Delhi District Court
State vs Bibhoo Kumar on 15 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-006133/2018
Sessions Case No. 181/2018
FIR No.774/2015
PS -Sagarpur
Under Section 498A/306/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Bibhoo Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajender Rai
R/o B-2/387, Dhurwa Ranchi,
Jharkhnad
Date of Institution : 03.09.2017
Date of Committal : 13.09.2017
Charge framed Under Section : 498-A/306/34 IPC
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 03.12.2025
and reserving judgment
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 15.12.2025
Final Judgment : Accused is acquitted for the
charge under Section
498A/306/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
Brief Facts:
1. Accused Bibhoo and Smt. Uma Devi were chargesheeted under Sections 498-A/306/34 IPC as Smt. Preeti Rai was married to the accused Bibhoo Kumar and he being husband alongwith co-accused SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC mother-in-law namely Smt. Uma Devi, subjected Smt. Preeti Rai to cruelty and harassment, pursuant to their common intention for demand of dowry on various occasions. Further, Smt. Preeti Rai committed suicide on 10.07.2015 in unnatural circumstances due to abetment by the accused persons by such acts, at her matrimonial house situated at RZ-301/1, Gali No. 1, Durga Park, Sagarpur, Delhi, i.e. within seven years of her marriage.
Registration of FIR and investigation conducted:
2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.07.2015 ASI Lal Bahadur received one DD No. 25A regarding hanging of one lady herself at Durga Park, Gali No. 1. Thereafter, ASI Lal Bahadur alongwith Ct.
Jagdish went to the spot i.e. RZ-301/1, Gali No. 1, Durga Park, Sagarpur, Delhi where they found that the lady namely Preeti Rai W/o Sh. Bibhoo Kumar was hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of Chunni. Thereafter, Crime Team was called at the spot and SDM was also been informed. Crime Team inspected the spot and the spot was photographed. One suicide note, running into 02 pages was recovered from one register at the spot. The dead body was got down after cutting Chunni from the ceiling fan. The dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary of DDU Hospital for preservation. Piece of Chunni was sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo. SDM Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat, Executive Magistrate conducted proceedings under Section 176 Cr. PC and had recorded the statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Har Narayana and other relatives wherein they attested the recovered suicide note and did not blame anyone for suicide.
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
3. Thereafter, the dead body of Smt. Preeti Rai was handed over to her father after conducting the postmortem examination. The doctor had handed over the viscera and ligature material to the IO who took into his possession vide seizure memo. On the PM report, the doctor had opined the cause of death as " Asphyxia from ante mortem ligature hanging".
4. Thereafter, on 27.09.2015, statement of father of deceased namely Sh. Harnayaran Rai was recorded wherein he stated that her daughter namely Preeti Rai got married with accused Bibhoo Kumar on 08.12.2012 at his village. Accused Bibhoo Kumar was working as Engineer in Jindal Power Plant, Raigarh, Chattisgarh and her daughter was residing with her husband, mother-in-law (Saas) and sister-in-law (Nanad). He further alleged that after some days, accused Smt. Uma Devi started torturing her daughter physically as well as mentally. After sometime, accused Bibhoo Kumar left her daughter with him at Delhi and her daughter started working at Gurgaon. Accused Smt. Uma Devi used to call her on phone and threatened her to leave the job and stay with her at Ranchi and also take care of her. Accused Bibhoo Kumar also created pressure on her to leave the job and return to Ranchi. He further alleged that accused Bibhoo Kumar came to Delhi and stayed with her daughter on a rented accommodation for about 45 days and thereafter returned to Ranchi and again asked her daughter to leave the job and return to Ranchi. Accused Smt. Uma Devi also threatened her that if she will not return, she will get her son re-married. Accused Bibhoo Kumar stopped taking calls of her daughter and also stopped talking to her. Her daughter did not want to go to Ranchi in order to escape from the torture by her mother-in-
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC law/accused Smt.Uma Devi. Complainant/father of deceased alleged that her daughter committed suicide under the pressure of accused persons.
5. On 06.07.2017, accused Bibhoo Kumar surrendered himself before the Court and on 11.07.2017, he was formally arrested by the police. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 498A/306/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Bibhoo Kumar and Uma Devi before the concerned Court and it was duly committed to this Court. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet qua FSL result of Suicide Note and hand writing expert has also been filed and committed before this Court.
Charge:
6. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Bibhoo Kumar and Smt. Uma Devi by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 07.11.2017 wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, accused Smt. Uma Devi was discharged by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.03.2020.
THE TRIAL Prosecution evidence:
7. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, which are, PW-1 Sh. Harnayaran Rai (Complainant/father of the deceased), PW-2 Smt. Sudha Rai (Mother of the deceased), PW-3 Sh. Prateek Rai (Brother of the deceased), PW-4 Sh. Ram Pravesh Rai (maternal grandfather/nana of the SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC deceased), PW-5 Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat (SDM/Executive Magistrate), PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar (Duty Officer), PW-7 Inspector Chetan Mandia (1st IO), PW-8 SI Lal Bahadur (2nd IO), PW-9 Sh.
Mahendra Kumar Mandal (Bank Official, PNB), PW-10 Sh. Kishan Pal Singh (Official from DDU Hospital to prove PM Report of deceased), PW-11 Sh. Attar Singh Yadav (Section Officer (Admn.) Shivaji College), PW-12 Dr. Soma Mitra (Proved MLC of deceased) and PW-13 SI (Retd.) Surender Singh (Witness of investigation). The relevant portion of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is reproduced hereinafter.
8. PW-1 Sh. Harnarayana, Complainant/Father of the deceased has deposed that the deceased Preeti Rai was his daughter and her marriage was solemnized with accused Bibhoo Kumar on 08.12.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, knowing that accused Bibhoo Kumar is doing service and his daughter will not face any problem/trouble. Being the father, he had given all the necessary dowry articles at the time of marriage of his daughter including cash. He further deposed after some time of the marriage of his daughter, the accused persons started harassing his daughter Preeti and whenever accused Bibhoo Kumar was away at his work place, the mother-in-law of his daughter used to say that she will get another marriage of his son Bibhoo Kumar done and for this reason his daughter Preeti used to remain perplexed and her daughter used to say that even though she is well qualified from Delhi University and also that her parents gave her everything in the dowry, but still she has to hear the comments of the mother-in-law that Bibhoo Kumar is her only son and that she will get him married with another girl and will SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC remove his daughter from her matrimonial home. He further deposed that accused Bibhoo Kumar used to beat his daughter and he tried to pacify her but she was too confused with the situation and stated on one or two occasions that she was unable to bear the torture and wanted to run away feeling the pressure. He further deposed that accused Bibhoo Kumar brought her to his house and his daughter while weeping told him about the quarrel and it was sometime in January-February 2015. He further deposed that he consoled both of them stating that the things will be alright after some time. Thereafter, accused left his daughter at his place and left for his job in Raigarh, Chhatisgarh.
