where the High Court rejected circumstantial evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious theory, which were beyond the plea of the accused; [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610]
(g) Where the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that he had no adequate motive to commit the offence, although, in the said case, there was 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) strong direct evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, thereby making it necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish "motive". [State of A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah (1990) 1 SCC 445] 31.2.2.Where acquittal would result is gross miscarriage of justice;
(a) Where the findings of the High Court, disconnecting the accused persons with the crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration of evidence, [State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh 1989 Supp (1) SCC] or based on extenuating circumstances which were purely based in imagination and fantasy [State of U.P. v. Pussu (1983) 3 SCC 502]
(b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial, which delay was attributable not to the tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting agencies, but to the conduct of the accused himself; or where accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981) 3 SCC 610]."
11. In H.D. Sundara & others vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant portion of the above judgment is as under:
"8. In this appeal, were are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarized as follows:
8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2.The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3.The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4.If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5.The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
9. Normally, when an appellate court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the appellate court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The appellate court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court must first decide whether the trial court's view was a possible view. The appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-
appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the appellate court must see whether the view taken by the trial court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court.
13. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
14. In the instant case, the accused persons had been tried under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC for cruelty and abetment of suicide. Section 306 incorporates the offence of abetment of suicide and the main ingredients of the offence are the suicidal death and abetment thereof. The suicide is an intentional killing of oneself. The relevant provisions, which are now required to be looked into, are reproduced herein below:-
Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, thereby showing the commission of suicide must be pursuant to the abetment committed by any person. It is the case of the prosecution that the husband abetted the deceased wife to commit suicide.
15. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relates to presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, which reads as follows:-
"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women.- 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.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Panel Code (45 of 1860)."
16. Explanation to Section 498-A IPC defines cruelty caused on wife by husband or his relatives as follows:-
1[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) related to her to meet such demand.]"
17. To substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons and to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. However, the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 Sukhdev Sharma, complainant/father of the deceased, PW-2 Sunita Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-3, Jyoti Sharma, sister of the deceased, PW-4 Amro Devi, maternal grandmother of the deceased and PW-7 Dr. K.C. Chopra, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of the deceased.
18. Complainant -Sukhdev Sharma, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1, deposed that his eldest daughter Pooja Devi was married with Sunil Kumar in the month of July, 2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a son, who was two years old. In the month of May, 2013, he called his daughter Pooja Devi to his house, but she did not come and when he asked the reason as to why she did not come, she disclosed that her husband was refusing. He alongwith his nephew Manoj Kumar went to the house of his daughter, where she disclosed that her husband Sunil Kumar used to torture her on trivial matters. He further deposed that prior to this also, when he 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) had visited the house of her daughter, accused Sunil Kumar was asked not to torture her. During these visits, accused Sunil Kumar had assured him that he would not torture Pooja. Whenever Sunil Kumar used to leave Pooja Devi at his house, he used to drop her upto the road and did not visit their house. In the month of June, 2013, he left for Bombay and thereafter on 15.09.2013, his nephew Manoj Kumar informed him that Pooja Devi had expired and asked him to come home. Thereafter, when he reached his house on 16.09.2013, he was told that Sunil Kumar and his brother Sanjay Kumar used to consume liquor together and they had been maltreating Pooja Devi, due to which, she had committed suicide.
19. PW-2 Sunita Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that she had two daughters and one son. Pooja Devi was her eldest daughter, who was married with Sunil Kumar in the month of July, 2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with a son and whenever Pooja Devi used to visit their house, she used to disclose that the accused persons had been maltreating and harassing her on trivial matters. She also disclosed that despite doing the domestic work, she was being harassed by the accused persons. She further deposed that whenever accused Sunil Kumar used to drop Pooja at their house, 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) he used to leave her at the road and did not visit their house. She along with his mother Smt. Amro Devi (PW-4) had visited the house of accused Sunil Kumar and made him to understand that he should not maltreat Pooja and he assured that he would not harass her. Thereafter also, the accused persons had been maltreating Pooja Devi after consuming liquor. When her husband came back to home in the month of May/June, 2013, Pooja Devi was called, but she was not sent and on 14.09.2013 when she had talked to Pooja on telephone, she talked for a while, wept and then disconnected the telephone. She did not make any complaint to the Panchayat etc. for the reason that accused persons might mend their behaviour and things might not come out publically. On 15.09.2013, she received a telephone call from the police that their daughter Pooja was serious and asked them to come at CHC Barsar as she was to be referred to Hamirpur.
