IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008

Reserved on: 26.08.2026

Pronounced on: 31.08.2026

Uploaded on: 31.08.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Kirna Devi @ Kanchan and others

…Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM

: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Argued by:- Mr. Abhijeet Partap, Advocate for

Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate

for appellants No.1 and 3.

Proceedings qua appellant No.2-Pushpa Devi

stood abated vide order dated 12.08.2026.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab

for the respondent-State.

Mr. Karanpreet Singh, Advocate

for the complainant.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27

th

November, 2008

and 29

th

November, 2008 respectively, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby the appellants have

been convicted and sentenced as under:-

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -2-

Convicts Under

Section 

Imprisonment

awarded 

Fine  Imprisonment

in default of

payment of

fine 

Kirna

Devi

Section

306 IPC 

R.I. for 02 years  Rs.100/-  R.I. for 07

days  

Pushpa

Devi

Section

306 IPC

R.I. for 01 year Rs.100/-  R.I. for 07

days  

Jai Pal Section

306 IPC

R.I. for 02 years Rs.100/-  R.I. for 07

days  

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as set out in the challan, is

that on 27.07.2005, ASI Nazar Singh along with ASI Lachhman Dass, HC

Joga Singh, HC Parminder Singh and PHG Ajit Singh were on patrolling

duty in vehicle No. PB-13E-1939 and were present near Gurdwara

Mastuana Sahib. At that time, Harinder Kumar son of late Hukam Chand,

resident of Bahadurpur, got his statement recorded to the effect that his

elder brother Harpal Garg was married to Kirna @ Kanchan daughter of

Ganpat Rai, resident of Lehal Kalan, about five years earlier and a son had

been born out of the wedlock. Harpal Garg and his family were running a

flour mill and a Karyana shop at Bahadurpur as a joint business. After some

time of the marriage, Kirna Devi started quarrelling with Harpal Garg and

allegedly taunted and pressurized him to separate from the other members

of the family and to start a separate business, whereas Harpal Garg did not

want to separate. After the death of Hukam Chand, Kirna Devi allegedly

started mentally harassing Harpal Garg and quarrelling with him on the

issue of separation in business. It was further alleged that whenever his

father-in-law Ganpat Rai, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi and brother-in-law

Jai Pal visited Harpal Garg at Bahadurpur, they also quarrelled with him

and Kirna Devi restrained him from speaking to other family members.

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -3-

Harpal Garg was stated to have become greatly disturbed and, on one

occasion, told his brother that instead of living in such an atmosphere, it

was better to die. On 26.07.2005, Harpal Garg left on his scooter bearing

registration No. PB-13J-7952 at about 6-7 p.m. without disclosing his

destination. When he did not return till late night, Harinder Kumar went to

his house and, on enquiry, Kirna Devi disclosed that Harpal Garg had left at

about 6-7 p.m. and had not returned. Harinder Kumar, along with Sukhdev

Singh, went in search of him and at about 10-10:30 p.m. found his scooter

on the right side of the road towards the narrow canal of their village from

Mastuana Sahib and Harpal Garg lying near the scooter. A note was

allegedly recovered from the pocket of Harpal Garg, stated to have been

written by him, wherein he held his wife responsible for his suicide and

also named his in-laws as responsible. On the basis of the said information,

the case was registered under Section 306/34 IPC. The scooter was taken

into possession, the opinion of the handwriting and fingerprint expert was

obtained and, after completion of investigation, the challan was presented

before learned trial Court.

3. On presentation of the challan under Section 306/34 IPC, a

prima-facie case was found to be made out against the accused and,

accordingly, Kirna Devi, Pushpa Devi and Jai Pal were charge-sheeted for

the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. They did not plead guilty

and claimed trial. Initially, the challan had been presented against Kirna

Devi, Pushpa Devi and Jai Pal. Thereafter, during the course of trial, an

application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Ganpat

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -4-

Rai as an additional accused, which was allowed. Consequently, the charge

was amended and all the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution led its evidence.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.

R.S. Kaler, PW-2 Rattan Singh, Clerk, PW-3 Amrik Singh, Patwari, PW-4

Harinder Kumar, PW-5 MHC Karamjit Singh, PW-6 Mohinder Singh, PW-7

Sukhdev Singh, PW-8 HC Jogga Singh, PW-9 Varsha Sharma, PW-10

Sukhwinder Singh, PW-11 ASI Lachhman Dass, PW-12 Harwinder Singh

and PW-15 Dr. Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan. Thereafter, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution evidence.