8.1 He further deposed that thereafter; his daughter applied for a job in Delhi and she got a job in a company named Mackanzi and started living in his house. Accused came back after few months in May, 2015 after taking leave for 45 days. He further deposed that accused took a room on rent wherein he and his daughter started living together and his daughter used to go for her job and the accused used to look for a job in Delhi but after every 2-3 days there used to be quarrel between accused and his daughter and he used to go to their place to pacify but the accused continued to beat and harass his daughter. He further deposed that the accused Bibhoo Kumar had beaten his daughter Preeti by a leather belt and the belt was broken while beating and his daughter had shown him the said broken belt. At the time of beating her by accused Bibhoo Kumar, he was not present at home. He further deposed that his daughter had come to his place and his wife had taken her to a doctor for treatment. After beating his daughter, accused went to some of his relative's place. His daughter wanted to SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC lodge an FIR against accused Bibhoo Kumar but in order to save her matrimonial life she did not get the FIR registered. He further deposed that after staying for about 45 days with his daughter, accused Bibhoo Kumar again went to his work place in Raigarh Chhatisgarh. Thereafter, his daughter Preeti tried to contact accused but the phone could not be connected and on 10.07.2015, his daughter Preeti committed suicide in the rented room in which his daughter along with the accused was staying. He further deposed that on the day of incident; he was not present at his home and had gone for work and someone informed him about the suicide committed by his daughter. 8.2 He further deposed that on the day of suicide, police officials also came at his house and he came to know that the call at 100 number was already made by his father-in-law. Police also inquired from him but at that time he was not in fit state of mind to give statement due to death of his daughter. He further deposed that on 11.07.2015, he along with his father-in-law had gone to DDU Hospital and before the postmortem, he had identified the dead body of his daughter Preeti. IO recorded their identification statements. He proved his statement in this regard as Ex.PW-1/A. He further deposed that after postmortem, he had received the dead body vide handing over memo Ex.PW-1/B and the same day she was cremated. He further deposed that on 11.07.2015, he was taken before the Executive Magistrate at Dwarka and his statement Ex. PW-1/C was recorded and at that time, he was not in a fit state of mind and on 27.09.2015, he gave a written complaint Ex.PW-1/D and on his complaint, present case was registered by the police. He further deposed that on 06.08.2017, he had handed over the marriage invitation card of his SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC daughter with accused along with four marriage photographs which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/E. He proved the marriage card as Ex.PW-1/F and Photographs as Ex. PW-1/G (collectively). He further deposed that on 06.08.2017, he had also handed over list of dowry articles Ex. PW-1/H and photocopy of NEFT Bank receipts Ex. PW-1/J (collectively) (Running into 05 pages) to the police showing the transfer of amount from the account of Prateek Rai to the account of Rajinder Rai, which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/I. Witness correctly identified the accused before the Court.
9. PW-2 Smt. Sudha Rani, mother of the deceased deposed that she is a housewife and they are not carrying the bills of the jewelery and other dowry articles including the clothes which they had given to their daughter at the time of her marriage with accused Bibhoo Kumar. She further deposed that they are also not having the bills of the payment made to the tent house, catering as well as the sweet-maker. 9.1 She further deposed that her daughter was harassed by her in- laws and she was given stale food to eat and also taunted by her mother-in-law/accused Uma Devi, who used to complaint to her son that the deceased never used to work properly. She was beaten by her husband accused Bibhoo Kumar on various occasions and all the aforesaid facts were told to her by her deceased daughter. (Objected to the Ld. Defence Counsel as the same has not been told to IO).
10. PW-3 Sh. Prateek Rai, brother of the deceased deposed that deceased Preeti was his real sister and she was married with accused Bibhoo Kumar on 08.12.2012 and the said marriage solemnized on the basis of dowry and during marriage, they had transferred SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC Rs.6,39,000/- through NEFT and Rs. 1,61,000/-was paid in cash. He further deposed that after a period of one month, she started facing problem in her marital life in terms of physical and mental torture, mostly by her mother-in-law by quoting that her son is the only son she will get her another wife and she physically started harassing her. He further deposed that accused was posted in Rai Garh, Chhatisgarh as an Engineer in Jindal Power Plant and whenever he was not in house during his office time, her mother-in-law took advantage of the same and used to warn her. He further deposed that after some incidents, his sister used to share with his mother that they are physically torturing and abusing her and also warned her that she will get another wife for Bibhoo. As parents, they discussed within the family that the situation will get better in future as parents do not want that marriage be broken in the interest of both the families. But, after that his sister got a job offer from a Machengy Company at Gurugram and thereafter, they came here in Delhi because of her career and she accepted the job offer and started working. He further deposed that whenever her sister spoke to her mother-in-law, she was asking and forcing her to come at her village to stay with her to serve her but it was not feasible for his sister to leave her job because she started recently. He further deposed the situation worsened after each passing day and accused Bibhoo and Preeti stayed in Delhi for about 45 days in a rented house and after few days, Preeti shared the situation with his mother that she is facing problem in her married life and she was harassed by her mother-in-law. Before 2-3 days of death of Preeti, Bibhoo and Preeti had arguments and Bibhoo went back to Ranchi and thereafter, he started refusing the calls of Preeti and in that mental SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC trauma she took the step of suicide on 10.07.2015. He further deposed that mother-in-law of Preeti used to demand more dowry articles such as furniture. He further deposed that on 11.07.2015 his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at DDU Hospital and on 27.09.2015, police recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and case was also registered on the same day. Witness correctly identified the accused before the Court.
