Tahir Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

By means of the instant criminal revision the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda in S.T. No. 968 of 2025, arising out of Case crime no.74 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, police station – Khargoopur, District Gonda.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

It is submitted that according to the prosecution version informant Mod. Aslam alias Muneem lodged FIR on the basis of written report at police station concerned on 30.4.2025 with allegation that he has married his daughter Mantasa, aged 26 years to accused Shahid in the year 2016 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals.

¶12

Accused persons her husband, father in law and other family members used to harass her and subject her to domestic violence due to which she became perturbed and on 28.4.2025 she committed suicide at 01:00 PM in the day at her matrimonial place.

¶13

He next submitted that the police submitted charge sheet under section 108 BNS which is an alter ego of Section 306 IPC. There is no allegation against revisionists regarding demand of dowry and subjecting her to matrimonial cruelty on account of demand of dowry.

¶14

It is submitted fact that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and this fact is also corroborated by the postmortem report of the deceased in which no other injury except ligature mark was found. There is no evidence against the revisionists in support of charge under Section 108 BNS that the

¶15

CRLR No. 166 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. For fulfilment of charge under section 306 IPC or Section 108 BNS, it is essential that there is evidence of abetment and it is shown that the intention of the accused was to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, to bring the case under this provision it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinshinh Chavda and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2025) 2 SCC 116 wherein it is held that :-

¶19

"27. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely lied to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide.

¶20

28. It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.

¶21

30. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence or direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions, requiring the court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in the instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of suicide.

¶22

34. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in – laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of means rea to instigate suicide of the deceased person. Therefore, prima facie, it

¶23

CRLR No. 166 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased."

¶26

He lastly submitted that the learned trial court has dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist without taking into consideration the fact that there is no evidence of abetment against the revisionist collected during investigation except general allegation that accused persons harassed and beat the deceased due to which she was driven to commit suicide.

¶27

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed and submitted that it was continuous harassment and cruelty practised by the accused persons against the deceased which had driven her to commit suicide.

¶28

In view of the above submissions and citation of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid, matter requires consideration.

¶29

Admit.

¶30

Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶31

List on 08.4.2026.

¶32

Counter affidavit may be filed within three weeks and rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶33

Till the next date of listing the proceedings of framing of charge shall remain stayed against the revisionists.