Umesh vs State Of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1588 of 2012
Umesh
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Sinha, Kunwar Ravi Prakash,
Riyaz Ahmad, Sarvesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate,
Court No. - 14
HON’BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Chandra
Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Nikita Mishra,
the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the
appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order
dated 19.10.2012, passed by Sri Lalloo Singh, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court Number 8, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 103 of
2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2008, under Sections 498-A,
304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Alambagh, District Lucknow whereby although the appellant has been
acquitted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 306
IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine for the aforesaid offence.

2
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint
given to the Inspector-in-Charge, Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow by the
complainant Devi Prasad on 08.09.2008, stating that his sister’s daughter
Suman had got married to Umesh (the appellant) about one year ago. Her
husband used to beat her day in and day out and being aggrieved by it, she
consumed some poison inside her mother’s home at about 11.00 a.m. on
08.09.2008. She was admitted to Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow. 

4. Subsequently, the words ‘ ’ were inserted so as to make the
दहेजकेलिए
sentence read that the appellant used to beat his wife day in and day out for
dowry. The complaint also bears the signature of one Mahesh Kumar who
had inscribed the complaint. On the aforesaid written complaint, FIR bearing
Case Crime No. 490 of 2008 was registered in Police Station Alambagh on
08.09.2008 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act. The victim died on 09.09.2008 in King George
Medical College, Lucknow and thereafter Section 304-B IPC was added.
5. The postmortem examination report mentions that there was no mark
of injury on any part of the dead body. The cause of death could not be
ascertained and viscera was preserved for examination. The viscera
examination report mentions presence of aluminum phosphide poison in the
parts of the body sent for examination.
6. The inquest report records the opinion of the witnesses that the
deceased had consumed some poisonous substance inside her mother’s home
after having had some quarrel with her husband.
7. The complainant Devi Prasad was examined as PW-1. He reiterated
the FIR version. He stated that the appellant used to ask his wife to bring
money from her mother to enable him to purchase a tempo. The deceased
had come to his house at about 9.00 a.m. on 08.09.2008 and had told that the
appellant was beating her for pressurizing her to coerce her mother to sell
her jewelry and give money to him. She had left her daughter at the home of
PW-1. He further stated that mother of the deceased was admitted to

3
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
Thakurganj TB Hospital. After some time, a boy from his locality told that
the appellant had administered poison to his wife. PW-1 went to the house of
his niece and found the appellant sitting near her. Upon seeing PW-1, the
appellant ran away. PW-1 took his niece to a private hospital. The hospital
did not admit her and thereafter he took her to Balrampur Hospital where she
was admitted. Thereafter he gave the written complaint to the police. He
stated that he had dictated the complaint to another person and when he read
it, he found that dowry had not been mentioned in it and thereafter he asked
the person to add the allegation of dowry in it. The written complaint was
marked as Exhibit A-1.
8. PW-1 further stated that when the condition of his niece deteriorated,
she was taken to Medical College where she died the following day at 9:30
p.m. He proved the inquest report, which was marked as Exhibit A-2.
9. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that father of the victim had
died about two years prior to the incident and only the deceased and her
mother used to reside in their home. The deceased did not do any work and
her mother used to do household chores in other houses to earn her living.
They were poor persons. He stated that he did not remember the date of
marriage of the deceased, but it took place about one year ago beside the
pond in Chandrika Devi Temple compound at Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.
Due to the poor financial condition of the deceased’s mother, the marriage
was not performed in any marriage hall and it was performed in the
Chandrika Devi Temple compound and that too, without giving any dowry.
10. PW-1 further stated in his cross-examination that during inquest
proceedings he had expressed his opinion that the deceased had consumed
some poison in her mother’s home, but he had not mentioned any
harassment for demanding dowry. He further admitted that he had told the
doctor in the Medical College that his niece had consumed 100 ml. acid after
quarreling with her husband and she had vomited. Thereafter she was taken
to Balrampur Hospital where first aid was given to her and thereafter she
was referred to KGMC. PW-1 also stated that there was a loving relationship

4
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
between the appellant and the deceased and it was because of their love
affair that they had married each other on 15.10.2007. A daughter was born
six months after their marriage. PW-1 admitted that no application or
complaint was given prior to the incident alleging demand of dowry. He
stated that the mother of the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis, but
he denied the suggestion that she died because of tuberculosis. He added that
his sister had died grieving for her daughter. He also stated that the appellant
was also suffering from tuberculosis. PW-1 also stated that after the death of
his niece and sister, all her properties came to his possession.
11. The wife of the complainant was examined as PW-2 and she gave a
similar statement. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the appellant
and the deceased were in a loving relationship since before and they had got
married with the consent of their family members. The deceased had got
pregnant by the appellant prior to her marriage. The marriage ceremony was
performed in a temple without any dowry. She stated that her house was
situated at a distance of about two furlongs from the house of the deceased. 
She further stated that although the deceased had told about misbehavior and
harassment by the appellant, she or her husband had not given any complaint
in this regard. 
12. Mahesh Kumar, the son-in-law of the complainant, who had inscribed
the FIR was examined as PW-3 and he also supported the prosecution case.
13. One Rajesh Kumar, uncle of the deceased, was examined as PW-4 and
he too supported the prosecution case. During cross-examination, PW-4
stated that he was a witness to the inquest proceeding during which he had
told the Magistrate that after quarreling with her husband, the deceased had
consumed some poisonous substance inside her mother’s home due to which
she died. PW-4 also stated that the marriage was performed in Chandrika
Devi Temple without any dowry as the mother of the deceased was very
poor. He stated that the appellant’s financial condition was good. PW-4 also
stated that there was a loving affair between the deceased and the appellant