11. PW-4 Sh. Ram Parvesh Rai deposed that on 10.07.2015 at around 01:00-01:30 PM, he received a phone call of his daughter Ms. Sudha Rai that she had received phone call from the office of Preeti that she has not reached her office. On this, he made a call to Preeti but she did not pick up the phone. Thereafter, he went to her house and saw the door of the room of Preeti was locked from inside. Thereafter, he informed the landlady of the said house and with the help of 2-3 neighbours and landlady, they pushed the door of the room and same was got opened. He further deposed that they entered inside the room of Preeti and were shocked to see that Preeti had hanged herself with Chunni from the ceiling fan and by the side of the bed one small table was lying. Thereafter, he informed the police at 100 number. He further deposed that 15-20 days prior to death of Preeti, he talked to her and at that time, she was complaining for humiliating by her mother-in-law and she also informed him that her mother-in- law told her to spit and lick it. He further deposed that police came at the spot and Preeti was taken to hospital. He further deposed that mother-in-law of Preeti used to harass Preeti and accused/Bibhoo used to support his mother.
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
12. PW-5 Sh. Satish Kumar, Executive Magistrate deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was telephonically informed by SHO PS Sagarpur that one Smt. Preeti Rai R/o RZ-301/1, Gali No. 1, Durga Park has hanged herself. On this, he gave direction to take the body and keep it in the Mortuary of DDU Hospital and to call the parents for recording of their statements. He further deposed that on 11.07.2015, he went to DDU Hospital and the dead body of deceased Smt. Preeti Rai was identified by her parents as well as relatives. He recorded identification statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of Sh. Harnarayan Rai, father of deceased and of Sh. Ram Parvesh Rai, maternal grandfather of deceased as Ex.PW-5/A. He also recorded the statement of Sh. Harnarayan Rai Ex. PW-1/C, statement of Prateek Rai Ex. PW-3/A and Subodh Rai (maternal uncle/mama) Ex. PW-5/B. He further deposed that he made request to HOD, DDU Hospital for postmortem of deceased Preeti vide request letter Ex. PW-5/C and also filled up form No. 25.35(1) (B) Ex.PW-5/D. After postmortem of deceased, dead body was handed over to her father vide handing over receipt Ex.PW-1/B. In the hospital, IO handed over suicide note containing four pages (Ex.PW-5/F) which was allegedly recovered from the room of deceased Preeti Rai. He seized the same in the presence of Sh. Prateek Rai, brother of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/E. 12.1 He further deposed that on 23.07.2015, after receiving the postmortem report and after going through the case matter, he directed SHO PS Sagarpur to conduct proper investigation into this matter and proceed as per law. He prepared brief facts and made directions in this regard (Ex.PW-5/G). He further deposed that on 10.07.2015, Ligature material i.e Chunni of yellow colour of length about 4 feet by which SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC deceased Preeti Rai hanged herself with ceiling fan was also produced by the IO before him in the hospital and same was seized on his directions vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/H.
13. PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar, Duty Officer deposed that on 27.09.2015, he was posted at PS Sagarpur and was working as duty officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 midnight and proved present case FIR as Ex.PW-6/A, his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-6/B and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of above said computerized FIR as Ex.PW-6/C bearing his signature at point A.
14. PW-7 Inspector Chetan Mandia deposed that on 27.09.2015, after registration of the present FIR, the investigation was marked to him and ASI Lal Bahadur handed over to him all the inquest papers and other papers of the case. He further deposed that he examined the father and brother of deceased and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the statement of ASI Lal Bahadur and Ct. Jagdish under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 17.10.2016, the Crime Team members namely Surender Kumar and Sumit were examined and their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. He further deposed that during the investigation, notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW7/A) was served upon Principal, Shivaji College, Raja Garden, New Delhi and he received the reply from the college vide Letter No. SH/Admn. /2519/16 dated 08.11.2016 along with the photocopy of the admission form of deceased Preeti. He further deposed that on 09.11.2016, another notice No. 2693/SHO/Sagarpur dated 09.11.2016 (Ex.PW7/B) was given to Principal, Shivaji College, Raja Garden, New Delhi and SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC a notice no. 6292/SHO/Sagarpur dated 09.11.2016 (PW-7/C) was also given to Controller of Examination, University of Delhi. He further deposed that on 16.11.2016, one letter was received from Principal, Shivaji College along with original admission form of Ms. Preeti (since deceased) vide their letter no. SH/Admn./2612/16 dated 16.11.2016 through Ct. Shamsher Singh and he recorded the statement of Ct. Shamsher Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and all the documents that were handed over by Ct. Shamsher, were taken on record. He further deposed that on 17.11.2016, he got transferred to EOW and present case file was handed over to MHC(R), PS Sagarpur. 14.1 During cross examination, witness stated that the investigation of this case remained with him for about 3 months, however, he did not remember as to how many times, he met with parents of the deceased. He admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-7/DA) was recorded by ASI Lal Bahadur on 24.08.2015 wherein the said documents contains FIR number and Section. He admitted that no FIR was registered regarding this case on 24.08.2015 and the FIR in question was registered on 27.09.2015.
15. PW-8 SI Lal Bahadur deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was posted at PS Sagarpur and on that day, he was telephonically informed about DD Entry No. 25 A (Ex.PW-8/A). Accordingly, he reached at RZ-301/1, Gali No. 1, Durga Park, Delhi and found one lady was hanging from the ceiling fan with chunni. He called the Crime Team, informed the SHO as well as SDM. The Crime Team, SHO as well as SDM reached at the spot. He further deposed that one suicide note (two pages) (Ex.PW-5/F) was recovered and the same was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-5/E. The scene of crime was got SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC photographed and inspected by the Mobile Crime Team. He further deposed that the dead body was taken down after cutting the chunni and the said chunni was measured, converted into a pullanda and sealed with the seal of L.B and seized vide memo Ex.PW-5/H and the dead body was shifted to DDU hospital on the direction of SDM and SHO and got preserved in the mortuary. On the directions of SDM, parental family members of the deceased were called. 15.1 He further deposed that on next day, the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded the statement of witnesses including the identification of the dead body. He filled up the Form 25.35 (Ex.PW-8/B) and on the directions of SDM, the postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives after postmortem. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW-8/C, collected the PM report and the doctors handed over him a sealed pullanda stated to be containing the remaining piece of chunni (Dupatta) and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-8/D and deposited the sealed pullandas in malkhana. He further deposed that later on the FIR was registered and the investigation was taken up by SI Chetan on 27.09.2015. He further deposed that on 11.07.2017, again the investigation was marked to him and he arrested accused Bibhoo Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/E after the accused had surrendered before the Court. He recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/F. He further deposed that on 06.08.2017, the father of deceased Preeti handed over him list of dowry articles (Ex.PW-1/H) and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-8/G. He further deposed that during investigation, father of deceased Preeti also handed over him photocopy of the bank receipt of SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC OBC (PW-1/J) and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-1/I. He also seized the photographs of marriage and invitation card of the marriage vide memo Ex PW-1/E. He further deposed that on 11.08.2017, he seized the dairy (Pages No. 1 to 37) of deceased Preeti Rai produced by her father vide memo Ex. PW-8/H. This witness proved the pieces of chunni seized by the doctor during postmortem as Ex.PW8/P1 (Collectively).
