Patna High Court
PARMILA DEVI @ TENGRAHAWALIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences and set aside the conviction.
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 498A/34 and 306/34 of the IPC based on the informant's claim that his sister was driven to suicide by dowry‑related cruelty inflicted by the appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the testimony of the informant (PW‑4) and other witnesses, finding that PW‑4’s statements were contradictory and unreliable, and that no factual witness corroborated the alleged torture or dowry demand. The investigating officer’s evidence was also deemed inconsistent and insufficient. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of abetment of suicide and dowry death, including the requisite mens rea and a positive act of instigation. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Section 498A IPC (dowry death).
- Whether the informant’s (PW‑4) testimony is reliable and can support a conviction.
- Whether the presumption under Section 113‑A IPC applies in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 107, 113-A, 306, 34, 498A
Subjects
- abetment of suicide
- dowry death
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
- presumption under Section 113-A
- evidentiary contradictions
- mens rea
- criminal jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.285 of 2009
======================================================
1. PARMILA DEVI @ TENGRAHAWALI W/o Shri Bito Swarnkar R/o vill -
Baijnathpur, P.O.- Baijnathpur, P.S.- Sour Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa
2. Mukesh Swarnkar @ Mukesh Kumar S/o Sri Bito Swarnkar R/o vill -
Baijnathpur, P.O.- Baijnathpur, P.S.- Sour Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa
3. Bhim Swarnkar @ Bhim Sonar S/o Shri Bito Swarnkar R/o vill -
Baijnathpur, P.O.- Baijnathpur, P.S.- Sour Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Pallavi Pandey, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2009 and order of
sentence dated 13.02.2009 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - V, Saharsa in Sessions Trial
No. 40 of 2008, arising out of Saurbazar P.S. Case No. 239 of
2007, G.R. Case No. 1664 of 2007 whereby and whereunder
the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
2/34
and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years for the offences under Section 306/34 of IPC
and appellants have further been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences under
Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The fardebayan of informant/ Dinesh Kumar
Swarnkar (PW4) was recorded near Sonarpatti P.S. Sourbazar
at 2:00 AM on 29.09.2007. As per prosecution case, about
four years ago marriage of informant’s sister/victim was
solemnized with the appellant no. 3 - Bhim Swarnkar @ Bhim
Sonar and she was blessed with male child who was about
three years old. It is alleged that about four days prior to the
alleged occurrence, the deceased/victim made communication
with the informant on telephone of a betel shop owner namely
Pappu Kumar and informed him that victim's mother-in-
law/appellant no. 1, brother-in-law Mukesh
Swarnkar/appellant no. 2 and her husband/appellant no. 3 used
to assault and torture her and denied to give food to the victim
and she further informed that she would not survive and she
had no option rather to commit suicide because of being
tortured by the appellants as said torturous act became
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
3/34
unbearable, upon which informant tried to pacify the matter. It
is alleged that on 28.09.2007 at about 7PM some unknown
person of Baijnathpur made contact on the mobile of villager
of the informant, namely, Poona Devi and intimated that
victim had committed suicide. Upon that information,
informant reached sasural of victim at about 1 AM in the
night of 29.09.2007 and saw the victim dead and noticed the
ligature mark of hanging in the neck of deceased. It is alleged
that victim committed suicide as a result of torture and cruelty
meted out to her by the appellants. It is further alleged that the
appellants absconded with Mukesh Kumar (three years old)
who is son of the deceased and only dead body of the victim
was lying therein the house.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant/PW-
4, Sourbazar P.S. Case No. 239 of 2007 was registered under
Sections 498A and 306/34 of the IPC. Routine investigation
followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on
the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been
submitted against the appellant under Sections 498A, 306/34
of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance.