20. PW-3 Jyoti Sharma, younger sister of the deceased, deposed that whenever Pooja Devi used to visit their house, she used to disclose her that she was being mentally tortured by the accused persons and many times, they did not send her to their house on their invitation. She also used to tell her that she should not marry as in-laws were not good. In spite of working hard, the 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) accused persons used to tease Pooja Devi. She further deposed that on 15.09.2013, they received a telephonic call from the police that Pooja Devi had been hospitalized at Barsar. Neither the accused persons, nor any member of their family had informed them. Pooja also used to disclose that both the accused persons used to maltreat her after consuming liquor.
21. PW-4 Amro Devi, maternal grandmother of the deceased, deposed that after the marriage of Pooja Devi and Sunil Kumar, they lived peacefully for about 1-1½ years and after that, accused persons Sunil Kumar and Sanjay started maltreating her and thereafter when she visited the house of Pooja Devi, the accused persons were requested not to maltreat her and to behave properly. Pooja Devi used to talk to her on telephone. She further deposed that on 15.09.2013 Pooja Devi had died and she had talked with her on telephone 2-3 days prior to her death.
22. PW-5 Manoj Kumar, deposed that Pooja Devi was his cousin sister (daughter of his maternal uncle), who was married to Sunil Kumar in the month of July, 2010. His maternal uncle disclosed to him that after 8-9 months of the marriage of Pooja Devi, the accused persons were maltreating her. He alongwith his maternal uncle Sukhdev visited the house of accused 4-5 months 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) prior to her death. They had requested the accused persons not to maltreat Pooja Devi and keep her properly. He further deposed that on 15.09.2013, he came to know that Pooja had been hospitalized in CHC Barsar and he visited the hospital, where he came to know that Pooja Devi had expired and then he informed his maternal uncle on telephone regarding her death.
23. PW-7 Dr. K.C. Chopra deposed that on 16.09.2013 he had conducted the post-mortem of Pooja Sharma and prepared the post-mortem report Ext.PW7/B. He further deposed that on receipt of RFSL report Ext.PW7/C, he had given his final opinion that the deceased died due to phosphine gas poisoning.
24. We have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and from the closest scrutiny thereof, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased had been abetted by the accused persons to commit suicide and that they had subjected her to cruelty in any manner.
25. Though, PW-1 Sukh Dev, father of the deceased, deposed that when he alongwith his nephew Manoj Kumar went to the matrimonial house of his daughter, she disclosed that her husband used to torture her on trivial matters. However, in cross- examination, he admitted that deceased never told the reason of 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) her maltreatment. He also admitted that they had never reported the matter either to the Panchayat or to the Police prior to the death of his daughter. PW-2, Sunita Devi, mother of the deceased, as well as PW-4 Amro Devi stated in cross-examination that the main reason for the harassment of Pooja Devi was demand of dowry but if the cross-examination of PW-15 ASI Joginder Pal, Investigating Officer is perused, he has specifically admitted that his investigation did not reveal that it was a case of dowry death. PW-3 Jyoti Sharma, sister of the deceased also admitted in her cross-examination that deceased Pooja did not disclose any specific reason for her harassment. PW-5 Manoj Kumar also admitted in his cross-examination that the reason for maltreatment of Pooja by the accused persons was due to trivial matters but no other reason was disclosed to him by the deceased. PW-15 ASI Joginder Pal admitted in cross-examination that when Pooja had consumed poison, her husband was away to the field to collect grass and accused Sanjay was away from the village. He further admitted that the villagers had not made any statement that they had perceived harassment meted out to her by the accused persons within the four corners of their house. He admitted that the parental relatives of the deceased did not make any specific 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) reference/ detail of harassment being given to her by the accused persons.
26. Perusal of the statements of aforesaid witnesses shows that they have made lot of improvements in their statements while deposing before the Court. Admittedly, the parents of the deceased never reported the matter either to the Panchayat or to the Police regarding the alleged maltreatment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons. Even no complaint was made by the deceased during her lifetime either to the Panchayat or to the Police or to any other authority regarding the alleged maltreatment being meted out to her by the accused persons. Had she been maltreated by the accused persons, then definitely the parents/relatives of the deceased or deceased herself would have reported the matter either to the Police or to the Gram Panchayat or any other competent authority, however, no such complaint was ever made by any of them. Except for the close relatives of the deceased, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.
27. DW-1 Dev Raj, who is the neighbour of the accused persons, deposed that the accused persons lived separately and they did not indulge in liquor consumption. He further deposed that 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) the accused persons never created any nuisance in the locality and on the fateful day, when he heard about the alleged incidence, he visited the house of the accused persons and when he asked the deceased as to what she had done, she replied that she had committed a mistake. He also stated that the accused persons had cordial relations with the deceased and there was no occasion to commit any such act by the deceased. He was cross-examined by the prosecution, but nothing incriminating was elicited from his lengthy cross-examination. His statement is duly corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW-15) who stated that no one from the village had made any statement that they had ever perceived any harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons and that the parents of the deceased never complained about the same, which goes to show that the relations between the deceased and the accused persons were cordial.
28. The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence on record that immediately before her death the deceased was physically assaulted by the accused. There is also no evidence on record that the deceased was mentally harassed by the accused in any manner.
29. The mere fact that deceased had committed suicide 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) within four years of her marriage and that she had been allegedly subjected to maltreatment or harassment by the accused persons, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by the accused persons. There is no direct evidence that accused persons aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or enter into any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide.
30. In Ghulam Mustafa vs State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2015 SC 3101, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a casual remark or something said in a routine way or in usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood to mean 'abetment.' A conviction on mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of accused that led a person to commit suicide is not sustainable under Section 306, IPC.
31. Again, in Gurucharan vs State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74, it has been held that to constitute the offence under Section 306, IPC, there should be a live link between abetment and suicide and the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. So far as the grievance of dowry demand and consequential harassment is concerned, it 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) should not be general in nature and there should be some specific incident and should have provocative capability to drive the deceased to such distressed state, mental and physical that she could elect to end her life.
32. In Nachhatter Singh vs State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 542, the Court observed that in case of abetment of suicide by married woman, the cruelty and harassment meted out must be of nature to drive a person of common prudence to commit suicide. Every quarrel between husband and wife which results in suicide cannot be taken to abetment by husband. For abetment, standard of reasonable or practical woman as compared to headstrong and over sensitive one is to be applied.
33. In Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"9. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418) this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 )
10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate"
literally means to provide, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.
11. 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 Vs. State of M.P. (1955 AIR SCW 4570)]."
34. In Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 680, it is held as under:-
"26. Before invoking the provisions of Section 306 IPC, it is necessary to establish that : (1) the deceased committed suicide, and (ii) she had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 A IPC.
27. Only in the event those facts are established, a presumption in terms of Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act could be raised. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 A, IPC. No case that the deceased committed suicide was also made out."
25 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 )
35. The legal position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another vs. Inspector of Police, AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4994, wherein it has been held as follows:-
" 25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police 7 which are as under:-
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. State of Haryana observed as under:-
"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 behavior 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.
26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) 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 persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a 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 creates a situation which leads the deceased 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 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 facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
36. In Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257, the Supreme Court held that the nature of presumption under Section 113A is discretionary in the sense that from the mere fact that the wife committed suicide within 07 years of marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by the husband, there will be no automatic presumption that the suicide had been abetted by 27 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) the husband.
37. Thus, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the Court examines the allegations made in this case, there is no direct evidence of maltreatment/harassment by the accused persons against the deceased. The facts suggest that there may have some strained relationship between respondents and the deceased, but that does not mean that they inflicted physical and mental torture upon the victim which led her to commit suicide.
38. The general allegations of harassment cannot be sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide. The prosecution has failed to establish positive act on the part of the accused persons to instigate or to compel the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations made by the prosecution witnesses are general in nature and no specific instance of the alleged maltreatment or cruelty has been given by the prosecution witnesses, which can be construed as cruelty or abetment to commit suicide on the part of the accused persons.
39. There is no satisfactory material on record to prove cruelty and harassment with the deceased before the incident or abetment in proximity of time for committing suicide. To attract the 28 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) offence under Section 306 of IPC, the alleged cruelty, instigation or encouragement by accused should not only be proved by prosecution but also be of such nature which leaves no option to the deceased except to commit suicide. There is no evidence led by prosecution that there was abetment of such grave nature which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The suicidal death in this case cannot be due to any illegal act or illegal omission or instigation, by anybody else. It may be the deceased's own act, being of hyper sensitive nature, for which, the accused persons cannot be held guilty.
40. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial Court while acquitting the accused persons is a reasonable view based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.
41. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference in the judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2014 is required as the same is the result of proper appreciation of evidence and law. The appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.
29 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:6585 ) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge March 19, 2025 (VH)