15.2 During cross examination, this witness stated that he met the caller of DD25A at the spot and he did not record the FIR either on the basis of the caller of DD No. 25A (Ex.PW-8/A) or on the basis of the aforesaid DD. He further stated that he including the SHO and SDM had also made inquiries from the parents of deceased but nobody gave statement against the accused. He further stated that the SDM recorded the statements of parents and relative of the deceased but nobody gave a statement against the accused and the deceased was residing separately from their parents. He further stated that the SHO and SDM had made inquiries from the landlord of the deceased and even he also made inquiries during the course of investigation but the landlord did not allege anything against the accused. He further stated that the parents of deceased had informed the accused and on 11.07.2015 accused Bibhoo Kumar reached Delhi from Ranchi and accused had also come at DDU Hospital, Delhi and joined inquest proceedings in the presence of SDM. He further stated that the SDM as well as SHO had gone through the suicide note (Ex.PW-5/A) and since, no cognizable offence was made out after going through the suicide note, no FIR was registered on the basis of the suicide note. He further stated that the site plan (Ex.PW-8/C) was prepared by him SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC in the presence of father of deceased and no suicide note was shown in the site plan. He further stated that the maternal uncle of the deceased namely Subodh Rai was working at the LG House at Delhi and the present case FIR was registered after 80 days of the incidence and the said FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint made by father of deceased to SHO PS Sagarpur. He further stated that the aforesaid register was not seized on 10.07.2015 and diary running into 37 pages (Ex.PW-8/H) was never handed to him by the parents of the deceased. He further stated that during the course of investigation, the father of deceased never handed over a diary (Ex.PW-8/H) to him and the diary (Ex.PW-8/H) was seized by him on 11.08.2017 i.e. after 02 years of the incident.
16. PW-9 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Mandal, Sr. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, proved the bank statement of account No. 09352191010407 pertaining to Pradeek Roy having money transactions dated 25.05.2012, 27.06.2012, 23.07.2012, 24.08.2012 and 04.10.2012 as Ex.PW9/A.
17. PW-10 Sh. Kishan Pal Singh, Record Clerk, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, New Delhi, proved the PM Report No. 905/2015 dated 17.07.2015 of the deceased as Ex.PW10/A.
18. PW-11 Sh. Attar Singh Yadav, Section Officer (Admn.), Shivaji College, New Delhi appeared on behalf of Professor, Shiv Kumar Sahdev, Officiating Principal of Shivaji College. He proved his authorization letter as Ex.PW11/1A. He deposed that as per record, on 16.11.2016, at the request of IO Chetan Mandia of PS-Sagarpur, they provided the complete Admission Form in original along with other photocopies of other documents of Ms. Preeti Rai D/o H.N. Rai, SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC Student of B.Sc. (H) Botany, bearing roll no. 09/43028 and she had completed her graduation in the academic year 2011-2012. He proved the letter dated 16.11.2016 in this regard as Ex.PW-11/B, the original Admission Form of Preeti Rai as Ex.PW-11/C and the self-attested photocopies by Ms. Preeti Rai of other relevant documents including 10th, 12th, migration certificate, mark-sheet and OMR sheet etc. as PW-11/D (colly).
18.1 During cross examination, the witness stated that the requisition letter for demanding the aforesaid documents was not received in the college in his presence and the abovementioned documents were not attested by the then principal in his presence nor handed over to the IO in his presence.
19. PW-12 Dr. Soma Mitra, Sr. Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, New Delhi appeared on behalf of Dr. Nishit, who prepared the MLC of deceased Preeti. She proved the MLC of deceased Preeti as Ex.PW12/A.
20. PW-13 SI (Retd.) Surender Singh, Incharge Mobile Crime Team deposed that on 10.07.2015, he was posted as In-Charge, Mobile Crime Team, South-West Distt and on that day, on receipt of PCR call, he reached the spot i.e. H. No. 301/1, Gali No. 1, Durga Park, Sagarpur at about 03:30 pm. and saw one lady was hanging with chunni from ceiling fan. He further deposed that at that time, ASI Lal Bahadur along with staff from PS Sagarpur was also present. He inspected the spot and one suicide note was also recovered from the spot. He was directed to seize the chunni as well as suicide note. Accordingly, he prepared his SOC Report No. 943/15 (Ex.PW-13/A) and handed over to the IO.
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC 20.1 During cross examination, witness denied the suggestion of planting of suicide note at the spot. He stated that on that day, IO did not record his statement, however, the same was recorded later on. He further stated that his statement (Ex.PW-13/D) was read over and explained to him and he found it to be correct. He admitted that he did not state in his statement about the recovery of the suicide note.
21. On 16.04.2024, statement of the accused under Section 294 Cr.PC was recorded wherein he admitted 14 photographs clicked by Crime Team Photographer as Ex.X-1(Colly) and FSL Report bearing NO. 2017/D-5822M dated 24.07.2017, running into 03pages as Ex.X2 (Colly.). Accordingly, witness to said documents i.e. Ct. Sumit and Sh. Sarveshttam Kumar were dropped from the list of witnesses, at the request of Ld. Prosecutor and prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 16.04.2024.
Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC
22. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and stated that he got married with the deceased on 08.12.2012 and the said marriage was an arranged marriage, arranged by their respective families. He further stated that no dowry articles were ever given or demanded by them at the time of their marriage or any time thereafter. The amount transferred by PW-3 into the account of his father was for the purpose of arrangement of the marriage ceremonies as the marriage took place in Bihar and the father of the accused was residing in Bihar at that time. He further stated that the family of the deceased were residents of Delhi and therefore, they had transferred the said amount for SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC preparations of the ceremonies of the wedding. The expenses were equally shared by both the families. However, no cash was ever received by him from the family of the deceased. He further stated that the deceased used to remain in depression. The family members of the deceased made a statement to the SDM wherein they had stated that the deceased committed suicide out of depression and that nobody is responsible for her death. Moreover, suicide note Ex.PW-5/F also does not bear the signatures of deceased. Accused choose to lead defence evidence Defence Evidence
23. In his defence, accused examined his father Sh. Rajendra Rai as DW-1, who deposed that accused Bibhoo Kumar is his son and he got married to deceased on 08.12.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and no dowry was given or taken at the time of marriage or any time thereafter. He further deposed that PW-4 Sh. Ram Pravesh Rai is permanent resident of Village Kharauna, PS Tarari, Distt. Bhaujpur, Bihar and his younger sister is married in his village and his village is also approximately at a distance of 15 km from the village of Ram Pravesh Rai. He further deposed that Sh. Ram Pravesh Rai approached him through his sister for proposal of his granddaughter Preeti with his son Bibhoo Kumar. He further deposed that it was decided in April, 2012 to meet and finalize the said marriage and he along with his wife and son had come to the house of Ram Pravesh Rai who was working in Air Force and was residing in Delhi at Dashrath Puri, New Delhi. He further deposed that in the said meeting, both parties approved each other and it was decided that SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC it would not be possible for them to bring marriage party from Bihar to Delhi then it was decided that the arrangements of marriage ceremonies will take place in Bihar. Since, the family of deceased were resident of Delhi, father of Preeti had requested him to do all the arrangements of the marriage in Bihar itself and it was mutually decided that the expenditure incurred for doing so will be shared equally by both the families. Thereafter, the date of marriage was fixed for 08.12.2012. He further deposed that in between, they had transferred total amount of Rs.6,39,000/- on different dates in his account from the account of brother of deceased i.e. PW-3 Prateek Rai. However, no amount ever was received by his son from the family of the deceased. He further deposed that Preeti committed suicide on 10.07.2015 at Delhi and at that time, his son was in Ranchi. Preeti committed suicide out of depression as she was suffering from depression since long even prior to the marriage. After hearing the news of committing suicide, he along with his son came to Delhi and performed all last rites and rituals. Tehrvi ceremoney was also performed by them at their village in Bihar and PW-4 Sh. Ram Pravesh Rai along with PW-3 Prateek Rai came there and attended the tehrvi ceremony. He further deposed that after about a month, Sh. Har Narayan Rai, father of the deceased, asked him to return the amount i.e. expenditure he had incurred at the time of marriage to which he did not agree since the amount was spent on the marriage expenditure. The list of expenditure incurred on the marriage was also handed over to him at that time. He further deposed that Sh. Subodh Rai is the real maternal uncle of deceased Preeti and he was working in Protocol Department, LG House, Delhi. During the inquest proceedings, his SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC statement was also recorded by PW-5 Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat, the then Executive Magistrate, Dwarka and the said statement is already Ex.PW-5/B. After about 80 days, a written complaint was made by Sh.Har Narayan Rai to SHO, PS Sagarpur, Delhi and on the pressure of Sh. Subodh Rai being in Protocol Department in LG House, Delhi, a false was case was got registered against his son and wife. The present case is registered just to extort money and his son Bibhoo Kumar is innocent.
23.1 During cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Rs.6,39,000/- was transferred in his bank account as it was asked by them as dowry from the family of deceased or that the family of the deceased also gave Rs. 1,61,000/- cash as dowry excluding Rs.6,39,000/- or that dowry demands were raised by them from the family of deceased or that his wife and son used to torture and physically harass Preeti or that deceased was never suffering from any depression issues.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
24. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ms. Manisha Singh, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh. R. S. Malik, Ld. Counsel for the accused and also gone through the entire material available on record.
Argument addressed on behalf of the prosecution
25. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have fully supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the written complaint and the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges under 498A/306 IPC of the SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC Indian Penal Code. It has been further argued that PW-11 has proved the monetary transaction from the record. Even the handwriting of the suicide matched as per the FSL result. The contents of the suicide note points towards time period soon before the suicide and the suicide note was recovered from the spot itself in the presence of SHO and SDM concerned, hence, there is no delay or chances of tampering in the said suicide note.
Arguments addressed on behalf of accused
26. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and there was no harassment to the deceased for the demand of dowry at any point of time since her marriage with accused; that the demands sought to be relied upon by the prosecution are not only vague but also general in nature and they lack material particulars; that the amount transferred to the account of father of the accused by brother of deceased i.e. Sh. Prateek Rai prior the marriage were towards expenses incurred in the marriage and jointly paid by them; that the deceased was suffering from depression and due to such depression, she hanged herself and committed suicide for which the accused cannot be blamed but with a view to harass the accused and his mother, the prosecution has roped them in the present matter, however, mother of the accused, was discharged by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 19.03.2020; that FIR in the instant case has been registered as late as after 80 days of the incident on the false complaint; that none of the family member found responsible for committing suicide by the deceased immediately on the day of incident, hence, the complaint which found basis of SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC registration of FIR is nothing but an afterthought with malafide intention to grab money from the accused; that the parents and brother of the deceased have no personal or direct knowledge about any alleged cruelty caused to the deceased and they only came to know about the cruelty only on the information given by deceased and as such, the evidence of these prosecution witnesses are only hearsay evidence and hence, it cannot be taken into consideration. 26.1 It has been further argued that there is no proximate link between the suicide and alleged atrocity committed upon the deceased; that the alleged suicide note is undated; that there is no allegations of dowry in the said suicide note against the present accused; that the statements made by the immediate family members to the SDM proved as Ex.PW1/C, PW3/A and PW5/B do not allege anything against the accused and it was specifically mentioned by the that the suicide had been committed by the deceased due to depression and there is no allegation/grievance against the accused; that the signatures of deceased have not matched on the suicide note with admitted signature as per FSL result, hence, the suicide not cannot be relied upon for basing conviction without any substantial corroboration. Therefore, it has been argued that the accused deserves to be acquitted in the present matter.