The case was committed to the court of sessions after
following due procedure. The learned trial court framed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
4/34
charges against the appellants under Sections 498A/34 and
306/34 of the IPC. Charges were read over and explained to
the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. In order to bring home guilt of accused
person/appellant, prosecution has examined altogether eleven
witnesses. PW-1 Jai Kant Yadav – a formal witness who has
identified signature and handwriting of the then officer In-
charge of Saurbazar P.S. Binda Paswan on the formal FIR
which is marked as Ext.- 1, PW-2 Munna Sonar (hostile), PW-
3 Chandu Sonar (hostile), PW-4 Dinesh Kumar Swarnkar
(informant of the case) has identified his signature on the
Fardbayan and also signature of Suresh Swarnkar, which are
marked as Exts.-1 & 1/1 respectively, PW-5 Asharfi Pandit,
who has been examined as a material witness of the
occurrence and has identified his signature on the inquest
report and signature of Ashok Kumar on the same, which are
marked as Exts. 1/3 and 1/4 respectively, PW-6 Suresh
Swarnkar (hostile), PW-7 Umda Devi (hostile), PW-8 Ram
Bilash Singh who is a formal witness and has identified the
endorsement on the fardebayan in the handwriting and
signature of Bhola Prasad Singh which is marked as Ext- 1/5,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
5/34
PW-9 Shankar Saran and PW-10 Bhola Prasad Singh (I.O. of
the case) and PW-11 Dr. Sacchidanand Rai (doctor).
6. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- The formal FIR in the handwriting of
Bind Paswan, the then Sub-Inspector and Officer-in-Charge
of Saurbazar Police Station;
Ext. 1/1 – Signature of informant Dinesh
Kumar Swarnkar on the Fradbeyan;
Ext. 1/2 - Signature of witness Suresh
Swarnkar on the Fardbeyan;
Ext. 1/3 - Signature of witness Asharfi Pandit
on the inquest report of deceased Kala Devi;
Ext. 1/4 - Signature of witness Ashok Kumar
on the inquest report of deceased;
Ext. 1/5 - The pagination in the handwriting
and bearing the signature on the fardbeyan of the informant,
Dinesh Kumar Swarnkar, in Saurbazar Police Station Case
No. 239/2007;
Ext. 2 – IO has identified the Fardbeyan to be
in his pen and signature;
Ext. 3 - IO has identified his handwriting and
signature of on the inquest report;
Ext. 4 - IO has identified his writing on the
seizure list and signature of witnesses Parmeshwar Sah and
Sitaram Sonar;
Ext. 5 – the dead body chalan;
Ext. 6 – Post-mortem report of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
6/34
7. Defence has produced only one witness
Chandra Kishore Yadav who has been examined as DW-1.
However, defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of
cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the
statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total
denial.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial
court convicted the appellants and sentenced him as indicated
in the second paragraph of the judgment.
9. Following submissions have been made on
behalf of learned counsel for the appellants:-
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the trial court is illegal and not supported by any material
available on record and same is based on conjectures and
surmises. He further submits that PW-4 is the informant as
well as star witness of the case and his statement in the initial
version of prosecution story is totally contradictory from the
latter version while adducing evidence before the Court. He
further submits that during the course of adducing evidence
before the Court, PW-4/informant has taken U-turn from the
initial version of prosecution story as he has clearly stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
7/34
during the course of cross-examination that appellants have
not made any demand of dowry and marriage was performed
ideally and the reason for committing suicide is that appellants
are relatively poor in comparison to the informant’s side and
husband of the deceased used to reside outside. In this way,
the version of the PW-4 is quite inconsistent and totally
contradictory with the initial version of the prosecution story
and his version cannot be trusted and the same can be negated.