5. During the pendency of the case, accused No.4 Ganpat Rai died

and proceedings qua him were ordered to be abated vide order dated

05.07.2007. Thereafter, the statements of the remaining accused were

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the circumstances appearing

against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication.

However, the accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.

6. Learned trial Court heard the arguments advanced by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned defence

counsel and, after considering the evidence available on record, convicted

all the three accused, namely, Kirna Devi, Pushpa Devi and Jai Pal, for the

offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them as noticed

hereinabove. While recording the finding of conviction, learned trial Court

placed considerable reliance upon the testimony of PW-4 Harinder Kumar,

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -5-

brother of the deceased, who deposed regarding the continuous quarrelling,

nagging and pressure exerted upon Harpal Garg by his wife Kirna Devi and

her parental family, including Pushpa Devi and Jai Pal, with a view to

compel him to separate his business from the family. Learned trial Court

further relied upon the suicide note recovered from the person of the

deceased, wherein the deceased had attributed responsibility for his death

to his wife and her parental family. The trial Court also noticed the

evidence of PW-15 Dr. Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan, handwriting and finger

print expert, who opined that the disputed writings and signatures

appearing on the suicide note corresponded with the admitted writings and

signatures of Harpal Garg and were written by one and the same person.

The medical evidence was also relied upon to establish that the deceased

had consumed aluminium phosphide, which was the cause of his death. On

a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court

held that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, recorded their conviction under

Section 306 IPC.

7. It is relevant to mention here that the present appeal has been

filed by all the three appellants against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. However, during the

pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 Pushpa Devi died and the appeal

qua her was ordered to be abated vide order dated 12

th

August, 2026.

8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellants

No.1 and 3 submitted that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -6-

evidence in its correct perspective and has recorded the conviction on the

basis of weak and unreliable evidence. It was argued that there is no direct

evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged commission of the

offence and the prosecution case rests substantially upon circumstantial

evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the material witnesses were

not examined by the prosecution and that the evidence of the witnesses

examined during trial suffers from material improvements and

contradictions. It was also contended that the suicide note relied upon by the

prosecution was itself surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including

overwriting and alteration of its date, and therefore could not have been

made the sole basis for recording conviction. It was further submitted that

the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the

offence under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and that the

findings recorded by learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence on

record.

9. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants

that during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise has been effected

between the parties. The compromise was entered into after the parties had

already instituted their respective appeals and revisions. Pursuant to the said

compromise, the parties are now living in harmony with each other and the

grievances between them have been resolved. It was submitted that the

compromise has been effected voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion or

undue influence from any quarter. Learned counsel further submitted that the

complainant has no objection to the acquittal of appellants No.1 and 3 in

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -7-

view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

10. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, controverted the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and argued that there is

no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment passed by learned trial

Court warranting interference by this Court. It was submitted that learned

trial Court has recorded a well-reasoned finding of conviction after

appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety. Learned

State counsel submitted that the deceased had left behind a suicide note,

which was recovered from his pocket soon after his death, and the writing

as well as the signatures appearing thereon have been duly proved on

record by the handwriting expert. It was argued that the opinion of the

expert clearly establishes that the disputed writings and signatures on the

suicide note correspond with the admitted writings and signatures of the

deceased and were written by one and the same person.

11. It was further argued that the deceased, in the said suicide note,

had specifically attributed responsibility for his death to his wife and her

family members. The allegations contained in the suicide note were

consistent with the oral evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the

testimony of PW-4 Harinder Kumar, brother of the deceased, regarding the

conduct of the appellants. Learned State counsel submitted that the evidence

establishes that the wife of the deceased and her family members were

repeatedly quarrelling with him and pressurizing him to separate his business

from his brother and family. Despite the deceased being unwilling to

separate, the pressure and harassment continued, as a result of which he

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -8-

became mentally disturbed and ultimately, took the extreme step of ending

his life.

