HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CRAA No. 274/2014 State of J&K …. Appellant Through :- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG v. Surinder Singh & Ors. ….Respondents Through :- Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 14.08.2025 (ORAL) 01. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 30.12.2013 delivered by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu [“the trial court”] in case titled, “State vs. Surinder Singh & others”, vide which, respondents came to be acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 306/498-A RPC. 02. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 17.09.2007, one Des Raj lodged an oral report in Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu stating inter alia that his daughter Rita Devi was married to respondent No. 1-Surinder Singh about three years back and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. On the previous day, he had received a telephonic information that his daughter had died in the house of her in-laws. He went there and had some suspicion about the demise of his daughter, thus requested for investigation. Sr.No.16 2 CRAA No. 274/2014 03. On the receipt of this report, inquest proceedings under Sections 174 Cr.P.C. came to be initiated. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted. On 29.09.2007, statement of the father of the deceased came to be recorded and on the basis of his statement, FIR No. 117/2007 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 306/498-A RPC came to be registered against the respondents. 04. It surfaced during investigation that deceased was married to respondent No. 1-Surinder Singh. Their relations remained cordial for about one year and, thereafter, deceased was being subjected to dowry harassment at the hands of her husband, respondent No. 1 and mother-in- law, respondent No. 3. It also came to the fore that husband of the deceased, respondent No. 1-Surinder Singh was unemployed and unable to meet the household expenses. The accused persons subjected the deceased to harassment for more dowry and rice from the house of her parents, in September, 2007. Respondent No. 1-husband of the deceased asked her to get Rs. 20, 000/- from her parents to run the shop. The deceased went to the house of her parents and got Rs. 10,000/-, which allegedly enraged the accused persons. On 16.09.2007, it is alleged, the deceased, due to continuous torture of her in-laws, consumed Aluminum Phosphate and committed suicide. The investigation eventually culminated in a final report against the respondents. 05. The respondents were charged by the trial court for the aforesaid offences on 31.01.2008, whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, prompting the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence. 06. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the respondents, examined parents of the deceased, PW1-Des Raj and PW3-Pushpa, besides, other formal witnesses. 3 CRAA No. 274/2014 07. The relevant excerpts of testimonies of prosecution witnesses shall be referred as and when required. 08. Learned trial court on critical analysis of the prosecution evidence has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. As a result, they came to be acquitted of the charge. 09. The appellant-State is aggrieved of the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, primarily, on the ground that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in correct perspective. It is contention of the appellant that both the parents of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-3 have clearly stated that their daughter, the deceased, was subjected to dowry harassment at the hands of the respondents, as a result whereof, she consumed poison and ended her life. 10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 11. Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-State while reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of appeal has argued that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the copious evidence, available on the record in the shape of testimonies of the parents of the deceased as also the post mortem report, which is sufficient to sustain conviction. 12. Mr. Koshal Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that impugned judgment does not call for any interference as learned trial court has rightly concluded that there is no legal evidence to connect the respondents with the commission of alleged crime. 13. Section 306 RPC conceives abetment to suicide in the terms and meaning of abetment as understood in Section 107 RPC. Both the provisions, for the facility of reference, are set out hereunder: 4 CRAA No. 274/2014 “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 a thing, who Firstly-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or 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. ...........................” 14. It is axiomatic from a conjoint reading of Sections 306 and 107 RPC, that if a person instigates any person to do a particular thing or engages with more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing and if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing, or if he intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing, he shall be liable for abetment of that thing. In other words, in order to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 RPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove active participation of the abettor in instigation or engagement in conspiracy or intentional aiding the doing of a thing. 15. If the present case is approached in the background of aforesaid principle of law in mind, the question which arises for consideration is whether respondents actively participated in instigation or engaged in conspiracy or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. 16. The allegation against the respondents is that they harassed and tortured the deceased for dowry, as a result whereof, she consumed Aluminum Phosphate and committed suicide. On these allegations, the respondents came to be charged for offences under Sections 306/498-A RPC. The prosecution in order to sustain and make out the charge, as 5 CRAA No. 274/2014 already stated, besides formal witnesses, has examined parents of the deceased, PW1-Des Raj, father of the deceased and PW3-Pushpa, mother of the deceased. If statements of both these material witnesses are glanced over, it is manifest that there is nothing in their statements to connect the respondents with the commission of alleged crime. 17. PW1-Des Raj has stated that he telephonically came to know about the demise of his daughter when he was in Punjab. He went to the house of his daughter’s in-laws and saw the dead body of the deceased. The witness goes on to state that respondents did not talk properly and he lodged report in the Police Station. He further alleged that relation between the deceased and her husband were cordial for some time and, thereafter, she was subjected to dowry harassment. The deceased came to his house and he gave Rs.5,000/- and a bag of rice and sent her back. He was told by the deceased that accused demanded money from her and harassed her. Mother of the deceased, PW3-Pushpa has also testified in the same vein by stating that deceased was subjected to dowry harassment, Rs. 5,000-/ and a bag of rice was given to her and after one and half years she gave another Rs. 10,000/- to her and sent her back to her matrimonial home. It is evident from the statements of both the material witnesses, i.e., parents of the deceased that they are not eye witnesses to the alleged demand of dowry by the respondents. Both of them have been told by the deceased that she was subjected to harassment and the respondents demanded dowry. 18. In the given circumstances, it has been rightly observed by the trial court that investigating agency was obliged to investigate into the factum of dowry demand and dowry harassment from the persons living in the surroundings of the parents-in-law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency has not investigated into this vital aspect of the case and enquired 6 CRAA No. 274/2014 from the neighbourers of the deceased. There is no independent witness cited and examined by the prosecution in the alleged demand of dowry or dowry harassment. 19. Be that as it may, it is trite that for holding a person liable for abetment, prosecution is not only obliged to establish continuous harassment, but also prove by cogent evidence that there was a positive action/active role played by the accused which should more or less be proximate to the time of occurrence, to have led or compelled the person concerned to commit suicide. I am fortified in my opinion by “Jagdishraj Khatta vs. State of Himchal Pradesh” (2019) 9 SCC 248, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar fact situation has held that incidents which had taken place between the husband and wife much before the date of suicide cannot be construed as the conduct of accused which drove the deceased wife to commit suicide. Vague and unspecific allegations of dowry demands or harassment cannot be construed to constitute harassment of the nature which may have driven the deceased to commit suicide. 20. Another aspect of the matter, which needs attention, is that prosecution has failed to examine the medical officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased to prove the cause of death. 21. Therefore, on careful scrutiny and critical examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of legal position, there is no evidence or material on record wherefrom an inference of respondents having abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased may be drawn. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondents ever intended or actively participated to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased, therefore, offence under section 306 IPC is not made out and observation of learned trial court in this regard cannot be faulted with. 7 CRAA No. 274/2014 22. In so far as applicability of Section 114-C of the Evidence Act is concerned, admittedly the deceased, in the present case, has committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage with respondent No.1. However, whether suicide of the deceased was result of abetment on the part of her husband in conspiracy with rest of the respondents is concerned, it has already been observed that there is no evidence or material on record where from an inference of respondent having abetted the commission of offence of committing suicide by the deceased may be drawn. There is absolutely nothing in the prosecution evidence to indicate that respondent ever intended or actively participated to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the circumstances, the presumption under Section 114-C of the Evidence Act is also not available to the appellant. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings returned by the trial court to conclude that prosecution has badly failed to establish guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned, does not call for interference. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment is upheld. 25. Disposed of. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE Jammu: 14.08.2025 Meenakshi Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No