Framing of charge in abetment of suicide requires strong suspicion and specific cruelty; unsupported opinions are insufficient.

At the stage of framing charge, the court may proceed only where the material creates strong suspicion and supports the statutory ingredients of abetment of suicide. The allegations against Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi were limited to assurances and later opinion, without specific acts of cruelty, so the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was not justified and they were discharged. Smt. Dayawati was also discharged because the material did not credibly show cruelty immediately preceding the suicide. By contrast, the complaints, witness statements and letter disclosed persistent harassment and dowry demands by Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram, so the charge against them was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the material justified framing of charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi; (ii) whether Smt. Dayawati was liable to be charged or was entitled to discharge; (iii) whether Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram were rightly charged.

Issue (i): whether the material justified framing of charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi.

Analysis: At the stage of charge, the test is whether the material creates a strong suspicion and whether the prosecution version, if accepted, could disclose the offence. The Court found that the allegations against Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi were confined to assurances and a later supplementary attribution by the complainant, which amounted only to opinion and not admissible proof of cruelty. The record did not show any specific acts by them sufficient to invoke the statutory presumption or to justify proceeding against them.

Conclusion: The charge against Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi was not justified and they were entitled to discharge.

Issue (ii): whether Smt. Dayawati was liable to be charged or was entitled to discharge.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies only where suicide is within seven years of marriage and cruelty by the husband or his relatives is shown. The Court found some material suggesting Dayawati's earlier participation, but not credible material showing her involvement in the cruelty immediately preceding the suicide. The supplementary statement relied upon was treated as mere opinion and not substantive evidence.

Conclusion: Smt. Dayawati was entitled to discharge.

Issue (iii): whether Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram were rightly charged.

Analysis: The complaints, statements of witnesses and the letter relied upon disclosed persistent harassment and dowry-related demands by these petitioners along with the husband. In view of the statutory presumption under Section 113-A and the material indicating continuing cruelty, the Court found sufficient ground to proceed against them at the stage of charge.

Conclusion: Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram were rightly charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Final Conclusion: The discharge of Ram Kishan, Smt. Rama Devi and Smt. Dayawati was upheld, while the framing of charge against Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, a court may proceed on strong suspicion, and where the statutory conditions for the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman are shown, charge may be framed against those against whom specific material of cruelty exists; mere assurances or unsupported opinions do not constitute such material.

---