Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3748 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shanti Devi

2025-10-09

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present revision is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were discharged. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that Nirmla Devi@ Krishna, accused No.1, and Gian Chand (since deceased) were married to each other. They used to quarrel, and Nirmla Devi used to leave her matrimonial home. Nirmla Devi and Gian Chand had quarrelled one month before the incident. Nirmla Devi inflicted an injury on the head of Gian Chand by means of a ladle, but this fact was not reported to anyone. Nirmla Devi went to her parental home with her daughter, Sakshi, 10 days before the incident. Informant Dinesh, his grandmother Vinti Devi and cousin Chetan were at home on 25.07.2021, when Gian Chand came to the house in a state of intoxication. He handed over his purse to the informant. Dinesh told him that he (Gian Chand) was going to the house of Surat Ram. The informant went to sleep. He saw Gian Chand standing near the almond tree at about 5:30 a.m. The informant and his grandmother went to the tree, and they found that Gian Chand had hanged himself. The informant tried to cut the rope, but he was stopped by Ghanshyam. The informant checked the purse and found a suicide note mentioning that Gian Chand was unhappy with his life. Nirmala Devi had spoiled his life and the life of Kirna. Gian Chand and Kirna used to have affection for each other, but they were defamed, and nobody believed them. Nirmala used to beat Gian Chand, and he had sustained an injury to his head. The cause of his death was Narvada Devi, Shanti Devi, Bablu and Parvati, who had blackmailed him. Tara Chand had also spoiled two households. Gian Chand and Kirna used to have affection for each other, but they were defamed, and nobody believed them. Nirmala used to beat Gian Chand, and he had sustained an injury to his head. The cause of his death was Narvada Devi, Shanti Devi, Bablu and Parvati, who had blackmailed him. Tara Chand had also spoiled two households. Nirmla Devi @ Krishna was saying that either she should be divorced or a room should be taken for heron rent, but Gian Chand was unable to take the room on rent. He had also taken a room earlier on rent for her. He left his home for the happiness of Nirmla Devi. She used to say that she had kept three other husbands. Narvada and Shanti were responsible for his death. The police seized the suicide note and the admitted handwriting of Gian Chand. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Gian Chand was conducted at IGMC, Shimla. The report of the post- mortem mentioned the cause of death as asphyxia secondary to ligature compression of the neck, consistent with antemortem hanging. The suicide note tallied with the admitted writing of Gian Chand. It was found during the investigation that Nirmala Devi @ Krishna had quarrelled with Gian Chand. Nirmla Devi and her relatives had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, a chargesheet was filed before the Court. 3. Learned Trial Court took cognisance of the commission of the offence and summoned the accused. Learned Trial Court heard the parties on charge and held that the accused persons, except Nirmla Devi @ Krishna, were distant relatives of the deceased and residents of different villages. No specific allegations were made against them. Vague allegations of harassment, blackmail and defamation were made by the deceased and the informant. The suicide note also contained vague allegations. No recovery was effected from any of the accused. Hence, all the accused except Nirmla Devi @ Krishna were discharged. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Trial Court discharged the accused on flimsy grounds. The allegations made by the deceased were specific and clear regarding the harassment and torture. There was no reason to disbelieve the contents of the suicide note. The deceased named the accused in the suicide note. The allegations made by the deceased were specific and clear regarding the harassment and torture. There was no reason to disbelieve the contents of the suicide note. The deceased named the accused in the suicide note. The conclusion of the innocence of the accused could not have been drawn without allowing the State to lead evidence; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioner and Mr Het Ram Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused. The names of the accused were specifically mentioned in the suicide note. Learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused without allowing the State to lead evidence; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 7. Mr Het Ram Thakur,, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the allegations made against the accused were vague. No specific allegations were made against any person. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shenbagavalli and others vs. Inspector of Police Kancheepuram District and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 987 and Abhinav Mohan Dalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725 in support of his submission. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 502 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 that the Court framing the charges has to see a prima facie case. It is impermissible to examine the material threadbare to determine whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not. It was observed: - “12.The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. It was observed: - “12.The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in theState of Maharashtrav.Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and theState of MPv.Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of the prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion on the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to a conviction at the conclusion of the trial. 10. This position was reiterated in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520, wherein it was observed: 16. Section 227 CrPC deals with discharge. What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, the court is only required to consider whether there are sufficient materials which can justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, the court is only required to consider whether there are sufficient materials which can justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on the benefit of doubt, or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify the launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused. 11. The present petition has to be adjudicated as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The prosecution heavily relied upon the suicide note to implicate the accused. The suicide note mentions that the cause of death of Gian Chand was Tara Chand, who had spoiled two houses and Nirmala Devi @ Krishna, Narvada, Shanti Devi, Bablu and Parvati, who had blackmailed him. This suicide note does not mention the nature of the blackmail or the incitement to commit suicide. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Babubhai Manohardas v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 503,that in the absence of any act of incitement proximate to death, no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out. It was observed:- “45.Finally, even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide, which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.” 13. No act is attributed to the appellants proximate to the time of suicide, which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants.” 13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725,that the accused cannot be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, in the absence of any evidence to show that the suicide was the direct consequence of the harassment. It was observed:- “22.What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively,‘the straw that broke the camel's back’;that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act often depends on individual predilections, but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to findmens rea.Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot, by itself, result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment.Mens reacannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option but to take his life, because of what another person did or said, which cannot lead to a finding ofmens reaand resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutesmens reais the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. What constitutesmens reais the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused, or can it be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test ofmens reawould depend on the facts of each case? The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious, deliberate intention,mens rea,to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306. 