He further submits that informant is a factual witness and he
has not supported the case of prosecution during the course of
adducing evidence before the learned trial court. He further
submits that PWs- 1, 5 and 8 are formal witnesses and their
statements are of no significance in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case. He further submits that PW-10 is an
official witness who is the Investigating Officer of the case
and his evidence is full of infirmities regarding the fair
investigation. He further submits that PW-10 has not
conducted fair investigation as to how the victim has
committed suicide. He further submits that PW-10 has not
inspected the place from where the information has been
gathered regarding the alleged occurrence. He further submits
that PW-10 (Investigating Officer) has not recorded the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
8/34
statement of owner of the betel shop. He further submits that
PW-10 has not stated anything regarding the unknown person
of Baijnathpur who made contact on the mobile of villager of
the informant, namely, Poona Devi and she has not been
produced in the Court, so that truth of the occurrence could be
found out. On the several aspects, the investigation has been
left unattended. In this way, the role of the investigating
officer (PW10) is in question mark. Though doctor (PW 11)
has given the opinion but doctor has not categorically stated as
to whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. In absence of
the factual witnesses, the case of the prosecution cannot be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the expert witnesses
denote the opinion regarding the occurrence but as to how the
manner of occurrence could be inferred from the place of
occurrence, who has seen the occurrence, as to how the
occurrence has taken place, for the aforesaid purposes, the
factual witnesses are required. In the present case, there is
single factual witness who has given contradictory statement
and his statement is not reliable. In the light of the facts and
circumstance so the case, the prosecution has failed to prove
the case beyond the reasonable doubt. There was no reason for
which the suicide has been committed. There was no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
9/34
triggering point for abetting due to which suicide has been
committed and nothing was found on record which clearly
indicates that the suicide was committed just because the act
of the appellants. In this way, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the concerned court is not justified
and legal and same is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned APP for the State has submitted
that PW-4 who is the informant of the case has categorically
stated in initial version of prosecution story as to how the
appellants have tortured the informant's sister/victim and made
the situation intolerable, thereby compelling her to commit
suicide. He further submits that victim had already intimated
the informant about the ill treatment meted out to her which
the informant has very specifically and categorically stated in
the initial version of the prosecution story. Though, during the
course of cross-examination some contradictions are there but
on the said basis whole prosecution story cannot be thrown
out. He further submits that doctor has examined the victim
and has pointed out the death was on account of asphyxia
resulting from hanging and the opinion of doctor is quite
corroborative of the allegation made in FIR and the
Investigating Officer (PW10) has also pointed out that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
10/34
informant and other prosecution witnesses have supported the
case of prosecution when the statements were recorded by the
informant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. In this way, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
concerned court are justified and legal. Hence, no interference
is needed.
12. The question which arises for
consideration is:-
"Whether the appellants
have committed the offence punishable
under Sections 306/34 and 498A/34 of the
IPC in the light of given facts and
circumstances of the case or not ?"
13. I have perused the impugned judgment,
order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my
thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on
behalf of the parties as noted above.
14. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and
screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial
court.
15. PW-4/ Dinesh Kumar Swarnkar is
informant of the case who has initiated the story of
prosecution and he has pointed out as to how suicide has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
11/34
committed by his sister/victim. In para 1, he has stated that the
marriage of his sister/victim was solemnized with the
appellant no. 3 about four years ago and she was blessed with
one male child from the wedlock. In para 2, he has stated that
for about 2-3 months of the marriage, the husband, brother-in-
law and mother-in-law kept his sister/victim with dignity and
thereafter they started demanding the dowry and on non
fulfillment of the same they started torturing her. In para 3, he
has stated that four days before the death of victim, she had
intimated him that her husband (appellant no. 3), mother-in-
law(appellant no. 1) and brother-in-law (appellant no. 2) used
to assault and torture her. In para 4, he has stated that upon
receiving information from the resident of Baijnathpur, it was
revealed that the in-laws of his sister/victim had tortured her
(victim) due to which she committed suicide by hanging and
thereafter he went to the house of his sister/victim’s in-laws.
