Patna High Court
Afsar AlamversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside due to lack of evidence of the appellant's active participation or mens rea to abet the suicide.
Summary
The appellant, Afsar Alam, was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Katihar for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, based on allegations that he demanded dowry and participated in the victim's death. The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, none of whom directly observed the appellant committing the alleged acts, and the post‑mortem report indicated death by hanging. The defence argued that there was no evidence of dowry demand, torture, or the appellant's active involvement, asserting that the victim committed suicide. The High Court examined the evidence and held that abetment under Section 306 requires a clear mens rea and an active role, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and discharged him from bail obligations. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant actively abetted the victim's suicide under Section 306 IPC.
- Whether evidence of dowry demand or harassment is necessary to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings of hanging negate the charge of abetment of suicide.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 306, 34
Subjects
- abetment of suicide
- Section 306 IPC
- dowry death
- evidentiary standard
- acquittal
- high court appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.58 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2010 Thana- BARSOI District- Katihar
======================================================
Afsar Alam S/o - Sharful Resident of Village - Kandehla, P.S. Barsoi O.P.
Sudhani, District - Katihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Firoz Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2015 and order of sentence
dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2011
arising out of Barsoi (Sudhani O.P.) P.S. Case No. 109 of 2010
whereby this appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
2/8
in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a fard-beyan
concerning the dowry death of the informant’s daughter, namely
Khusnuma Khatoon. It is alleged that on 09.08.2010 at about
7:30 AM, this appellant, who happens to be son-in-law of the
informant, demanded one bhar of gold as dowry. Although the
informant had previously agreed during marriage to provide the
gold, he could not fulfill the demand at the time and promised to
do so in the near future. Consequently, the victim was subjected
to continuous harassment. Thereafter, all the F.I.R. named
accused persons, including this appellant, forming an unlawful
assembly, brutally assaulted the victim with lathis and dandas
and subsequently, hanged her. The assault rendered the victim
unconscious and she was immediately rushed to hospitals in
Barsoi and Katihar for medical treatment. Thereafter, she was
brought back to home where she succumbed to her injuries.
4. In this case, the alleged occurrence took place on
10.08.2010 and F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2010. Thereafter,
charge-sheet was submitted on 14.11.2010 under Sections 304B
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
3/8
Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken on 27.11.2010
under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against eight
accused persons, including this appellant. Subsequently, the case
was committed for trial on 21.12.2010 under Sections 304B and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and charges were framed on 09.02.2011 under
Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case two
separate trials were commenced and since there was no material
to show that it was a case of dowry death, appellant and other
accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed, however,
this appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code for abetment of the suicide.
5. In order to bring home guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. P.W. 1,
namely Asma Khatoon, is sister of the deceased and she did not
say anything about demand of dowry or torture with the
deceased. P.W. 2, namely Nashir Alam, in his cross-examination
admitted about having no knowledge of the occurrence. P.W. 3,
namely Md. Iliyash, also stated that he had no knowledge about
the occurrence. P.W. 4, namely Sasdhar Rai and P.W. 5, namely
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
4/8
Rohin Rai, are witnesses to the inquest report. P.W. 6, namely
Rukhsana Khatoon, is mother of the deceased and has been
declared hostile. P.W. 7, namely Khurshid Alam, is father of the
deceased and informant of the present case who stated that his
daughter died in her matrimonial house and deposed about
demand of gold ornaments and harassment with the victim,
however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not
seen as to how the deceased died. P.W. 8, namely Dr. A.K. Dev,
is the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased
and opined that death was due to Asphyxia resulting from
hanging. P.W. 9, namely Nuruddin, is a hearsay witness and had
no direct knowledge of the incident. P.W. 10, namely Shekhar
Singh, is a formal witness. P.W. 11, namely Rajeswar Prasad, is
the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and
submitted the charge-sheet. P.W. 12, namely Shiv Saran Sah,
proved the fard beyan and inquest report and confirmed that the
dead body was found in the house of this appellant. The
prosecution also exhibited the following documents:-
Exhibit 1 Post Mortem report
Exhibit 2 F.I.R.
Exhibit 3 Charge-sheet
Exhibit 4 Fard beyan of informant
Exhibit 5 Inquest report
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
5/8
6. On the other hand, the defence has produced two
witnesses, i.e., D.W. 1, namely Md. Nashim and D.W. 2, namely
Md. Yusuf. The defence exhibited the following documents:-
Exhibit A S. T. No. 317 of 2011
Exhibit B Deposition of Khurshid Alam
(informant) in G.R. No. 1731 of 2010
7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the
opening paragraph of this order.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
assails the order of conviction and sentence on multiple
grounds. He contends that in this case, there is no evidence with
regard to demand of dowry or torture right before death of the
deceased. None of the witnesses have seen this appellant
committing the offence. As a matter of fact, the deceased herself
committed suicide. The said fact is also supported by the post
mortem report and the deposition of the doctor (P.W. 8), who
admitted that the deceased lost her life on account of Asphyxia
due to hanging. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to
show that this appellant played any active role in instigating the
deceased to commit suicide and as such, he cannot be convicted
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, it is a case of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
6/8
no evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is fit to be acquitted.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State submits that the evidence on record unmistakably
points to the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution could prove
that it was this appellant who committed the occurrence.
Therefore, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in
convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code.
10. From going through the evidence and perusal of
the records, it appears that in this case, none of the prosecution
witnesses are eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution
has not brought on record any proof with regard to the torture or
demand of dowry prior to death of the deceased and as such, the
learned trial court has rightly acquitted the appellant from the
charges under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. It is settled law that abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a persons
in doing a thing. In order to convict a person under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
7/8
commit the offence. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person
who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have
played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
12. Having gone through the rival submissions,
materials available on record and deposition of the twelve
prosecution witnesses, I have no hesitation in holding that in
this case, there is no material on record to show that this
appellant played any active role or instigated the deceased to
commit suicide. None of the witnesses have deposed anything
or brought any material in support of the same. Thus, there is no
material to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. In that view of the matter, the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2015 and order of sentence
dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2011
arising out of Barsoi (Sudhani O.P.) P.S. Case No. 109 of 2010
are hereby set aside with respect to this appellant, above named.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2016 dt.24-06-2026
8/8
14. Appellant, above named, is acquitted of all the
charges and is discharged from the liability of the bail bond in
connection with this case.
15. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
16. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.06.2026
Transmission Date 30.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.