24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to“go, kill yourself”, often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. 25. In this context, useful reference can be made to Sections113A&113Bof theIndian Evidence Act, 1872, providing statutory presumptions in aid of Sections 498A & 304B, respectively, of theIPC. When a woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, if it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative, there arises a presumption that the husband or such relative abetted the suicide, in which event the penalty under Section 306 is attracted. The presumption under Section 113A was statutorily employed by the Parliament, realising the menace and in an attempt to prevent domestic violence unleashed on women in the patriarchal society, by deterrence. The presumption under Section 113A was statutorily employed by the Parliament, realising the menace and in an attempt to prevent domestic violence unleashed on women in the patriarchal society, by deterrence. This exercise would not have been necessary if Section 107 had provided for finding abetment without conscious instigation constitutingmens rea.This Court held inMangat Ramv.State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595 that the provision only enabled the court to presume on the abetment, having due regard to all other circumstances of the case and drawing such presumption is purely within the discretion of the Court. 26. We also notice Section 304B which penalises the death of a woman, caused by any burns and bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage; if it is shown that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death, in connection with any demand for dowry, as ‘a dowry death’, punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years and which extends to imprisonment for life. In law, this is made possible by the presumption brought about by Section 113B; which all the same requires a proximate incident, as discernible from the words employed, in both Sections 113B & 304B, of‘ … and it is shown that soon before her death such woman was subjected to…’cruelty or harassment with a demand for dowry. 27. Kashmir Kaurv.State of Punjab (2012) 13 SCC 627 considered the import of the words “soon before”. It was held that “soon before” is a relative term depending on the circumstances of each case, and there can be no straitjacket formula prescribed. It normally implies the existence of a proximate or live link between the demand of dowry amounting to cruelty and the death. It cannot be so remote that it is stale, but all the same, no narrow meaning can be assigned to the words to defeat the purpose of the provision. 28. Disputes in marital spaces are not uncommon. Tragically, dowry demands, despite punitive legislation, are the major cause for domestic violence, unnatural death and suicide within marital spaces. Hence, a presumption was drawn on the dowry death of a woman, within 7 years of marriage, by the legislature, carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger. 28. Disputes in marital spaces are not uncommon. Tragically, dowry demands, despite punitive legislation, are the major cause for domestic violence, unnatural death and suicide within marital spaces. Hence, a presumption was drawn on the dowry death of a woman, within 7 years of marriage, by the legislature, carefully incorporating the requirement of a proximate trigger. It cannot be said that the said requirement is absent in bringing home a conviction for abetment to suicide. If it is so held, then it would follow that when a poor woman commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage, pursuant to a “soon before” incident, it would be a dowry death. But if the death occurs after 7 years, then there will be no reason to look for a proximate trigger. The necessity to find a trigger, proximate to the suicide, cannot at all be wished away. 14. In the present case, the suicide note or the informant’s statement does not mention any proximate incident to the suicide. The informant stated that his mother had inflicted an injury on the head of Gian Chand one month before the incident. He had not attributed anything else to the other accused. Kirna, whose name was mentioned in the suicide note, stated that she had brotherly affection for Gian Chand, but Krishna Devi used to suspect her and Gian Chand. Nirmala Devi, Parvati, Krishna, Bablu and Tara Chand used to quarrel with Gian Chand and suspect his relations with Kirna.Gian Chand committed suicide due to constant quarrels. Her statement does not show that any act proximate to the suicide compelled Gian Chand to take his life. 15. In the present case, the material collected by the prosecution does not show that the act of the accused, except for Krishna, was even proximate to the commission of suicide. As per Kirna, Gian Chand was residing at Churag by taking a room on rent, where the other accused were also residing; however, this room was vacated as per the suicide note, and any incident which might have happened at Churag cannot be said to be proximate to the commission of suicide. 16. As per Kirna, Gian Chand was residing at Churag by taking a room on rent, where the other accused were also residing; however, this room was vacated as per the suicide note, and any incident which might have happened at Churag cannot be said to be proximate to the commission of suicide. 16. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1938, that mere harassment for a long time is not sufficient unless there is evidence that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was observed:- 18. Even if we were to assume that physical blows were ad- ministered, will that, per se, constitute abetment to suicide? This Court, in a case where the accused told the deceased “go and die”,and when thereafter, the deceased committed sui- cide, absolved the accused of the charge under Section 306 by holding as under: “3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quar- relling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …” [Swamy Prahaladdasv.State of M.P.,1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] 19. This Court inMadan Mohan Singhv.State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , held that in order to bring out an offence under Section306IPC, specific abetment as contem- plated by Section107IPCon the part of the accused with an in- tention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Sec- tion 306. 20. InAmalendu Pal alias Jhantuv.State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 , this Court held that the harassment meted out to the victim should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to his/her life. 21. InM. Mohanv.State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 , this Court followed the dictum inRamesh Kumarv.State of Chhattis- garh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under: “41. 21. InM. Mohanv.State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 , this Court followed the dictum inRamesh Kumarv.State of Chhattis- garh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under: “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of “insti- gation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, pro- voke, 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 neces- sarily and specifically be suggestive of the conse- quence. 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 insti- gation 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 the commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court inMohan(supra) held:— 45. The intention of the legislature and the ra- tio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Sec- tion306IPC, 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.” 22. This Court inMahendra Awasev.The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76 , after analysing the long line of prece- dents held as under:— “18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the re- quirement of instigation, the accused, by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct, should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the re- quirement of instigation, the accused, by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct, should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 17. In the present case, the informant’s testimony and the suicide note do not mention that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that material on record was insufficient to frame charges against the accused, and the order discharging the accused was fully justified. 18. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 19. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever,on the merits of the case.