Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Ambesh Mani Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
Application U/S 482 No.24303 of 2016
Decided on : 01-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Om Narayan Tripathi and Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 informed that during the pendency of this application, opposite party no. 2 died, therefore, he may be permitted to implead his wife as opposite party no. 2 in the capacity of victim for which learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.
3. Accordingly, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is permitted to implead “Sheela Pandey” as opposite party no. 2 after deleting the name of Ashok Kumar Pandey in the array of opposite party no. 2 during the course of the day.
4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.06.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 3522 of 2016, arising out of case crime no. 1 16, under Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhelu Pur, District Varanasi, pending before A.C.J.M., Court No. III, Varanasi.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per FIR version itself, it is apparently clear that marriage of applicant was settled with daughter of opposite party no. 2, but for some reason, same could not be solemnized. As per prosecution story, applicant has refused to solemnize the marriage. He next submitted that in light of Section 306 I.P.C., in case, version stated in the FIR is treated to be correct, no case is made out for abetment of suicide. A suicide note has also been recovered in which deceased only stated that due to denial of marriage, she committed suicide and for that, applicant has no concern and not responsible. He next submitted that statement of father, sister, uncle and mother of deceased was also recorded and except in the statement of mother, there is no allegation against the applicant except denial of marriage. Mother, in her statement, alleged for demand of dowry. He next submitted that statement of mother is not getting support from the statement of her own family members and deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon that.
6. He next submitted that denial of marriage may not come within the category of abetment of suicide in light of Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 107 I.P.C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court as well as High Courts in the matters of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh; (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 618, V. Shankaraiah Vs. State of A.P., Hyderabad; 2002 0 Supreme (AP) 186, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and another; (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628, State of Kerala and others Vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others; (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 639, M. Arjunan Vs. State Represented By its Inspector of Police; (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 315, Pradeep Kumar Tank Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10015 of 2006 decided on 29.03.2019, Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2021 decided on 17.09.2021, Geo Varghese Vs. The State of Rajasthan and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021 decided on 05.10.2021 and M. Maryson Vs. State rep by Inspector of Police (Law and Order) and another passed in Crl. O.P. No. 11502 of 2016 decided on 25.11.2021.
7. Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that refusal of marriage due to demand of dowry comes within the category of abetment, therefore, it may be treated as offence under Section 306 I.P.C., but he could not dispute other facts mentioned in dying declaration and statement of family members of the deceased.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied upon.
9. Fa
Denial of marriage does not constitute abetment of suicide under IPC without clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act.
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
In abetment of suicide cases, clear evidence of mens rea and active involvement is required; mere allegations without proof of cruelty are insufficient for conviction.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused is essential; mere emotional turmoil does not suffice.
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent and direct actions by the accused that compel the victim to commit suicide; emotional distress alone is insufficient.
Conviction under sections 498A and 306 requires concrete evidence of cruelty and direct acts of abetment; mere allegations and delays in FIR are insufficient for a successful prosecution.
For liability under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
Clear evidence of instigation or incitement is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