He further stated that nobody was present in the house. The
dead body of his sister/victim was lying in the house on a cot
(chawki). He further stated that in morning he saw the dead
body of his sister/victim. There was ligature mark on the neck
of his sister/victim and blood was oozing out from her nose. In
para 10 of cross-examination, PW4 has stated that the dead
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
12/34
body of his sister/victim was cremated by son of victim. In
para 11, he has stated that while cremating the dead body of
his sister/victim, family members and agnates of the victim’s
in-laws were present. In para 12, he has stated that shradh
karm of his sister/victim was performed by victim's in-laws at
her sasural. In para 13, PW4 has stated that husband of victim,
brother-in-law of victim and mother-in-law of victim never
demanded dowry. In para 14, he has stated that dwiragaman
(second marriage) of his sister/victim was not performed after
marriage. In para 15, he has stated that after marriage, his
sister/victim stayed at her in-laws’ house for two months and
after that she returned to informant’s (PW4) house. In para 16,
PW4 has stated that he went along with his sister/victim to her
in-laws’ house after marriage and thereafter he returned. In
para 19, PW4 has stated that his sister/victim stayed at his
house for 3-4 months and thereafter she went to her in-laws’
house. He further stated that his mother has performed bidai of
victim and at the time of bidai, PW4 had seen his brother-in-
law happy. In para 21, PW4 has stated that whenever his
sister/victim and brother-in-law came to his house, they would
bring sweets and clothes. In para 22, PW4 has stated that
neither he nor his mother had any complaint against his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
13/34
brother-in-law (appellant no. 3) or his family members. In para
25, he has stated that he and his brother-in-law (appellant no.
3) are poor people. He further stated that marriage of his
sister/victim was performed ideally. In para 29, PW4 has
stated that the accused people are poorer than him. In para 30,
he has stated that his sister/victim used to remain unhappy
because the marriage was solemnized in a poor family. In para
31, he has stated that his brother-in-law (appellant no. 3) used
to earn by staying outside. He further stated that the mother-
in-law (appellant no. 1), father-in-law, and brother-in-
law/devar (appellant no. 2) of his sister/victim stayed at home.
In para 32, PW4 has stated that mother-in-law (appellant no.
1) of his sister/victim used to welcome him whenever he went
to his sister/victim’s in-laws’ house. In para 33, he has stated
that he was never informed by anyone about the harassment
being meted out to his sister/victim. In para 35, he has stated
that he was also present at his sister/victim’s funeral. In para
36, he has stated that at the time of his sister/victim’s death,
his father was not alive. He further stated that his household
expenses were managed solely from his earnings. In para 37,
he has stated that he did not remember whether the Daroga
(police officer) read over the statement to him or not. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
14/34
further stated that he put his signature on the statement at the
behest of Daroga.
15.1. From the perusal of evidence adduced by
the PW4, it is crystal clear that during the course of cross-
examination, his statements are quite contradictory. He has
stated that no dowry was being demanded and marriage was
performed ideally. PW4 has cited the reason as to how his
sister/victim felt that the appellants’ side was relatively poor
and that was the reason for sorry state of affairs for his
sister/victim. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4
has categorically stated that no torture was meted out to his
sister/victim and she was behaved properly. In this way, the
statement of PW-4 is quite contradictory on the point of
demand of dowry, on the point of suicide as well as on the
point of treatment meted out to his sister/victim. In this way,
on all core aspects of the offence, the statement of PW-4 is
quite contradictory and his evidence is full of contradictions
and inconsistencies with the initial version of prosecution
story and no act of instigation was attributed to the appellants
for commission of suicide by informant’s sister/victim. It has
not come in the evidence of PW-4 that informant’s
sister/victim had no other option left but to commit suicide.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
15/34
From the perusal of evidence of PW-4, it is clear that he has
not stated anything which entails the allegation either under
Section 498A or under Section 306 of IPC.
