[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rupa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:55237]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 12/1995
Shri Rupa Ram S/o Shri Gena Ramji aged about 25 years, R/o
Village Bhakarpura. Tehsil Guddamalani District Barmer
(Rajasthan)
Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Kusha Sharma (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA with
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Reportable
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 08/12/2025
Date on which Judgment is Reserved : 08/12/2025
Full Judgment or Operative Part : Full Judgment
Date of Pronouncement : 09/01/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 372(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated
22.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Barmer in Sessions Case No.22/94, whereby the appellant
was convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (2 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of
payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to
undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel Ms. Kusha Sharma is hereby appointed as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant
under the free legal aid scheme of Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority. The remuneration to learned counsel
shall be paid by RSLSA as the per the rules.
3. The facts, in brief, are that on 04.04.1994, the appellant
himself lodged a written report at Police Station
Guddamalani, stating therein that his wife, Smt. Loonga, had
committed suicide at their matrimonial home. On the basis
of the said information, proceedings under Section 174 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. An inquiry
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was conducted by P.W.-1 Chuna
Ram, the then Tehsildar of the area, who had been appointed
by the District Magistrate to conduct the inquest. The
morgue proceedings bearing No. 4/94 were conducted in
which the father of the deceased, P.W.-3 Rai Mal, and her
mother, P.W.-8 Smt. Mathura, also participated. After
completion of the inquest inquiry, the Tehsildar prepared his
investigation report and forwarded the same to Police Station
Guddamalani for registration of a regular case and further
investigation. Consequently, the police registered a case
against the appellant, carried out investigation and
ultimately filed a challan against him for the offence under
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (3 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
Section 306 IPC before the competent court, which
thereafter committed the case to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Barmer.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, after
conducting trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide
judgment and order dated 22.12.1994 in the manner stated
hereinabove. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
5. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
6. It is an undisputed fact emerging from the record that the
deceased was married to the appellant about four years prior
to the date of the incident. A male child aged about three
years was born out of the wedlock. The deceased ended her
life at the matrimonial home after four years of marriage.
7. As per the post-mortem report (Exhibits 11 and 12), the
cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia. No external or
internal injury was found on her body.
P.W.-1 Chuna Ram, the Tehsildar, conducted the inquest
proceedings and concluded the inquiry under Section 174
Cr.P.C. P.W.-2 Mahipal Singh, the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police, arrested the appellant after
conducting investigation. According to the opinion expressed
by P.W.-2, the deceased had gone to her parental house, and
upon returning, she was rebuked by her husband, which,
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (4 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
according to him, constituted the immediate cause for her to
take the extreme step.
8. P.W.-3 Rai Mal, the father of the deceased, alleged that his
daughter was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws on account
of demand of dowry. He initially went to the extent of
alleging that his daughter had been killed; however, such
allegation stood negated by the prosecution itself.
In his cross-examination, P.W.-3 admitted the existence of a
prevailing social custom in their community, whereby the
daughter of the appellant's brother was married to the son of
this witness. Both marriages one between the appellant and
the deceased and the other being a cross-marriage were
solemnized simultaneously. He further admitted that a
dispute arose when the betrothal of his son was discontinued
by the family of the appellant.
9. P.W.-4 Swarooparam, P.W.-5 Bhagwan Singh, P.W.-7 Moda
Ram and P.W.-9 Jawanaram are formal witnesses whose
testimonies are largely hearsay in nature and do not directly
implicate the appellant on the crucial aspect of alleged
abetment. P.W.-8 Smt. Mathura, the mother of the deceased,
raised suspicion regarding the death of her daughter and
made allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. However,
significant discrepancies and contradictions are discernible
between her testimony and that of her husband, P.W.-3.
10. A careful perusal of the inquest proceedings conducted
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. reveals that neither P.W.-3 nor
P.W.-8 made any allegation therein regarding cruelty,
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (5 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
harassment or dowry demand against the appellant or his
family members. The silence maintained by the prime
witnesses at the earliest point of time assumes considerable
significance.
It is also evident from the admissions made by P.W.-3 that
he never lodged any complaint before any authority
regarding the alleged maltreatment of his daughter during
her lifetime. The absence of contemporaneous complaints or
corroborative material renders the allegations levelled
subsequently highly doubtful.
11. The existence of admitted family and social disputes
arising out of the cross-marriage arrangement and the
discontinuance of the betrothal of P.W.-3's son furnishes a
plausible background for strained relations between the two
families, thereby affecting the credibility of the allegations.
The testimony of P.W.-8 further discloses, in cross-
examination, that the family of the appellant had been
ostracized by the society and that, as a consequence, the
deceased was also not permitted to visit her parental home.
These circumstances indicate the presence of social pressure
and family discord.
12. Even if it is assumed that the deceased may have been
scolded or rebuked for visiting her parental home against the
wishes of her in-laws, such conduct, by itself, does not
amount to "cruelty" or "abetment" of the nature
contemplated under Section 306 IPC. There is no material on
record to establish that the conduct of the appellant was
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (6 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
such as would drive the deceased to a position of complete
mental imbalance compelling her to end her life.
No direct or cogent evidence has been brought on record by
the prosecution to demonstrate intentional instigation, active
aid or persistent conduct on the part of the appellant, which
could reasonably be said to have driven the deceased to
commit suicide.
13. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
The prosecution evidence, when evaluated as a whole, falls
short of establishing the essential ingredients of abetment
beyond reasonable doubt.
14. 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.
15. 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
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (7 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
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.
16. 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.
17. In view of the evidence available and the legal position,
this Court feels that the prosecution miserably failed to prove
the charge of abetment to commit suicide against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court
failed to appreciate the correct, legal and factual aspects of
the matter.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the
judgment dated 22.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No.22/94 is hereby
quashed and set aside. He is acquitted of the charge of
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55237] (8 of 8) [CRLA-12/1995]
section 306 IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
He need not surrender.
19. Record be sent back forthwith.
20. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-
A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like
amount before the learned trial court, which shall be
effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the
event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present
judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall
appear before the Supreme Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
11-divya/-
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 02:30:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
