1. Appeal against acquittal under Sections 498A and 304B IPC in a dowry death case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Ram Devi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. 38/2018
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Rakhi Dubey(DHCLSC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Valli, Mr. B.N JHA, Mr. Keshav Kumar Jha
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Rakhi Dubey(DHCLSC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Valli, Mr. B.N JHA, Mr. Keshav Kumar Jha
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires a positive act of instigation or incitement with clear mens rea; mere matrimonial discord or emotional frustration, without a direct act pushing the deceased to suicide, does not constitute abetment.
Headnote:(A) Dowry Death and Cruelty - Sections 304B and 498A IPC - Absence of evidence regarding dowry demands or harassment soon before death, supported by a suicide note not mentioning such cruelty, justifies acquittal. (Para 7)
(B) Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Requirement of positive act - Conviction requires proof of direct or indirect act of incitement or instigation with clear mens rea; mere matrimonial discord, emotional outbursts, or hypersensitivity to ordinary day-to-day differences does not constitute abetment. (Para 16, 17, 18)
(C) Evidentiary Value of Suicide Note and Diary Entries - Mental state of deceased - Expressions of affection towards husband and in-laws mixed with momentary disappointment or frustration do not amount to positive acts of incitement to commit suicide. (Para 13, 18)
Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was sustainable and whether the evidence available warranted a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued case under Section 306 IPC; respondents contended no cruelty or abetment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Suicide note and diary entries show affection, not incitement; no dowry demand or cruelty established. (Para 13 , 15 , 18 )
4. Abetment of suicide requires positive act of instigation or intentional aid; mere emotional outbursts insufficient. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld; no interference with impugned judgment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What constitutes abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
There must be a positive act of instigation, incitement, or intentional aid; mere emotional outbursts or disappointment is insufficient. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. Is a suicide note expressing affection but disappointment sufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC?
No, unless the note or diary entries show direct or indirect acts of incitement by the accused compelling the suicide. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 )
8. What is required to raise presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act?
Prosecution must first establish cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before death; absent such evidence, no presumption arises. (Para 7 , 15 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of India, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the judgment dated 22nd April, 2017 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 57014/2016. The present case arises out of FIR No. 191/2013 registered as PS. Vikas Puri.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, accused persons namely, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal and Smt. Usha Devi were acquitted.
Brief Background
4. The background of the case is that the Victim namely, Smt. Kavita got married to Manoj Kumar on 23rd November, 2012. The said marriage is stated to be contrary to the wishes of the parents of the victim and she went to her matrimonial home after the marriage, where she lived with her husband and parents-in-law, namely Sh. Rameshwar Dayal and Smt. Usha Devi.
5. On 12th June, 2013, information was received that the Victim i.e., Kavita has committed suicide by hanging herself from the hook of the ceiling fan with a saree. Thereafter, she had been moved to the hospital where she was declared brought dead.
6. Subsequently, FIR No. 191/2013 dated 13th June 2013 was registered at P.S. Vikas Puri. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, prosecution led evidence and 19 witnesses were examined including the sister of the victim. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that offences under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) were not made out.
7. According to the Trial Court, there is no evidence available on record to establish cruelty or harassment by the accused persons that too in connection with dowry. Reliance was placed by the Trial Court on the suicide note of the victim i.e., Ex. PW16/E which in effect constituted a dying declaration wherein she does not speak about any cruelty or harassment. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:
“55. In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty after the marriage. There is no evidence available on record to establish that soon before her death, the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment by the accused persons and that is too in connection with any demand of dowry. The suicide note Ex.PW-16/E which is relevant under Section 32 (I) of the Evidence Act being dying declaration, also does not speak about anything about the cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry by the accused persons. There is also no evidence available on record to suggest that the accused persons compelled the deceased in any manner whatsoever to take the extreme step of ending her life. Consequently, the prosecution could not establish or prove or show the essential ingredient of the offence punishable. under Section 304B IPC so as to raise presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act against the accused persons.The prosecution also could not establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty or was harassed in any manner whatsoever, by the accused persons so as to hold them responsible for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Furthermore, there is not a single evidence available on record to indicate any abetment by the accused persons, in any form, to compel the deceased to commit suicide so as to hold the accused persons responsible for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Since the prosecution failed to establish the essentials ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC so as to raise the presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act, no question arises for rebuttal of such presumption by the accused persons. Consequently, the points for deter