Relevant Law and analysis of evidence
27. The accused has been facing trial for the offence under Section 498A/306/34 IPC. Before delving into merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 498A IPC, which reads as under :
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--
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 purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a)any wilful 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 related to her to meet such demand.
28. A reading of Section 498A IPC makes it abundantly clear that the legislative intent is to punish the husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty, which includes conduct likely to drive her to suicide, cause grave injury, or harassment for unlawful property demands.
29. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case tiled as U. Suvetha Vs. State reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757, has summarized the following ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC, which reads as under :
i. The woman must be married;
ii. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 24 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC iii. Such cruelty or harassment must have been done either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband
30. Considering the provisions of Section 498A IPC, the Court now shall examine the testimony of prosecution witness. Prosecution has examined complainant/father of the deceased Sh. Harnarayan Rai as PW-1, who deposed on oath that accused used to beat his daughter and at times, he intervened to pacify the matter between them. Her daughter (the deceased) on one or two occasions shared with him that she is unable to bear the torture and wanted to run away as she was feeling under pressure. The accused brought his daughter to their house, while was was beating on account of a quarrel, sometimes in January - February, 2015. Thereafter, his daughter applied for job in Delhi and started working. In May, 2015, accused came to Delhi and he along with his daughter started living in a rented accommodation but their quarrel continued. He also deposed that once, he was told by his daughter/deceased that she was beaten up by a leather belt by the accused and while beating with said belt the same broken. His wife had taken his daughter for medical treatment and their daughter wanted to lodge a complaint but in order to save matrimonial life, the same was not made.
30.1 However, during cross examination, this witness stated that on 10.07.2015 i.e. the day of incident police came at his house, however, they had not given any statement against the accused. He further stated that on 11.07.2015, his statement was recorded by the SDM at DDU Hospital and the SDM had read over his statement to him and he found it to be correct and he had signed the said statement and put SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 25 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC date on it. He also stated that he had told to the SDM that no one is responsible for the suicide of his daughter. He denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement that his daughter committed suicide due to depression. He further stated that he cannot say if he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW-1/C that his daughter had committed suicide due to depression. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW-1/C where it is so recorded. He further deposed that he has not stated in my statement to the SDM that after some time of marriage the accused persons started harassing my daughter Preeti or that after some time of marriage of his daughter the accused persons started harassing his daughter or that she will get another marriage of Bibhoo Kumar and for that reason his daughter Preeti used to remain upset or that his daughter used to say that even though she was well qualified from Delhi University and also that her parents had given everything in dowry but still she had to hear the comments of mother-in-law and accused Bibhoo Kumar or that she will get the accused married with another girl and will remove my daughter from matrimonial home or that that accused Bibhoo Kumar used to beat his daughter or that he used to pacify her but she was confused with the situation or that on one or two occasions his daughter was unable to bear the torture and she wanted to run away from the pressure or that accused Bibhoo Kumar brought his daughter to his house and at that time she was waiting and she told him about the quarrel which had taken place in January- February 2015 or that he counseled both of them stating that the things would be alright after sometime or that on occasions he used to visit his daughter and to pacify accused but the accused continued to beat and harass his daughter or that accused SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 26 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC Bibhoo Kumar had beaten his daughter by a leather belt and the belt was broken during the said process or that his daughter had shown him the said broken belt or that his daughter had come to his place and his wife had taken her to the doctor for treatment or that he did not hand over any such treatment slip to the SDM or that his daughter wanted to lodge an FIR against the accused person but in order to save her matrimonial life she did not get the case register. 30.2 He denied the suggestion that it was a dowry-less marriage and no dowry was given at the time of marriage, however, admitted that the list of dowry articles is not regarding the date of marriage and it pertain to 06.08.2017. He further stated that during the lifetime of his daughter, he, his wife or her maternal uncles did not lodge any complaint with any authority. He further stated that his son Prateek did not make any statement against the accused and the day when his daughter committed suicide, accused was in Ranchi and his family members had informed accused regarding committing suicide of his daughter and immediately thereafter accused came to Delhi by air. He further stated that the accused had gone to the mortuary and took the body of his deceased daughter from mortuary and accused was present at the time of cremation of his deceased daughter and the Tehravi ceremony of his deceased daughter was done at the Village Aara, Bihar and his father-in-law and son Prateek had gone to attend the Tehravi ceremony at the house of accused at Village Aara in Bihar. He further stated that he had asked the police that whatever expenditure he had incurred during the marriage of his daughter, the same be got recovered from the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that on 27.09.2015 i.e after 80 days of the incident, he again drafted a SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 27 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC complaint under legal advice and handed over to the SHO PS Sagarpur New Delhi and since his brother-in-law was in LG House and he approached the concerned PS and got a false case registered against the accused.
31. The mother of deceased/PW-2 simply stated that her daughter/deceased was harassed by her in-laws and she was given stale food to eat along with taunts tendered by her mother-in-law. She also stated that her daughter was given beatings by the accused on several occasions, as told by her deceased daughter. The mother of deceased though being a material witness has not deposed specifically against the accused regarding harassment or cruelty committed upon her deceased daughter or dowry demand made.
31.1 Even during cross examination, the witness stated that at the time when her daughter committed suicide both the accused persons were not present in Delhi and they informed the police, both police and SDM came to the spot. She admitted that she had not made the above statement regarding cruelty by giving of stale food either to the IO or SDM and she has told this fact for the first time to the Court as no-one inquired about the same. She further stated that same is her answer with respect to the statement regarding torture by accused Uma Devi and her making complaint to her son. She further stated that till the time her daughter was alive, neither she nor her husband nor her daughter made any complaint to the police regarding any ill treatment to her daughter.