12. Learned State counsel further submitted that the medical

evidence corroborates the prosecution version regarding the manner and

cause of death, while the evidence of the handwriting expert lends further

assurance to the authenticity of the suicide note. It was contended that the

circumstances appearing on record, when considered cumulatively, form a

complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellants and establish

their role in abetting the suicide committed by the deceased. Learned trial

Court had, therefore, rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the

conclusion that the prosecution had proved the charge under Section 306

IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It was also argued that the subsequent

compromise between the parties cannot efface the offence which had already

been committed and duly proved before the learned trial Court. The alleged

settlement, according to learned State counsel, cannot by itself constitute a

ground for setting aside a conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC,

particularly when the finding of guilt is otherwise supported by the evidence

available on record. It was, accordingly, submitted that the present appeal is

devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

13. I have heard learned counsel for appellants No.1 and 3 and

learned State counsel and have gone through the record carefully.

14. The entire prosecution case, in substance, rests upon the

suicide note allegedly recovered from the pocket of deceased Harpal Garg.

Even if the said suicide note is taken to have been duly proved and is

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -9-

accepted as having been written by the deceased, the question which still

requires consideration is whether the contents thereof, coupled with the

other evidence on record, are sufficient to establish the essential ingredients

of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC.

15. The allegations against the appellants, as emerging from the

prosecution evidence as well as the suicide note, are essentially that the

deceased was being harassed by his wife and her family members; that they

were pressurizing him to separate from his brother and to establish a

separate business; and that on account of such pressure and harassment, he

had become fed up and mentally disturbed. It is significant that it is an

admitted position emerging from the prosecution case itself that the

deceased had, in fact, started residing separately from the other members of

his family along with his wife. Thus, the issue regarding separate residence

had already materialized. What substantially remains against the appellants

is the allegation that the deceased continued to feel aggrieved on account of

pressure being allegedly exerted upon him to separate his business from

that of his brother.

16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the scope and

ambit of Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC makes abetment of suicide

punishable. The expression “abetment” is defined under Section 107 IPC

and essentially contemplates instigation of a person to do a particular act,

or engaging in a conspiracy for doing such act, or intentionally aiding the

doing of such act. Therefore, merely because a person commits suicide and

some grievance or harassment is attributed to another person, an offence

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -10-

under Section 306 IPC does not automatically follow. The prosecution is

required to establish the abetment of suicide as a distinct and substantive

ingredient.

17. The expression “instigation” carries a definite connotation. It

involves an act of goading, urging forward, provoking, inciting or

encouraging another person to do an act. For attracting Section 306 IPC, the

prosecution has to establish a positive or active act on the part of the

accused, coupled with the requisite intention to instigate or aid the deceased

in committing suicide. The element of mens rea cannot be presumed merely

from the fact that the deceased was unhappy, disturbed or had been

subjected to some form of harassment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

'Rajesh v. State of Haryana', 2020 (15) SCC 359 has held as under:-

"8. Conviction under section 306 IPC is not sustainable

on the allegation of harassment without there being any

positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on

the part of the accused, which led or compelled the

person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case

within the purview of section 306 IPC, there must be a

case of suicide and in the commission of the said

offence, the person who is said to have abetted the

commission of suicide must have played an active role

by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to

facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act

of abetment by the person charged with the said offence

must be proved and established by the prosecution

before he could be convicted under section 306 IPC. "

18. In the present case, even if the allegations contained in the

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -11-

suicide note are accepted at their face value, there is no specific act

attributed to either of the appellants which can reasonably be construed as

an act of instigation to commit suicide. There is no allegation that either

appellant told the deceased to commit suicide, threatened him with such

consequence, deliberately created a situation with the intention of driving

him to suicide, or committed any positive act immediately preceding the

occurrence which could have left him with no other option but to take his

own life. The alleged insistence upon separation of business, even if taken

to be true, cannot, without anything more, be equated with instigation to

commit suicide.

19. The distinction between harassment and instiga tion is

important. Human relationships, particularly within a matrimonial or

family setting, may involve disagreements, disputes, demands for separate

residence or separate business and even repeated quarrelling. Such conduct

may undoubtedly cause unhappiness or mental distress, but for Section 306

IPC to apply, the prosecution must go further and establish that the conduct

was of such nature and was accompanied by such intention that it

amounted to goading, provoking or encouraging the deceased to commit

suicide. The law requires a nexus between the alleged act of the accused

and the ultimate act of suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

emphasized that the requisite mens rea and a positive act of instigation

cannot simply be inferred from the fact of suicide or from allegations of

harassment alone.

20. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -12-

case, the prosecution evidence falls short of the required standard. The

deceased was admittedly living separately from his family members along

with his wife. Thereafter, the principal allegation is that the appellants

wanted him to have a separate business from that of his brother. There is no

evidence of any particular incident, immediately proximate to the

occurrence, whereby the appellants actively provoked, incited or

encouraged the deceased to end his life. There is also no evidence to

establish that the appellants had the requisite intention that their conduct

should result in the deceased committing suicide.

21. Even the suicide note, assuming for the sake of argument that

the same was genuinely authored by the deceased, does not by itself

establish the offence under Section 306 IPC. The handwriting expert’s

evidence may establish the authorship of the writing, but it does not

establish the truth of the allegations contained therein, nor does it establish

the legal conclusion that the conduct attributed to the appellants amounted

to abetment. The distinction is fundamental. Proof that a particular person

wrote a document is one thing; proof that the allegations contained in that

document establish every ingredient of a penal offence is quite another.

22. Learned trial Court, while placing substantial reliance upon

the suicide note, appears to have proceeded on the premise that since the

deceased had named his wife and her family members and had stated that

he was being harassed, their liability for abetment of suicide stood

established. Such an approach, in the considered view of this Court, does

not satisfy the requirements of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. The

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -13-

suicide note may explain the mental state or grievance of the deceased, but

it cannot dispense with the requirement of proving the specific ingredients

of abetment. There has to be evidence of an act of instigation or intentional

aid and the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused.

23. The oral evidence also does not materially improve the

prosecution case. The testimony of PW-4 Harinder Kumar primarily speaks

about the alleged quarrels and pressure regarding separation of the

business. There is no direct evidence of any act whereby either of the

present appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The

prosecution has also not brought on record any convincing independent

evidence of a specific incident immediately preceding the suicide which

could demonstrate a proximate link between the conduct of the appellants

and the decision of the deceased to take his own life. In a prosecution under

Section 306 IPC, this missing link assumes considerable significance.

24. The medical evidence, though sufficient to establish the cause

of death, does not establish abetment. Similarly, the recovery of the suicide

note and the handwriting expert’s opinion, even if accepted in their entirety,

establish at the highest that the deceased authored the note; they do not

establish that the appellants had instigated or intentionally aided him in

committing suicide. Thus, the prosecution has proved the factum of suicide,

but has failed to prove the legally necessary connecting link between the

conduct attributed to the appellants and the commission of suicide.

25. This Court is also conscious of the fact that during the

pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise and are

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -14-

presently living in harmony. No doubt, an offence under Section 306 IPC is

non-compoundable and the accused cannot be acquitted merely because the

parties have subsequently entered into a compromise. The compromise,

therefore, by itself cannot furnish the legal foundation for recording an

acquittal. However, where the evidence independently fails to establish the

essential ingredients of the offence, the subsequent conduct of the parties

and the fact that the complainant has no objection to the acquittal may be

noticed as a relevant subsequent circumstance, though it cannot substitute

the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The present acquittal,

therefore, is not being recorded merely on the basis of the compromise; it

follows from the failure of the prosecution to establish the offence under

Section 306 IPC against the appellants.

26. The Court is required to keep in view that suspicion, however

strong, cannot take the place of proof. The deceased undoubtedly met an

unfortunate and tragic end. His suicide is a matter of great concern and

cannot be minimized. At the same time, criminal liability for abetment of

suicide cannot be fastened upon the appellants merely because the deceased

attributed his distress to them. The Court must determine whether the

evidence establishes the statutory ingredients of the offence. In the present

case, the evidence does not disclose any positive, intentional or proximate

act on the part of appellants No.1 and 3 which can legally be characterized

as instigation or intentional aid to the deceased in committing suicide.

27. Consequently, this Court finds that learned trial Court fell into

error in treating the allegations of harassment and the contents of the

CRA-S No.2530-SB of 2008 -15-

suicide note as sufficient, by themselves, to establish abetment of suicide.

The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that

appellants No.1 and 3 either instigated or intentionally aided the deceased

in committing suicide. The essential ingredients of Section 306 read with

Section 107 IPC are, therefore, not made out.

28. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction dated 27

th

November, 2008 and the order of sentence dated 29

th

November, 2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Sangrur, insofar as relate to appellants No.1 and 3, are set aside.

Appellants No.1 and 3, namely, Kirna Devi @ Kanchan and Jai Pal, are

acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC by giving them the benefit of

doubt. Their bail bonds, if any, stand discharged, subject to compliance

with Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

29. Any pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)

31.08.2026 JUDGE

neetu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No