16. PW 5 (Asharfi Pandit) was one of the
signatories of the inquest report and he was not present in the
village at the time of occurrence. When he returned, he saw
the dead body of deceased and large number of people
gathered there. In para 7, he has stated that the document was
not read over by Daroga ji to him
16.1. From the perusal of evidence adduced by
PW5, it is clear that he has not stated anything regarding the
core aspect of the offence rather he has only stated that he was
not present in the village at the time of occurrence and he has
seen the dead body of the deceased and Daroga ji has not read
over the document to PW5. Hence, his statement is of no
significance.
17. PWs. 2, 3, 6 and 7 have not supported the
case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile.
18. So far PWs. 1 and 8 are concerned , even if
they are not hostile, they are formal witnesses and they are not
factual witness and their evidences are of no significance in
the light of the facts and circumstance of the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
16/34
19. PW 9 (Shankar Sharan) has stated that he
knows Bhima Sonar (appellant no. 3) of his village. He further
stated that victim was the wife of Bhima Sonar. He has further
stated that he was not present in village at the time of
occurrence. He has further stated that he has no knowledge
regarding the family condition of the victim. During his cross-
examination, he has admitted that he had not seen anything
with his own eyes.
19.1. From the perusal of evidence of PW9, it
is clear that he has himself admitted that he was not present in
the village at the time of occurrence and he has no knowledge
regarding the family condition of the victim. In this way, his
evidence is of no significance in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
20. PW-10/ Bhola Prasad Singh is
investigating officer of the case. He has stated that he was
posted at Baijnathpur camp and he got the information
regarding the incident at about 1:30 AM and he saw that dead
body of the deceased. The brother of deceased was also there.
He has stated that he recorded the fardbayan of informant
(PW4) in the intervening night of 28/29-09-2007. He has
further stated that formal FIR was lodged as Saurbazar P.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
17/34
Case No. 239 of 2007. In para 6, he has stated that the rope by
which the strangulation was made, has been seized and seizure
list was prepared in the presence of seizure list witness
Parmeshwar Sah and Sitaram Sonar. In para 7, he has stated
that chalan of dead body was prepared which is marked as ext.
5 and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. In
para 9, he has stated that he recorded the re-statement of
informant in which he supported the farbdeyan. In para 19,
PW 10 has stated that informant had not stated before him that
appellants never demanded dowry from him and the informant
or his mother were ever asked for dowry from his brother-in-
law or his family members. He has further stated that
informant had not stated before him that the informant and his
mother had no complaint against appellant no. 3 or his family
members. He has further stated that informant had not stated
before him that his sister/victim used to remain in frustration
due to her marriage in a poor family. In para 33, he himself
has stated that he assumed the charge of investigation by
himself. In para 38, he has stated that he prepared the inquest
report in the case diary but did not mention the time. In para
42, he has also recorded the statement of mother-in-law of the
deceased who is claimed to be innocent and appellant no. 1 is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
18/34
an old lady. In para 44, PW10 has stated that he had never
visited naihar of the deceased.
20.1. From the perusal of the evidence
adduced by the investigating officer (PW10), it is clear that in
para 4, he has stated that he got the charge of the investigation
of the present case through in-charge of the Saurbazar Police
station, but in para 33, he has stated that he took the charge of
investigation by himself which is totally inconsistent. From
the perusal of FIR, it is clear that the deceased had intimated
on telephone of a betel shop owner four days before the
incident about the ill treatment meted out to her but the IO has
not investigated the said vital aspect. The investigation of the
investigating officer is not up to mark. The statement of
investigating officer is self contradictory as in para 4 he has
stated that he got the charge of investigation of present case
through the in-charge of Saurbazar Police Station but in para
33 he has stated that he assumed the charge of investigation by
himself. He has admitted that he had not visited the place from
where he received the information regarding the occurrence
and he admitted that he had not visited the naihar of the
victim. In this way, the statement of the investigating officer is
not fair with regard to the investigation on the core aspect of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
19/34
the offence.
