1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, DEHRADUN

PRESENT: SRI N.S. DHANIK, SESSIONS JUDGE
S.T. No. 99 of 2015
State .Prosecution
Versus
1. Amar Singh
2. Gopal @ Mannu
3. Deepak @ Deepu
4. Smt Sarita
- All residents of Village Pithuwala, P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun
.Accused

U/s 498-A/306 IPC

P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun
Cr. No. 82/2013

Sri Balwant Rai Agarwal, D.G.C. (Crl.) for State

Sri J.S. Tomar, Advocate for accused

JUDGMENT
Accused 1. Amar Singh, 2. Gopal @ Mannu, 3. Deepak @ Deepu and 4. Smt
Sarita were challaned by the Police of P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun, in Cr. No.
82/2013, u/s 498-A/306 IPC.
1. As per prosecution, the brief facts of the case are that complainant Ganga
Singh, lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) with P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun on 4.3.2013 to
the effect that his daughter Anju (deceased) was married to accused Amar Singh in
the year 2004. After marriage his daughter used to complain against her husband –
accused Amar Singh about committing violence with the deceased after consuming
liquor. When she was asked by the complainant for taking some action against
accused Amar Singh, his daughter told him that she would solve the problem of her
own. Out of the wedlock of the deceased and accused Amar Singh, three children
 2

were born namely; son Yash and daughters Adhti and Radhika. During this period
accused Amar Singh, his elder brother Mannu Singh, his youger brother Deepu and
his wife Sarita continued to commit harassment, torture and violence with the
deceased. Deceased used to inform the complainant regarding harassment, torture
and violence with the deceased but she used to tell not to take any action against the
aforesaid accused persons. On 26.2.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., brother-in-law (Devar)
of Anju (accused Deepak @ Deepu) informed the complainant on phone that the
daughter of complainant consumed poison and come soon. By the time complainant
and his family members reached Doon Hospital, Dehradun, doctors declared her
dead. When the complainant was attending the last rites of his daughter, his maternal
grand daughter (Natin) Aditi while weeping, disclosed him that her father, uncle,
great father (Tau) and Tai committed violence with her mother (deceased). On
inquiry, it was revealed that deceased Anju used to do the work of 'Aya' in a nearby
school and on the date of incident she came back from her work at 3.30 p.m. and
thereafter she was badly beaten by her family members. The complainant was told
by accused persons that Anju consumed poison but complainant was sure that his
daughter committed suicide as a result of torture and harassment extended by the
accused persons. Therefore report Ext. Ka-1 was lodged. On the basis of Tehriri
report, Chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2 was prepared. Copy of report was entered in G.D.
which are Ext. K-4 to Ka-7. Similarly, Naksha Nazri of the place of incident is Ext.
Ka-8 on record. Arrest memo and information memo of accused Amar Singh are
Ext. Ka-9 and Ka-10 respectively, on record. Similarly, Arrest memo and
information memo of accused Mannu Singh and Sarita are Ext. Ka-11 and Ka-12
respectively, on record. Panchnama of deceased Anju is Ext. Ka-13 on record. After
Panchnama, postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased and postmortem
report Ext. Ka-14 was filed on record. Information to P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun given
by the E.M.O. Doon Hospital, Dehradun is Ext. Ka-15 on record. Photo Lash is Ext.
Ka-16 and sample seal Ext.Ka-17 along with Police Form No. 13, Ext. Ka-18 are
also on record.
2. The matter was investigated and after completion of the investigation,
 3

Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-3 against the accused
aforementioned u/s 498-A/306 IPC.
3. Accordingly, charge u/s 498-A/306 IPC was framed against the accused
persons to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case and thereafter
accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations
leveled against them and alleged that evidence is false. Defence did not produce any
evidence in defence.
5. I have heard the learned D.G.C. (Crl) for prosecution and learned counsel
for the defence at length and perused the evidence on record.
6. Against the accused persons, prosecution has leveled a charge that in their
residence between 2004 to 26.2.2013, deceased Anju had committed suicide and
accused persons have abetted her for committing suicide. All the allegations have
been denied by the accused at the time of framing charge as well as in their
statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
7. First witness of prosecution is Ganga Singh – P.W. 1 who lodged the report
and he is the father of deceased but he is not eye witness of any fact. This witness
has stated that deceased Anju was his daughter and she was married to accused
Amar Singh present in the Court. Accused Sarita is sister-in-law (Devrani) of
deceased Anju. Accused Gopal @ Mannu is brother-in-law (Jeth) and Deepak is
brother-in-law (Devar) of deceased who are present in the Court. He further stated
that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Amar Singh in 2004
and out of this wedlock, 3 children were born – one son and two daughters. He
further stated that her in-laws used to take care of his daughter and seldomly the
son-in-law of this witness (accused Amar Singh) used to commit violence with his
daughter after consuming liquor but she never told this fact to the witness and
deceased disclosed about the same to her Tai only. The witness received the
information about the death of his daughter at 5.00 p.m. that she had consumed
poison. When the witness reached Doon Hospital, he found his daughter dead. There
was disagreement with the daughter of complainant and accused but violence was
 4

not committed with her by the accused persons. The witness further stated that
accused persons never demanded dowry from his daughter and the report of the
incident was got written by the witness through Smt Dipika Gupta. The witness
further stated that he cannot tell whether his daughter was extended mental and
physical harassment and she committed suicide. The witness further stated that he
does not know Hindi and can put his signatures only. The witness recognized his
signatures on paper No. 3K/2. He was read over the report and Ext. Ka-1 was
marked on it. The witness further stated that Panchayatnama of his daughter was
prepared by the Police at hospital and he recognized his signatures on it at point 'A'.
The witness further stated that neither the in-laws of his daughter used to harass her
on account of demand of dowry nor she consumed poision due to torture and
harassment extended by her in-laws and he cannot tell whether his daughter
consumed poison or not. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile by the
prosecution and permission was granted to prosecution to cross-examine the
witness. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct to say that 3 children of
of deceased daughter of witness are being fostered by her in-laws. He further stated
that Daroga Ji had not recorded his statement and when the witness was read over
his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he did not give any such
statement. This witness was read over the Tehriri report, upon which he stated that it
was not spoken by him while preparing the report that his daughter committed
suicide due to torture and harassment extended by her in-laws. He is an illiterate
person. How the scribe of the report had mentioned the same, he is unable to
explain. He further stated that Deepa Gupta came to the witness. Witness further
stated that it is wrong to say that due to compromise with the accused persons, he
was giving false statement. It is also wrong to say that the deceased committed
suicide on 26.2.2013 due to torture and harassment extended by the in-laws of
deceased. It is also wrong to say that the accused persons present in the Court
harassed Anju – daughter of complainant due to dowry demand. Learned defence
counsel was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witness but he refused to
cross-examine the witness.
 5

8. Next witness P.W. 2 Dalip Singh who in his evidence deposed that the
daughter of his uncle Ganga Singh namely Anju was married to accused Amar Singh
present in the Court in 2004 and other accused are brothers-in-law (Devar and Jeth)
and sister-in-law (Devrani) of the deceased whose names are Gopal, Deepak and
Sarita respectively. The witness further stated that he did not know about the
behaviour of the accused persons with Anju – deceased. Anju had disclosed him that
her husband after consuming liquor, used to commit violence with her and rest of the
accused did not do so. The witness further stated that Anju never disclosed him that
she was tortured by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. He further stated
that he did not know as to how Anju died and death occurred on 26.2.2013. He has
seen Anju dead in hospital and home. Panchnama was prepared in the presence of
this witness by Daroga Ji and witness signed the same along with other persons. He
recognized his signatures by point 'B'. He further stated that dead body was sealed in
his presence for postmortem. He was informed by Deepu about the death of Anju.
He further stated that Aditi disclosed in his presence that violence was committed by
her uncle, aunt and Tau with her mother and on the date of the incident also,
voilence was committed with the deceased. The witness further stated that accused
Amar Singh did not commit any violence with Anju nor he demanded any dowry nor
Anju committed suicide by consuming poison. At this stage, prosecution moved an
application to declare the witness hostile, upon which permission was granted to
prosecution to cross-examine the witness. In his cross-examination, he stated that it
is correct that Anju left behind one son and two daughters who are being forstered
by the accused persons present in the Court. He further stated that no compromise
was arrived at between the accused and witness side and it is wrong to say that due
to compromise witness was not telling truth. The witness stated that Daroga Ji had
not recorded his statement and when the witness was read over his statement
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he never gave any such statement and he
does not know as to how Daroga Ji has mentioned all this in his statement. It is also
wrong to say that the accused persons present in the Court harassed Anju due to
dowry demand and due to this reason, she committed suicide on 26.2.2013. This
 6

