AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of parties arguments heard finally.
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram in Sessions Trial No.20/2026, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased was married to the appellant on 11.03.2025 according to Hindu rites and customs and thereafter started residing in her matrimonial home along with the appellant, his brother, father and mother. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant and his family members started demanding a four-wheeler vehicle and cash of about Rs.7-8 lakhs as additional dowry and subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty whenever the demand remained unfulfilled. On 23.10.2025 at about 11:15 p.m., the deceased allegedly committed suicide by drowning in the Narmada River near Pichin Ghat, Narmadapuram, within seven months of her marriage. On receiving hospital intimation, the police registered a merg, conducted inquest proceedings, prepared the spot map and got the post-mortem conducted, wherein the cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to drowning. During investigation, statements of the relatives of the deceased alleging dowry demand and cruelty were recorded, whereafter Crime No.915/2025 was registered against the appellant and his family members for offences under Sections 80(2), 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence. The learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons but convicted the present appellant for offences under Sections 108 and 85 of the BNS.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and recorded conviction merely on the basis of interested testimony and inadmissible electronic evidence without any reliable and independent corroboration. It was argued that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 108 and 85 of the BNS were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and there was no evidence of cruelty or dowry demand. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of material witnesses, particularly the mother and sister of the deceased, suffered from material omissions and contradictions, while several prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. It was also contended that the allegations regarding demand of a vehicle and cash were vague and omnibus; no suicide note or dying declaration was recovered; the medical evidence only established death by drowning and did not support the allegation of abetment; and the trial court failed to appreciate the conversation between the sister of the deceased with the appellant and another conversation between the brother of the deceased with the deceased. On these grounds, it was prayed that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
Per contra, learned Panel lawyer contended that the prosecution successfully established that the deceased died an unnatural death within a few months of her marriage and that she was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment in connection with unlawful demand of dowry. It was further submitted that the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased, coupled with the medical and documentary evidence, clearly established the prosecution case and attracted the statutory presumption available in law. It was further argued that the alleged omissions or minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case and that the conviction of the appellant is based on proper appreciation of evidence. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence be affirmed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Though it is undisputed that the deceased died an unnatural death within a short period of her marriage, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. To constitute an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of abetment on the part of accused as contemplated under 45 of BNS. For ready reference, Section 108 of BNS is reproduced hereinbelow:
“108.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”
Further, abetment is defined under Section 45 of the BNS, which reads as under:-
45.Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
(a)instigates any person to do that thing; or
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
(c)intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
8 . From the aforesaid perusal offence Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the IPC can be attracted only when the material on record prima facie establishes that accused had abetted the commission of suicide within the meaning of Section 45 of the BNS. Abetment necessarily requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, unless the prosecution material discloses a positive act amounting to instigation, conspiracy, or intentional assistance, no charge under Section 108 BNS can be sustained.
A significant circumstance which demolishes the prosecution case is the telephonic conversation between the deceased and her cousin brother Mayur @ Bittu, exhibited as Ex.P-7. The prosecution itself relied upon the said conversation; however, a careful reading thereof reveals that the deceased nowhere made any allegation against the appellant regarding demand of dowry, physical or mental cruelty, harassment or any conduct compelling her to end her life. Rather than lending support to the prosecution, Ex.P-7 completely contradicts the prosecution story and fails to establish the essential link between the alleged cruelty and the unfortunate death of the deceased. Silence of the deceased regarding the allegations of dowry demand and harassment in her own conversation assumes considerable significance and creates a serious dent in the prosecution version.
Another important piece of evidence which has been completely overlooked by the learned trial Court is the telephonic conversation between the appellant and Kajal (PW-1), sister of the deceased, exhibited as Ex.D-5. The said conversation, which has been admitted by Kajal in her cross-examination, is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution case. In the conversation, Kajal informed the appellant that within two days his divorce with the deceased was going to take place. She further threatened the appellant by stating that the deceased was about to consume poison and commit suicide and that thereafter the appellant would not be able to do anything. The conversation further reveals that the deceased herself was present on the call and was listening to the entire conversation. Kajal also extended threats to the appellant during the conversation. These admitted facts are wholly incompatible with the prosecution allegation that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty by the appellant. On the contrary, Ex.D-5 probabilises the defence version and raises a serious and reasonable doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution story.
Allegations made by PW-1 Kajal and PW-2 Sunita, being close relatives of the deceased, regarding demand of a four-wheeler vehicle and cash of Rs.7-8 lakhs remain general and omnibus in nature without any specific incident or convincing independent corroboration. The material omissions and contradictions brought on record during cross-examination further impair the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
To constitute an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of "abetment" as defined under Section 45 of BNS which corresponds to 107 of IPC. The essential ingredients of abetment are instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. Mere assault, harassment, quarrel or humiliation, without a positive act coupled with the requisite mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide, does not satisfy the statutory requirements. In the present case, neither the suicide note nor the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation disclose any act on the part of the appellant amounting to instigation or intentional aid. There is no allegation that the appellant exhorted the deceased to commit suicide or created such circumstances leaving her with no option except to end her life.
The Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (2009) 16 SCC 605, has observed as under:-
“35.Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This Court held as follows:
17.Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18.Similarly, “urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
35.1.Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:
(i)the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii)that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that "instigation" under Section 107 of IPC/ Section 45 of BNS involves a positive act of provoking, inciting, urging or encouraging the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment, annoyance or ordinary disputes are not sufficient unless they are accompanied by a clear intention (mens rea) to drive the deceased to take the extreme step. Thus, to attract Section 306 of IPC/Section 45 of BNS, the prosecution must prima facie establish both a deliberate act of instigation by the accused and the requisite mens rea to provoke or encourage the commission of suicide.
Another circumstance which cannot be ignored is that the learned trial Court has acquitted the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased of all the charges. The allegations against all the accused persons were founded on the same set of evidence and the prosecution attributed a common demand of dowry and common acts of harassment to all of them. Once the trial Court itself found the evidence insufficient to convict the remaining accused persons, there was no justifiable reason to single out the present appellant for conviction when the nature of evidence against him is substantially identical and inseparable. In the absence of any distinct or independent incriminating material exclusively against the appellant, such selective conviction is neither supported by the evidence nor legally sustainable.
The learned trial Court, while recording conviction, has failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of Ex.P-7 and Ex.D-5 in their proper perspective and has overlooked the material admissions elicited during cross-examination of PW-1 Kajal. These pieces of evidence strike at the very root of the prosecution case and create a reasonable doubt regarding the allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of dowry demand. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence adduced, the one favourable to the accused must prevail. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances renders the prosecution case doubtful and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of such doubt.
Accordingly, the present criminal appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram in Sessions Trial No.20/2026 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 108 and 85 of the BNS. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if already deposited, shall be refunded to the appellant in accordance with law.