21. PW-11/ Dr. Sacchidanand Rai has stated
that on 29.09.2007 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Saharsa as
a medical officer and on the same day, he conducted post
mortem on the dead body of Kala Devi (informant's
sister/victim) and found following injuries:-
External Examination:-
Both eyes closed. Pupil dilated and fixed.
Face swollen,congested, tinched of blood from the mouth, one
ligature mark on the front of neck above thyroid cartilage with
blackish blue in colour.
Internal Examination :-
After dissection of neck, subcutaneous tissues
under ligature mark white extravasation of blood underneath
of subcutaneous tissue, fracture of thyroid cartilage seen. On
the opening of chest and abdomen both lungs congested, heart
:- right side full, left side empty, stomach contains partially
digested food particles. Liver, spleen and both kidneys – NAD.
Bladder empty, uterus- No gravid uterus
Cause of death :- Asphyxia resulting from
hanging.
Time elapsed since death :- within 24 hours
21.1. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of
deceased was asphyxia due to hanging.
22. It is relevant to quote judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal vs State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 in
which at para 25 of the said judgment reference of Section
113-A has been given which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
20/34
"113-A. Presumption as to
abetment of suicide by a married woman-
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 498-A of the Penal
Code, 1860."
Further in para 26 of the said judgment, it has been
observed as follows:-
"26. Section 113-A only deals with a
presumption which the court may draw in a
particular fact situation which may arise
when necessary Ingredients in order to attract
that provision are established. Criminal law
amendment and the rule of procedure was
necessitated so as to meet the social challenge
of saving the married woman from being ill-
treated or forcing to commit suicide by the
husband or his relatives, demanding dowry.
Legislative mandate of the section is that
when a woman commits suicide within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that her
husband or any relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty as per the terms
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
21/34
defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may
presume having regard to all other
circumstances of the case that such suicide
has been abetted by the husband or such
person. Though, a presumption could be
drawn, the burden of proof of showing that
such an offence has been committed by the
accused under Section 498-A IPC is on the
prosecution. On facts, we have already found
that the prosecution has not discharged the
burden that A-1 had instigated, conspired or
intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to
commit suicide or that the alleged
extramarital affair was of such a degree
which was likely to drive the wife to commit
suicide.
23. On the facts, I have already found that
PW 4 (informant) has stated during the course of cross-
examination that no harassment was being meted out to his
sister as he was never being informed regarding ill treatment
and marriage was solemnized ideally and he has pointed out
the reason for unhappiness of his sister that her in-laws are
relatively poor in comparison to the informant’s side. It has
also been pointed out by PW4 that the mother-in-law of his
sister used to welcome informant (PW4) whenever he went to
the in-laws’ house of his sister and the appellants had never
demanded dowry. PW4 while adducing his evidence has
categorically and specifically negated the allegation levelled in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
22/34
the initial version of prosecution story. In this way, there is
nothing on record to prove that appellants had instigated,
conspired, intentionally aided so as to drive the informant’s
sister/victim to commit suicide. Only reason as quoted by the
trial court is that the appellants’ side is relatively poor and this
is the reason for sorry state of affairs for informant’s
sister/victim.
24. It is also relevant to quote judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat passed in
Criminal Appeal No. ....... of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 7957 of 2024) in which at paragraphs no. 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, it has been held as follows:-
16. Section 306 of the IPC provides for
punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide.
It has to be read with Section 107 of the IPC
which defines the act of 'abetment'. The
provisions read as follows:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person
abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do that
thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
23/34
more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he
is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes
or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to
or at the time of the commission of an
act, does anything in order to facilitate
the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act."
17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes
those who abet the act of suicide by
another. For a person to be charged
under this section, the prosecution must
establish that the accused contributed to
the act of suicide by the deceased. This
involvement must satisfy one of the three
conditions outlined in Section 107 of the
IPC. These conditions include the
accused instigated or encouraged the
individual to commit suicide, conspiring
with others to ensure that the act was
carried out, or engaging in conduct (or
neglecting to act) that directly led to the
person taking his/her own life.