witness was cross-examined by the defence in which he stated that at the time of
incident, age of Aditi was about 2 years. He further stated that no violence was
committed by her in-laws with Anju in the presence of the witness and it is correct
that all the accused persons live separately.
9. Third witness Sundarwati – P.W. 3 in her statement deposed that she along
with her husband and parents of Anju arranged for the marriage of Anju with
accused Amar Singh present in the Court in 2004. The behaviour of in-laws of Anju
was normal with her and she never disclosed the witness about any
misbehaviour/violence with her by her in-laws. She further stated that out of the
wedlock of the deceased Anju and accused Amar Singh, one son and two daughters
were born who are being fostered by the accused persons. She further stated that she
does not know as to whether deceased was living separately from her in-laws. Anju
died unnatural death on 26.2.2013 and accused persons can only disclose how Anju
died. She further stated that she was told by the daughter of Anju that Deepu and
Sarita committed violence with Anju. At this stage, prosecution moved an
application to declare the witness hostile, upon which permission was granted to
prosecution to cross-examine the witness. In her cross-examination, she stated that it
is correct that children of the deceased are being fostered by the accused persons
present in the Court. She further stated that no compromise was arrived at between
the accused and witness side and it is wrong to say that due to compromise witness
was not telling truth. She further stated that Anju never disclosed the witness that her
in-laws used to harass the deceased on account of dowry. The witness stated that
Daroga Ji had not recorded her statement and when the witness was read over her
statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that he never gave any such statement
and she does not know as to how Daroga Ji has mentioned all this in her statement.
This witness was cross-examined by the defence in which she stated that at the time
of incident, age of Aditi was about 2 and half years. She further stated that Aditi told
the witness next day of the incident that violance was committed with deceased but
son of the deceased never disclosed about any violence.
10. Prosecution witness P.W. 4 is Ranjita who is the wife of complainant
 7

Ganga Singh and mother of deceased Anju. In her statement she stated that her
daughter Anju was married to present accused Amar Singh in 2004 with the consent
of all family members and the family of the witness gave dowry as per their status.
She further stated that Anju never disclosed the witness that her husband used to
commit violence with her after consuming liquor or in-laws of her daughter
committed violence with her. She further stated that as and when Anju was asked by
them in this regard, she used to tell that she would solve the matter of her own.
Witness further stated that Anju never disclosed the witness or her family members
that her in-laws committed violence with her on account of dowry demand. The
witness and her family members received a phone call in the evening of 26.2.2013
that Anju consumed poision, she is in hospital and come soon. When the witness and
her family members reached the hospital, Anju was found dead. The witness further
stated that her daughter used to work in School as 'Aya'. The witness further stated
that she was never told by anybody that the in-laws of Anju committed violence
with her. Witness further stated that the daughter of witness did not consume poision
but she cannot tell as to how she died. At this stage, prosecution moved an
application to declare the witness hostile, upon which permission was granted to
prosecution to cross-examine the witness. In her cross-examination, she stated that
witness has old relationship with accused persons, hence Anju was got married in
the family of accused persons. Three children of deceased are being fostered by the
accused persons. Witness further stated that children never disclosed the witness that
accused persons used to commit violence with Anju. The witness further stated that
no statement was recorded by Darogo Ji regarding this incident and when she was
read over and explained her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she
has not given any such statement. This witness was not cross-examined by the
learned defence counsel.
11. P.W. 5 Aditi is daughter of deceased aged 8 years who apparently seems to
be minor and she was asked some questions by the Court in order to ascertain her
mental ability to give evidence, upon which she stated that she goes school and she
is in class 4th. She further stated that she knows difference between truth and lie. She
 8