32. The brother of deceased/PW-3 has also been examined as material witness regarding cruelty committed upon the deceased during subsistence of her marriage. However, during cross SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 28 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC examination, PW-3 stated that on 10.07.2015, none of the family member had given any statement to the police against the accused and SDM did not meet them on 10.07.2015. He further stated that on 11.07.2015 the SDM and the police met them and he did not give any statement to the police and gave a statement to the SDM on 11.07.2022 and the SDM had read over his statement and he found it to be correct. He further stated that he had signed on the statement recorded by the SDM. He further stated that he did not state to the SDM that they had transferred Rs. 6,39,000/- through NEFT and Rs.1,61,000/- was paid in cash and after a period of one month his sister started facing problem in her married life in terms of physical and mental torture, mostly by her mother-in-law and that mother-in- law of the deceased used to say that she will get the accused married to some other daughter.
32.1 He further stated that FIR was registered after about 80 days of the incident and he cannot tell any specific day or date and month when deceased told his mother about the harassment committed by her mother-in-law. He further stated that he cannot tell any specific day, date, time and month, when mother-in-law of Preeti used to tell her that she would get her son Bibhoo marry with another girl. He further stated that on 28.01.2017, they had filed a petition under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act in Dwarka Courts, Delhi in respect of the funds left by his deceased sister Preeti and denied the suggestion that in the said petition, they had mentioned that Preeti had committed suicide in Ranchi, however, certified copy of the said petition is shown to the witness wherein in para no. 1 it is written that "deceased Smt. Preeti Rai died intestate at Ranchi, Jharkhand on 10.07.2015".
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 29 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC He further stated that Rs. 65,000/- was transferred in the account of his mother. Being the nominee, Bibhoo had got transferred said money from the PF funds of Preeti. He further stated that during the lifetime of Preeti they had not made a written complaint to the police.
33. Even PW-4 maternal grandfather of the deceased, who is stated to be very close to the deceased has not deposed specifically about the cruelty committed upon the deceased by the accused and during cross examination, the he stated that on calling at 100 number, police reached the spot but SDM had not come and he cannot say whether SDM came on the next day of the incident or not. He further stated that SDM did not make any enquiry from him and he had not given his statement to him. He further stated that during the lifetime of Preeti, he did not make any complaint regarding harassment to Preeti by her mother-in-law and accused Bibhoo. He further stated that on that day Bibhoo was not in Delhi and came to Delhi during cremation of Preeti and performed last rites (Tehravi) of Preeti in his native village and he along with Prateek attended the said last rite ceremony.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent case titled as Rajesh Chadha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Dated 13.05.2025), has observed that :
"8. At the outset, an act of 'cruelty' for the purpose of Section 498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a direct or indirect SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 30 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC manner of demand for dowry made by the husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air."
35. The objective of Section 498A IPC has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, wherein it has been observed that :
"28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 31 of 46
PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
36. Returning to the present matter, perusal of record reflects that the statement made to the SDM by all three immediate family members of deceased Preeti does not find any allegation against the accused. Complainant/father of the deceased stated in his statement made to SDM (Ex.PW1/C) that her daughter married to accused Bibhu and their matrimonial life was going smoothly and she had no difficulty in her matrimonial home. He further stated that about 10 months ago, her daughter came to his house as accused Bibhu was working in Raigarh and he used to visit their house. Her daughter shifted in a rented accommodation near to their house and Bibhu also stayed there for some time and returned on 1st July. He further stated that he does not know the reason as to why her daughter was worried or she has any problem. He also stated that he does not blame anyone for suicide of her daughter. The relevant extract of his statement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"मेरे संज्ञान में ऐसी कोई नही है जिससे यह पता चले की प्रीती परे शान थी या उस पर कोई प्रॉब्लम थी कल दिनांक 10/07.2015 को लगभग 2:00 p.m. पर मुझे फ़ोन पर पता चला की प्रीती ने आत्महत्या कर ली है प्रीती द्वारा लिखे गए suicide note को में सत्यापित करता हूँ की यह नोट प्रीती द्वारा लिखा गया ह। इस घटना के लिए में किसी को जिम्मेदार नहीं मानता हूँ प्रीती ने शायद डिप्रेशन में यह कदम उठाया होगा बयान पड़ा ठीक पाया गया."
37. SDM concerned also recorded the statement of brother of deceased/PW-3 and Sh. Subhash Roy, maternal uncle of the deceased, who stated that they do not have any doubt on anyone for suicide of the deceased and he does not want any legal action.
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 32 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
38. Admittedly, the FIR in the instant case was registered after almost 80 days, on the basis of subsequent statement made by the complainant/father of the deceased. The delay has been explained by the complainant stating that he was not in fit state of mind due to demise of his daughter, but the SDM recorded statement of two other family members ie brother and maternal uncle of the deceased, who have also not alleged anything against the accused or any marital discord. The record also shows that succession petition was filed by the parental family of deceased on false averments about her death, which gives a motive of an afterthought of arraigning the accused falsely.
39. Accordingly, the allegations made by PW-1, PW2 and PW-3 before the Court during their testimony are vital improvements. However, during cross examination, the credibility of material prosecution witnesses has been impeached by the defence since they have contradictory stands, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, the charge under section 498A IPC against the accused does not hold water.
40. Further, the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. At this juncture, this Court finds it appropriate to reproduce Section 306 IPC, which reads 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."
40.1 Section 107 IPC defines, how a person abets such act, which reads as under :
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 33 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC "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."
41. A reading of aforesaid section makes it abundant clear that to convict an accused, he/she should have abetted the commission of suicide and the said person should have i) instigates any person to do that thing; ii) 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 iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
42. Now discussing the law on the point. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M. Mohan vs. State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, has observed that :
"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618] has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "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 specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 34 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC 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. In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73], this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court 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 appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 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.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 35 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
43. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Prakash & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another [2024 INSC 1020] dated 20.12.2024, has observed that :
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). 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 or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 36 of 46
PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
14. 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 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.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallized by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another [(2010) 12 SCC 190], had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as follows:
"16. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self"
and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self- killing. In short, a person committing suicide must SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 37 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
...........
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC.
..........
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1) "1. ... My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in- law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. xxxxxxxxx
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 38 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 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 IPC there has to be a 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."
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 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. xxxxxxxx
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order 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 specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 39 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
xxxxxxx
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that 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 has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that 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. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a 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. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances."
SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 40 of 46PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
44. Reverting to the facts of the present matter. The suicide note alleged to be written by the deceased was recovered from the spot. The same was sent to FSL and as per the FSL result, the handwriting on the suicide note matched with the admitted handwriting of the deceased. However, the signatures could not be matched. Therefore, the suicide note is of vital importance in deciding the charge under section 306 IPC. For ready reference and better appreciation, the suicide note is reproduced below:
Suicide Note "To my Family Mummy, Papa, Prateek, Prastant. I am sorry, par haa... I am relieved now. Relieved from the pressure of accepting all the unreasonable terms & conditions of your proud "damad". You guys know-If I don't earn - I don't get food there. They ready to hit me without even thinking that I am a human & I too get hurt. But on a serious note - you should have understood me, you should have understood a marriage on dowry foundation, a marriage on the foundation of lies will never work out. I alone can't just drag this marriage, not even your curse can force me to drag & accept every condition, unreasonable conditions put by Vibhu & his family. I was tired of being disrespected by every member of his family. I was tired of their attempts on my character assassination.
I was almost everyday dieing, Feeling so inferior.SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 41 of 46
PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC My Questions for you Vibhu → Why you wanted my death. I wanted to live. I
wanted to grow. I was ready to do everything for you. I wanted both of us growing in all aspects of life inspite of all the domestic violence I suffered. I wasn't that bad girl who deserves death. Its hard & getting even harder everyday to live on this earth & complete the life span god has gifted me with.
Its Even more hard when your partner, life partner wants you to be dead "xxx Sooner.. the better"
The Soul within me is very strong, it stopped me doing anything wrong since past 2.5 year but I can realize now. This world is so very mean, so mean so mean.
I tried so hard to make a normal living, & I was honestly quite Optimistic that things will be better, no matter what I have to go through. bhu. No matter how violent, you turn Vibhu. What breaks me, is your hatred towards me. How, how can you just eagerly wait to see my coffin. You to failed the philosophy of "Love wins over hatred". I gave you my everything Vibhu. All the love, I could. But It seems you don't want me anymore. I know, you will be also be Loppy about the fact that I died far from you.
My Optimism, My hopes, my self confidence die when my love wants me to leave the world. Sooner the better. You & your family disrespected me on Every stage, still I wanted to be with you & your SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 42 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC family. Not because I was afraid of moving On. Only because my love for you, never allowed me. After all, I wanted a normal living. But then, Roses of happiness for you. Because this Suicide is my own decision.
Now I know your answer "as you on Always. Say you deserve better than me." You do it Vibhu, yes you deserve a second marriage to understand - where you are wrong, & who else can tolerate you so much. Thank you for Everything. :-( This suicide isn't the pain. Pain is - I was so optimistic that One day you will love me. One day, you will realize your responsibilities but you never did. From day 1 - till date. I was abused. By my love.
Nicky Vineet, Meetali - trust me I am not that coward that you guys might think of me, when you would know this. But your friend is relieved now. Relieved from all the pain she had. Its not my End. I have so lovely memories from you guys. Not to forget my college friends Priyanka, Avinash & many more so on. Thanks for all your support for Any thing & Everything.
Maama, Juhi maami & Atharv I wanted to grow old seeing you people. Thanks for all your love "Perhaps I lost myself today." Like every other gal I wanted to having a loving husband. I wanted to have a baby. A caring & understanding family around I have nothing & I lost myself SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 43 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC At 4:10 p.m. - I got a call from an MNC. A call for interview. This was for the same role what I am doing. This was from a global mining company. I was happy & thought Its a good sign, god is stopping me, but I realized what would I do, if I have a good job but not you. Also what would I do if have you you but not a job.
You are my love & job is passion. In between both, I choose Death. Can't live without you & job. Vibhu even after leaving my job yo you are giving me an option of living with your mom. Not with you. I got married to you, & not to your mom. Such conditions are unreasonable You failed as a human, you failed as a man, as a Husband. So many complaints to you. I know you would never listen to them.
My last dieing wish to you, to this world Ist of all - I was a good soul, I died in this house. It would not be sealed. It should be free. Landlord are really nice guys. They should be impacted of this. Not Even a bit.
Empower your girls. We are not toys any1 can play. I feel sad about myself as I wanted to live & see the whole world.
Dear Husband - I know you will be happy about this. Still I request to all the people you & your job & family should be impacted.
My family should not be impacted or questioned by any authority. Everyone should be forgiven.SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 44 of 46
PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC
45. From the bare perusal of the suicide note, it is clear that some marital discord was going on between accused and the deceased. Admittedly, the accused was residing at Ranchi for his job while the deceased was working in Delhi. The suicide note further reveals that the deceased was an educated person since the suicide note has been written at length in English language. Even it has come on record that she was working with good companies and was financially independent. In the suicide note, her confidence, self-esteem, expectations etc. are clearly depicted. The main problems in the marriage as stated in the suicide note were that accused and deceased were living separately due to their jobs and accused wanted the deceased to live with his mother at their native place in order to take care of her, which the deceased has mentioned several times in the suicide note. These discords appeared to be only normal wear and tear in matrimonial life but does not seems to have abetted the suicide comitted by the deceased. Even it cannot be said that the deceased had not option but to commit suicide due to behaviour, act, deeds of the accused since she had the choice of getting separate when she was already financially independent. Even no allegation has been proved on record of cruelty committed on deceased for want of dowry.
46. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases referred earlier with the present facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court is of considered opinion that ingredients of section 306 are not proved in order to convict the accused.SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 45 of 46
PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC Conclusion
47. With this background, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complicity of accused the commission of crime beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and has not been able to prove all the ingredients of the offences under Section 498A/306/34 IPC, for which accused has been charged and faced trial. Accordingly, accused Bibhoo Kumar is acquitted of the Charge under Section 498A/306/34 IPC.
48.Accused has been directed to furnish bail bonds in view of Section 481 of BNSS which has been furnished and accepted for the period of six months from today.Digitally signed
49.File be consigned to record room. SHEFALI BARNALA by SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
2025.12.15
Pronounced in the open 17:04:33 +0530
Court on 15.12.2025 (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -06,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
It is to certify that this judgment contains 46 pages and each page bears the signatures of the under signed. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
2025.12.15 17:04:39 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -06, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi SC No. 181/2018 FIR No. 774/2015 State Vs. Bibhoo Kumar & Anr. Page 46 of 46 PS - Sagarpur U/s. 498A/306/34 IPC