18. For a conviction under Section 306 of
the IPC, it is a well-established legal
principle that the presence of clear mens
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
24/34
rea-the intention to abet the act-is
essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is
not sufficient to find an accused guilty of
abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by
the accused that led the deceased to take
his/her own life. The element of mens rea
cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it
must be evident and explicitly
discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing
abetment under the law is not satisfied,
underscoring the necessity of a deliberate
and conspicuous intent to provoke or
contribute to the act of suicide. The same
position was laid down by this Court in
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,
wherein it was observed that:
“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 committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme
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."
19. To bring a conviction under section
306, IPC it is necessary to establish a
clear mens rea to instigate or push the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
25/34
deceased to commit suicide. It requires
certain such act, omission, creation of
circumstances, or words which would
incite or provoke another person to
commit suicide. This Court in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
defined the word "instigate as under:
"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
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."
20. The essential ingredients to be
fulfilled in order to bring a case 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.
21. Thus, to bring a case under this
provision, it is imperative that the
accused intended by their act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
26/34
cases of death of a wife, the Court must
meticulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as
assess the evidence presented. It is
necessary to determine whether the
cruelty or harassment inflicted on the
victim left them with no other option but
to end their life. In cases of alleged
abetment of suicide, there must be
concrete proof of either direct or indirect
acts of incitement that led to the suicide.
Mere allegations of harassment are
insufficient to establish guilt. For a
conviction, there must be evidence of a
positive act by the accused, closely linked
to the time of the incident, that compelled
or drove the victim to commit suicide.
22. It is essential to establish that the
death was a result of suicide and that the
accused actively abetted its commission.
This can involve instigating the victim or
engaging in specific actions that
facilitated the act. The prosecution must
prove beyond doubt that the accused
played a definitive role in the abetment.
Without clear evidence of an active role
in provoking or assisting the suicide, a
conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot
be sustained.
23. The act of abetment must be explicitly
demonstrated through actions or
behaviors of the accused that directly
contributed to the victim's decision to
take their own life. Harassment, in itself,
does not suffice unless it is accompanied
by deliberate acts of incitement or
facilitation. Furthermore, these actions
must be proximate to the time of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
27/34
suicide, showcasing a clear connection
between the accused's behavior and the
tragic outcome. It is only through the
establishment of this direct link that a
conviction under Section 306 IPC can be
justified. The prosecution bears the
burden of proving this active involvement
to hold the accused accountable for the
alleged abetment of suicide. The same
position has been laid down by this court
in several judgments, such as:
i. M. Mohan v. State;
ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of
West Bengal;
iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka.
24. Therefore, for a conviction under
Section 306 IPC, there must be clear
evidence of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to commit suicide. The cause
of suicide, especially in the context of
abetment, involves complex attributes of
human behavior and reactions, requiring
the Court to rely on cogent and
convincing proof of the accused's role in
instigating the act. Mere allegations of
harassment are not enough unless the
accused's actions were so compelling that
the victim perceived no alternative but to
take their own life. Such actions must
also be proximate to the time of the
suicide. The Court examines whether the
accused's conduct, including provoking,
urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-
esteem, created an unbearable situation.
If the accused's actions were intended
only to harass or express anger, they
might not meet the threshold for abetment
or investigation. Each case demands a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
28/34
careful evaluation of facts, considering
the accused's intent and its impact on the
victim.
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301,
held that to convict an accused under
Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental
state to commit the specific crime must be
evident when assessing culpability. It was
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 behaviour
and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide.
In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another
person would not suffice unless there be
such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each
case.