5
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
since before their marriage and the deceased was pregnant prior to her
marriage.
14. The doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination of the
dead body, was examined as PW-5. He stated that there was no mark of any
injury on any part of the dead body. He had sent viscera for examination.
15. The Magistrate who had conducted the inquest proceedings, was
examined as PW-6.
16. The trial court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the
demand of dowry and harassment therefor and, therefore, acquitted the
appellant of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the trial court held that the statements of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 established that there were disputes between
the appellant and the deceased, which implies that the appellant was
harassing the deceased and the deceased consumed poison and thereby
committed suicide for this reason. The trial court held that the prosecution
evidence established strained relations between the appellant and his wife
and the deceased committed suicide because of harassment by the appellant,
which amounts to abetment to commit suicide.
17. Section 306 IPC reads as under: -
“ 3 06. 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.”
18. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code
in the following words: -
“ 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 thing, if an act or illegal omission takes

6
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
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.’
Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission
of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act,
and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.”
19. In  State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal : (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has cautioned that: -
17.  …the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts
“
and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial
for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim
had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.  If it
transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting
the offence of suicide should be found guilty …”
(Emphasis added)
20. In  Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) : (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there
should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
21. In  Ude Singh v. State of Haryana : (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that: -
“ 15.  Thus, “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person
in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when:
(i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or

7
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
(ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing; or
(iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.
These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word
“instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do anything.
16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of
direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide . It
could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human
behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of
suicide.  In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the
time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1.  For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission
of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty
of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated
by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.  If the persons
who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the
accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the
accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a
situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section
306 IPC . If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem
and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases
would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the
accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked,
a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the

8
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to
be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and
the deceased.
16.2.  We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could
react in myriad ways; and impact of one’s action on the mind of another
carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any
other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or
yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors
related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups,
education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its
impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including
those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case
is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.”
(emphasis added)
22. In  Prakash v. State of Maharashtra : (2026) 6 SCC 251, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that: -
“ 18.  Section 306 IPC has two basic ingredients—first, an act of suicide
by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another
person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the
suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such
contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 IPC has to be satisfied.
19.  Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, has been interpreted, time
and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence
of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused,
which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea
to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.
20.  The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular
thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 IPC, the act of abetment
would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding
another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of
the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge
under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires

9
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which
left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.”
23. In  Balaji Jaiswal v. State of Chattisgarh : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 602,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to some precedents on the point in issue
and held that: -
“ 11. From the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that for sustaining a
charge under Section 306 of the Penal Code, it has to be shown that the
accused persons had contributed to the suicide by the deceased through
some direct or indirect act. Section 107 of the Penal Code has thereafter
been referred to hold that there ought to be some instigation or
incitement that would reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide, thus, leading the victim to such a position that he/she would
have no other option but to commit suicide.  There ought to be some
material to indicate a positive act of instigation, which is a crucial
component of abetment. Instigation or incitement on the part of the
accused person has been held to be the gravamen of the offence of
abetment to suicide. The act of instigation also has to be in close
proximity to the act of suicide so as to form the nexus or a chain to
indicate that the act of suicide was the direct result of the act of
instigation by the accused person ….”
(emphasis added)
24. In the present case, the trial court has acquitted the appellant of the
charges under Section Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, as demand of dowry could not be established. However, the
trial court held that the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4
established strained relations between the appellant and his wife and she
committed suicide because of harassment by the appellant, which amounts to
abetment of suicide. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ude Singh (supra), the mere allegation of harassment of the
deceased would not suffice to prove the charge of abetment of suicide,
unless it is proved that the appellant intentionally acted in a manner which
compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
25. The deceased committed suicide because of domestic quarrels
between herself and the appellant, and there is no evidence to prove that it
was uncommon to the society to which she belonged. There is no material to

10
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
establish that the quarrel was expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
women of the society to which the deceased belonged, to commit suicide.
Therefore, there is no material to justify the finding that the appellant is
guilty of abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
26. In  Nipun Aneja v. State of U.P. : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to numerous precedents on the point of
what would constitute abetment to commit suicide and concluded that: -
“ 21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
306 IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is
committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming
encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to
commit suicide…  The problem is that the courts just look into the
factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such
understanding on the part of the courts is wrong . It all depends on the
nature of the offence & accusation. …”
(emphasis added)
27. The aforesaid observation squarely applies to the facts of the present
case, where the trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 306 IPC merely because the relations between the appellant and his
wife were strained, the appellant had harassed her and after quarreling with
the appellant, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. While
holding the appellant guilty of abetment of suicide of his wife, the trial court
has merely looked into the factum of suicide and has ignored the fact that it
is not proved that the deceased committed suicide because of abetment
caused by the appellant and the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of
offence under Section 306 IPC.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove guilt of the appellant and,
therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court is unsustainable in law. 
29. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed . The impugned judgment
and order dated judgment and order dated 19.10.2012, passed by Sri Lalloo

11
CRLA No. - 1588 of 2012
Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Number 8, Lucknow in
Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2008,
under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Alambagh, District Lucknow whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 306 IPC, is set aside
and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
30. The appellant is directed to comply with the provision of Section 437-
A Cr.P.C. and execute a personal bond within a period of two weeks from
today, undertaking to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case any
appeal is filed against this order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court issues
notice of the appeal to the appellant. Such bond shall remain in force for a
period of six months from today.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Whether the judgment is speaking - Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable - No
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
September 03, 2026
Ram.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench