[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Govind Singh And Anr vs State on 19 December, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:54636]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 215/2000

1. Govind Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh                      R/o village, Badi Sadri,
Distt. Chittorgarh;
2. Smt. Sunitan Dixit W/o B.S. Dixit R/o Badi Sadri, Distt.
Chittorgarh.
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                        ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. K.C. Sharma}
                                   Mr. Bhagat Dadhich}
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati}
                                   Mr. Ravindra Singh} AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
                                    Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                     :    08/12/2025

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED :                                     08/12/2025

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART                                     :    Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                               :    19/12/2025.
BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal, the appellants

have made challenge to the judgment dated 01.05.2000 passed

by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.40/97 (109/97)whereby

the appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC and

sentenced to undergo six years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- each and

in default to further undergo three months RI.

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (2 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

2. The prosecution case originates from an incident dated

08.11.1996, when Smt. Lal Kunwar was admitted in a critical

condition at Badi Sadri Hospital. On receiving medical intimation,

Head Constable Devilal recorded her statement (Ex. P-6) in the

presence of the attending doctor, wherein she alleged that due to

persistent marital discord arising from an alleged illicit relationship

between her husband, accused Govind Singh, and a tenant named

Annu Madam, she was subjected to mental harassment.

2.1. According to the deceased, owing to frequent quarrels, she

had left her matrimonial home at Badi Sadri and had been residing

at her in-laws' house at Antar. On the evening of the incident,

Annu Madam, along with her son and another person, allegedly

visited her and insisted that she return to Badi Sadri, which she

refused. Soon thereafter, Lal Kunwar consumed a poisonous

substance, resulting in serious deterioration of her health. She

was taken to the hospital by an unknown person. Lal Kunwar

succumbed to her condition on 10.11.1996 at Udaipur Hospital.

Post-mortem was conducted and viscera was preserved for

chemical examination. Initially, a case was registered and after

investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC was filed

against accused Govind Singh and Sunita. The case was

committed to the Court of Sessions.

2.2. During trial, charges under Section 306 IPC were framed,

which the accused denied. The prosecution examined 17

witnesses. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the

accused denied all allegations. Accused Govind Singh asserted

cordial marital relations, while accused Sunita claimed false

implication. In defence, two witnesses were examined, who stated

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (3 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

that Lal Kunwar had consented to Govind Singh's second marriage

due to absence of children and that there was no history of

harassment or discord.

2.3. Upon completion of trial, the learned Court convicted the

accused for the offence above and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the appellants have

preferred the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

appellants' conviction under Section 306 IPC is wholly

unsustainable, as the prosecution has failed to establish any direct

act, instigation, or coercion by them that could have compelled

the deceased to commit suicide. It is further asserted that the

deceased had multiple reasonable alternatives available, including

seeking protection, redressal, or severing matrimonial ties, and

that suicide was neither inevitable nor the last recourse. He

further submit that the dying declaration and other evidence relied

upon by the prosecution are insufficient, inconsistent, and

contradicted by defence witnesses, who testified that the deceased

had consented to the second marriage and there was no history of

harassment or discord. Lastly, he argued that the instant appeal

maybe allowed as there is no mens rea or proximate conduct on

their part to attract criminal liability under Section 306 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand

submitted that the conviction is legally and factually justified.

They submitted that the appellants' alleged conduct, including

maintaining an illicit relationship and causing mental distress to

the deceased, sufficiently instigated her to commit suicide,

thereby satisfying the ingredients of abetment under Section 306

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (4 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

IPC. They emphasized that the dying declaration, supported by

medical evidence, establishes the mental harassment suffered by

the deceased, and that the defence version does not satisfactorily

negate or contradict the prosecution's case. They finally urged the

trial Court has rightly uphold the conviction and sentence,

asserting that the prosecution discharged its burden of proof

beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the instant appeal deserves to be

dimissed.

5. I have meticulously heard learned counsel for both sides and

perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire evidentiary

corpus.

6. The Court has carefully examined the factual matrix,

evidentiary record, and arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for both parties. The prosecution case, as narrated,

revolves around the tragic death of Smt. Lal Kunwar on

10.11.1996, following alleged mental harassment arising out of

marital discord and the purported illicit relationship of the

appellant Govind Singh with a third party, Annu Madam.

6.1. The prosecution contends that the deceased was subjected

to persistent mental distress and, as a consequence, consumed

poison, resulting in her demise. The appellant has been convicted

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which

prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide. For reference,

Section 306 IPC reads as follows:

"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."

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (5 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

In evaluating the applicability of Section 306 IPC, this Court

has had regard to the established principles articulated in a similar

controversy in SBCRLMP No.709/2013, Smt. Chandra Devi &

Ors. vs. State & Anr., decided on 07.02.2025, where it was

observed that mere allegations of harassment or illicit

relationships, without proof of direct instigation, coercion, or

provocation, are insufficient to sustain a conviction for abetment

of suicide.The relevant part of the said order is being reproduced

as under:-

"4.1. The deceased committed suicide on 08.11.2004 and an inquest report No.34/2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and inquired into. Upon finding the body under the bridge of a water drainage, an inquiry was made by the police. There were no injuries or mark of violence on his body. The petitioners Smt. Chanda Devi and Vasudev as well as the respondent Smt. Vidhya Devi were also interrogated in inquiry of inquest report. It was stated by them to police that the deceased was a heavy drunker and they had no doubt upon anyone over his untime demise. The complaint was submitted in the Court on 23.11.2004 and an FIR was lodged on 04.01.2005.

4.2. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the respondent about the inordinate delay occurred in lodging of the FIR and certainly, the same give rise to a reasonable suspicion over the genuineness of the allegations. The possibility of concoction, exaggeration, over implication, false implication and embellishment cannot be ruled out. What were the reasons for the respondent to not report the matter to the police regarding death of his young son certainly

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (6 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

creates a doubt in genuineness of the allegations, in normal circumstance, she was supposed to report the matter to the police promptly.

4.3. The another aspect of the matter would be that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague, bald and evasive since these were her perception without having any solid fact. As a matter of fact, no wrongdoing as alleged by her in the complaint was committed in her presence since she was not present when the alleged act of torture upon the deceased were made by the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioners No.2 & 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. She may have some discord with her husband relatable to some domestic issues but it does not mean that her alleged misbehaviour towards her husband can be taken as an act of abatement to commit suicide. The facts revealing that she had left the matrimony and lodged a case of cruelty against her husband however, at a subsequent stage, she entered into compromise and withdrew the criminal case. There is no nexus between the criminal case lodged by her and her son's death because of the serious difference of time gap. No instant or immediate cause has been shown or even alleged by the respondent for which it can be said that the same was sufficient enough to instigate the deceased to end his life. Simply because there was a discord between the spouses and they were living separately and that the husband has committed suicide, it cannot be said that the wife was responsible for ending life of her husband. Even, in this case, the above circumstance has also ended up when the petitioner No.1 entered into compromise and withdrew the prosecution.

4.4. It is nigh well settled principle of law and so also rule of prudence that whenever a prayer is made for

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (7 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

taking cognizance of offence on a negative final report/ closure report, it is imperative upon the judicial officer to go through the opinion of the Investigating Officer also before proceeding further in the matter. I am of the view that before issuance of process upon a negative final report, it was incumbent upon the judicial officer to show his disagreement with the negative final report wherein it was concluded that the deceased Nitesh had drown in the water and he was not compelled by anyone to commit suicide.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the Court of Revision, do not reveal observance of any fact mentioned above.

6. For the sake of repetition, it is deemed pertinent to mention again that there was no direct evidence or even a material to infer that the deceased committed suicide upon an instigation given by the petitioners. The allegations of complainant are based upon surmises and conjectures and certainly, the same cannot be a substitute of legal evidence.

7. A critical analysis of the material do not suggesting that the petitioners may have created such an atmosphere towards the deceased in which he had left with no other option but to end his life. Even the fact of committing suicide is a disputed fact, in light of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. since as per them, it may be an accidental drowning.

7.1. It is often observed that when relations between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law are strained and lack harmony, the unnatural death of the son may lead the mother to lodge a case against her daughter-in- law, driven by emotions rather than legitimate grounds and solid proof.

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (8 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

7.2. This Court would like to emphasize that an offence under Section 306 of the IPC should not be invoked mechanically. It must be established that strong circumstances exist to show that the accused actively contributed to the suicide of the deceased. The term "abetment" is defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which includes instigating someone to commit suicide, conspiring with others to facilitate the act, or aiding the suicide through any act or omission. In such cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused's actions of instigation or incitement were in close proximity to the act of suicide by the deceased. In certain circumstances, the offence may be inferred from the overall situation, where the accused is shown to have placed the victim in a position of no escape, compelling them to end their life. However, this Court firmly believes that a prosecution under Section 306 IPC cannot be initiated casually or merely to appease the sentiments of the deceased's family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding them in committing an act.

It must also be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof--either direct or circumstantial--of an actual act of instigation leading to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without any positive or overt act proximate to the time of occurrence, which directly led or compel the deceased to take their life, do not constitute a sustainable prosecution under Section 306 IPC. Given the absence of cogent, reliable, clinching, and convincing evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be substantiated, even if the accused were forced to undergo trial".

(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:52:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:54636] (9 of 10) [CRLA-215/2000]

Applying the above legal principle to the facts of the present

case, it is evident that even assuming the prosecution's allegations

in their entirety, the deceased had alternative courses of action

available, including seeking protection, approaching authorities for

redressal, or severing matrimonial ties. There is no material to

suggest that the appellant engaged in any overt act, instigation,

or coercion that rendered suicide the only or inevitable recourse.

6.2. The evidence on record, including the statements of

witnesses, does not establish the requisite mens rea or proximate

causation necessary for abetment under Section 306 IPC. The