25. It is also relevant to quote the decision
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
29/34
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan
Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024 in which at para 19
and 20 it has been held as follows:-
"19. Madan Mohan Singh v. State
of Gujarat reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 was
a case in which the accused was alleged to
have continuously harassed and insulted the
deceased and spoken as to how he was still
alive despite the insults levelled. There was
also a suicide note in which the deceased, a
driver, accused his employer of having driven
him to suicide. Despite such an allegation in
the suicide note, this Court found that there
was absolutely nothing in the suicide note or
the F.I.R. which could even distantly be viewed
as an offence, much less under Section 306 of
the I.P.C.
20. Again, the ingredients under
Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was
interpreted by one of us in Prakash and Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3835 in the following
manner:
"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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
30/34
victim in such a position that he/she would
have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been
crystallised 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."
26. In the present case, there was no
evidence that the appellants have instigated, conspired,
intentionally aided so as to drive the victim to commit suicide
and there was no evidence of direct triggering act that left the
deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. Neither
informant nor any other witnesses has stated that appellants
were instigating or intentionally aiding in the commission of
suicide by the victim/deceased. Merely allegation, without any
positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding, cannot attract
Section 306 of the IPC. In the present case, the informant/PW-
4 himself has given contradictory statement while adducing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
31/34
evidence before Court and he has also admitted that the
marriage was performed ideally and no demand of dowry was
made. The very informant (PW-4) who has initiated the
version of prosecution story, has given totally contradictory
statement during the course of adducing evidence which is
fatal for the prosecution case. Even no factual witness has
stated that victim was being tortured for dowry rather
informant (PW4) himself has stated that appellants’ side are
relatively poor and this is the reason for sorry state of affairs
for informant’s sister/victim. So far as the factual witnesses of
this case are concerned, either they have been declared hostile
or they have not stated anything regarding the core aspect of
the offence. Further, PW 5 who was one of the signatories of
the inquest report, has himself stated that he was not present in
the village at the time of occurrence and when he returned, he
saw the dead body of deceased. PW9 has also stated that he
was not present in the village at the time of occurrence and he
has no knowledge regarding the family condition of the
victim. The Investigating Officer (PW10) is not a factual
witness. He is an official witness who has adduced his
evidence and his evidence suffers from several infirmities
which have already been discussed in the foregoing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
32/34
paragraphs and hence, his evidence has also not supported the
case of prosecution. PW4, who is informant as well as close
relative of the victim, though he has supported the initial
version of prosecution story but his evidence is quite
contradictory on the core aspect of the prosecution story as
while adducing evidence before the court, he has stated that no
ill treatment was meted out to his sister and no dowry was
being demanded as marriage was solemnized ideally. The
informant (PW4) has specifically stated the reason for the
sorry state of affairs of his sister was only that appellants were
relatively poor in comparison to informant’s side. In this way,
the informant (PW4), who set the prosecution story into
motion, has taken U-turn while adducing evidence before the
Court from the initial version of prosecution story and his
version is quite contradictory on the core aspect of the story of
prosecution. In this way, the version of informant (PW4) is
neither reliable nor convincing. Hence, the contention of
learned counsel for the appellants is quite convincing in the
light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
27. On all counts from the analysis of
evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as material available
on record, I find that appellants have not committed any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
33/34
positive act amounting to instigation or intentionally aiding in
commission of suicide. In this way, the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
concerned court are not justified and legal and same are fit to
be set aside.
28. In the result, in my view, prosecution
case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it
was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded.
The learned trial court fell in error of law as well as
appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal
jurisprudence. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence are hereby set aside and this appeal stands
allowed. Appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail bonds.
29. The interlocutory application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
30. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for
compliance and for record.
31. The records of this case be also returned
to the concerned trial court forthwith.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.285 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
34/34
32. Before parting with the judgment, I
appreciate the legal assistance rendered by Ms. Pallavi
Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae. Patna High Court Legal
Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
(five thousand) to Ms. Pallavi Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae,
as consolidated fee for the legal assistance rendered by her,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
judgment.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 27.01.2026.
Transmission Date 27.01.2026.
Checking your session…