further stated that she knows the meaning of sin and charity. Sin is bad and charity is
good. She studies Hindi, English, Maths and Sanskrit in her school and the name of
her school is Government Primary School, Pithuwala. She further stated that Madam
teaches her. The Court after listening the answers of the witness considered that she
is capable to give evidence. In her evidence, she stated that she has come in the
Court along with her father, aunt, uncle and Tau to give evidence. She further stated
that they are three sisters and brother. There are one sister and one brother besides
the witness and all of them live with their father and and grand mother and they are
being fostered by them. She further stated that name of her mother was Anju and she
is no more as she died. She further stated that on the date of incident no quarrel took
place with her mother and her mother was not ill before her death. She further stated
that no Darogi Aunty inquired from her regarding the incident. When the witness
was asked that Lady Daroga has mentioned in the statement of this witness that the
mother of the witness was beaten by her father, uncle and Tau, she replied that she
had not given any such statement. She further stated that it is wrong to say that on
the date of incident her fahter, uncle, aunt and Tau committed violence with her
mother. She further stated that it is wrong to say that she was telling lie in order to
save her father. The witness herself stated that her maternal grand father, maternal
grand mother, maternal uncle and his wife do not look after the witness and her
brother and sister. She further stated that after the incident they are living happily
with their father and she never disclosed to her maternal grand father or maternal
grand mother regarding the violence having been committed with her mother. She
was not cross-examined by the defence counsel.
12. Section 306 of IPC prescribed for the punishment for abatement of suicide
as under:-
“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.”
 9

Further abetment of an offence has been defined u/s 107 of IPC which reads
as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- 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 things, 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.”

13. Hence, to hold guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide to any person,
prosecution must prove that either there must be direct or indirect instigation by the
accused or accused must be engaged for doing that thing or they must intentionally
aids, by any of their act for doing of such thing. For the offence of abetment, the act
of the accused must be such which is connected with the conduct of the deceased at
the time or immediately before the time of commission of suicide.
14. In the present case before this Court, the complainant of this case who is
the father of the deceased, in his cross-examination totally denied about the demand
of dowry by the accused persons, harassment and tortured extended by the accused
to the deceased or any complaint by the deceased to her parents that she was being
harassed by her materal side. Even P.W. 5 Aditi – minor, who might have been as
uninfluential and natural witness being a minor and the daughter of deceased, also
did not utter a single word which may support the prosection story.
15. On the basis of all evidence before this Court, this Court is of the view
that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons have committed any act
in relation to the deceased which can be defined as an act of abetment of suicide. In
the result, this Court is of the view that accused persons cannot be held guilty for the
offence charged against them and they deserve acquittal.
The following order is hereby passed.
 10

ORDER
Accused 1. Amar Singh, 2. Gopal @ Mannu, 3. Deepak @ Deepu and 4. Smt
Sarita are acquitted of the charge of offence punishable u/s 498-A/306 IPC. The
accused are on bail. They need not surrender. The sureties furnished by the accused
persons u/s 437A Cr.P.C. will stand up to six months.
The material exhibits if any, shall be kept safe till the period of appeal and if
appeal is filed, the same shall be kept safe as per the judgment of Appellate Court.

(N.S. Dhanik)
Sessions Judge
Dehradun
06.12.2016
Judgment signed, dated and pronounced in the open Court today.

(N.S. Dhanik)
Sessions Judge
Dehradun
06.12.2016