JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. All these three appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 14.08.1997, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1990, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellant Uma Kohli under Section 306 of I.P.C., and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for a period already undergone and further directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. However, she has been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C. The trial court has acquitted another accused/respondent Ms. M.S. Usha from the charge of offences punishable under Section 385 and 306 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Ms. Rashmi Agarwal (deceased) was a student of M.Sc. (Home Science) IInd year for the session of the year 1987-88 of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar. She used to live in Room No. 47 of Kasturba Hostel within the premises of the University. As per the curriculum prescribed for the second year of M.Sc. (Home Science), a student was required to submit thesis on the topic given to him or her. In the case of Rashmi Agarwal (deceased), she was given a topic of “Effect of variation in consumer price index on purchasing power of the people and nutritive value of diets consumed by them”. The deceased was required to complete her thesis under the guidance/advice of Smt. Uma Kohli (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1700 of 2001). Co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha was a Dean of Home Science College of the University (she is respondent in Government Appeal No. 78 of 2001). The prosecution case is that Ms. M.S. Usha was friendly with one S.K. Sharma, Deputy Controller (Administration) whose daughter Ms. Shuchismita Jetley was a student of M.Sc. (Home Science) 1st year. Prosecution has alleged that Mr. S.K. Sharma wanted that the thesis written by Rashmi Agarwal (deceased) be given to Ms. Shushismita Jetley, and he approached the appellant Uma Kohli, advisor of the deceased through co-accused M.S. Usha. But the deceased did not oblige the advisor, whereafter she started making wild allegations against the deceased and tortured her. It is alleged by PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (father of the deceased) that when he met appellant Uma Kohli she misbehaved with him. Shushismita Jetley, and he approached the appellant Uma Kohli, advisor of the deceased through co-accused M.S. Usha. But the deceased did not oblige the advisor, whereafter she started making wild allegations against the deceased and tortured her. It is alleged by PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (father of the deceased) that when he met appellant Uma Kohli she misbehaved with him. Allegations of the complainant PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal is that Uma Kohli did not return thesis submitted by his daughter, and ultimately Rashmi Agarwal committed suicide on 23.07.1988. Information of her suicide was given by PW5 Mr. Kunwar Singh Karki, Security Officer, to the University authorities. A First Information Report (Ex. A1) was given by PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (father of the deceased) at the Police Station Lalkuan, on the basis of which, Crime No. 203 of 1988 was registered, in respect of offences punishable under Section 385/306/109 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Uma Kohli, S.K. Sharma and Ms. M.S. Usha. The investigation was taken up by PW 15 Sub-Inspector Jameel Mohd. Rawat and the same was transferred later to PW13 In-charge Inspector Pritam Singh of CBCID. After investigation, subsequent Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant Uma Kohli and Accused/appellant Ms. M.S. Usha for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 385, 306 and 109 of I.P.C. 4. The Magistrate on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. appears to have committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. On 26.07.1990, learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under Section 385 and 306 of I.P.C. against both the accused Uma Kohli and Ms. M.S. Usha, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Head Constable Daya Kishan (who prepared check report of the First Information Report), PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (complainant and father of the deceased), PW3 Devi Singh, PW4 Dr. S.H. Chouhan (Professor of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering), PW5 Kunwar Singh Karki Chief Security Officer (who reported the incident of suicide), PW6 Smt. Krishna Thapa (witness of the inquest report), PW7 Dr. S.H. Chouhan (Professor of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering), PW5 Kunwar Singh Karki Chief Security Officer (who reported the incident of suicide), PW6 Smt. Krishna Thapa (witness of the inquest report), PW7 Dr. S.P. Ojha (who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Rashmi Agarwal) PW8 Liyakat Ahmed (a employee of Pant Nagar University), PW9 Smt. Chandra Arora Assistant Warden of the Hostel (where the suicide was committed), PW10 Dr. Anil Kumar (declared hostile), PW11 Smt. Leena Bhattacharya (Professor of the University and Chairman of the Enquiry Committee), PW12 Dr. S.P. Harpalani, Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, PW13 Pritam Singh, In-charge Inspector CBCID (who concluded investigation), PW14 Dr. Mahatim Singh (Vice Chancellor of the University, and PW1 5 Sub Inspector Jameel Mohd. Rawat (who started the investigation and handed over the same to PW13 Pritam Singh, In-charge Inspector CBCID). The oral and documentary evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, it was admitted by both the accused that Rashmi Agarwal was a student of M.Sc. (Home Science) 2nd Year and she was writing thesis under the guidance of accused/appellant Uma Kohli. It is also admitted to the accused that co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha was Dean of Home Science College. Rest of the evidence in substance, was not accepted by the accused as true. They have pleaded that Ms. Shushismita Jetley, regarding whom, it is alleged that the accused wanted the thesis of the deceased for being used for her, was one year junior to the deceased, and she was dropped in July 1988 for her poor performance. It is also stated by the two accused that no undue influence was exercised nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty. However, no oral evidence in defence was adduced. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Uma Kohli under Section 306 of I.P.C. and convicted her accordingly. However, she was acquitted from another charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, she was sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for a period already under gone and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The co-accused Ms. However, she was acquitted from another charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, she was sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for a period already under gone and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha was acquitted of the charge on both the counts i.e. under Section 385 and 306 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 14.08.1997, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1990, the convict Uma Kohli filed a Criminal Appeal No. 1700 of 2001 (old No. 1516 of 1997) before the Allahabad High Court. The State also filed Criminal Government Appeal No. 64 of 2001 (Old No. 120 of 1997) before the Allahabad High Court against the acquittal of Uma Kohli from the charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C. The State further filed Criminal Government Appeal No. 78 of 2001 (Old No. 2365 of 1997) against the acquittal of co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha. All the three appeals are received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act, 29 of 2000) for their disposal. 6. Admittedly, Ms. Rashmi Agarwal was a student of M. Sc. (Home Science) 2nd Year of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technoloy, Pant Nagar. It is also not disputed that she committed suicide on 23.07.1988. The autopsy report (Ex. A30) read with statement of PW7 Dr. S.P. Ojha shows that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained at the time of post mortem examination and viscera was preserved. Statement of PW-12 Dr. S.P. Harpalani, Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, shows that all the five pieces of viscera contained contents of Aluminium Phosphate, alcoholic poison. The report of forensic laboratory is (Ex. A35) on the record. 7. The question before this Court is as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to abetment committed by the appellant Uma Kohli and co accused Ms. M.S. Usha or not.. Also, this Court has to examine whether the two were rightly acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C., i.e. putting the deceased under the fear of injury in order to commit extortion or not. 8. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to quote the letters- (Ex. M.S. Usha or not.. Also, this Court has to examine whether the two were rightly acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C., i.e. putting the deceased under the fear of injury in order to commit extortion or not. 8. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to quote the letters- (Ex. A8) written by Rashmi Agarwal (deceased) to the Vice Chancellor and the letter (Ex. A9) to co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha both dated 22.7.1983, the day before her death, which were said to have been recovered from her room after her death. The same are being reproduced below: Ex. A-8 Honourable Vice Chancellor Sir, I am writing you before committing suicide. I am a student of G.B. Pant University since last six years. You have met me on the day of convocation when I was invited for tea. Before dieing I want to tell you what is going on in our college i.e. Home Science College. I am being severely tortured (mentally) since a long time by my advisor, Mrs. Uma Kohli, Assoc. Prof. in our department i.e. Foods and you may imagine what will a basically honest person sufer and I admit that I tried to cheat her, but under what circumstances I did that, she never listened. What I have sufered and what happened with me, you can know through inquiring my batch mates and my father. They all know it. I talked to my head of the department also. If she is honest she will tell you. Then you judge, whether my advisor is able to be a guide or not. She has tortured me & harassed me that you won ’t be able to go before 3 years and I am going before 3 years. My last wish is judgment should be fair. Yours Sincerely Rashmi Agarwal (RASHMI AGARWAL) Id. No. 12509 M. Sc. Foods and Nutrition Home Science College Ex. A-9 Dear, Madam Usha, You will be quite happy & feel like to celebrate the news of death of second girl of your department. First was Anubha, and second is me. My last wish is judgment should be fair. Yours Sincerely Rashmi Agarwal (RASHMI AGARWAL) Id. No. 12509 M. Sc. Foods and Nutrition Home Science College Ex. A-9 Dear, Madam Usha, You will be quite happy & feel like to celebrate the news of death of second girl of your department. First was Anubha, and second is me. Madam, the mental torture is many times worse than physical torture and It was me, a gold medallist of my graduation period, an intelligent as well as basically honest girl, who was tortured beyond the limits as well as blamed to be a cheat, a dishonest girl, not capable of receiving a degree of Science by your favourate Mrs. Kohli. I ask you how did you dare to appoint that lady as an guide for a P. G. student just by holding a degree of doctorate does not make a person of being able to be a guide. Just make eforts and check how well she can guide. A fellow who cannot take a decision, want to guide a P. G. student for her research. Miss Usha, If you have a bit of good memory then try to remember that topic for may “Special Problem” was allotted by you. Even that was not discussed with me but only with Mrs. Kohli. She told me, “to select 8-10 families for carrying out survey for 8-10 weeks.” Whenever I faced a problem, I went to her and do you know, what was her answer? She always said, “ I will see it later” This later came only after I submitted my “Special Problem “. When I said to her madam I want to tell you of the problem I am facing she snapped back at me and made me shut up by saying that she was not interested in my problems at all. Should advisor be like that. If she can’t understand the problems, can she guide. She never gave me a solid answer to any question I asked her. She never has time for me. To whom should I go? To whom should I ask the guidelines? Just check when does she come to college. In morning not earlier that 10.30 a.m. and in afternoon not before 3.00 P.M. Are these the office timings? She never gave me a solid answer to any question I asked her. She never has time for me. To whom should I go? To whom should I ask the guidelines? Just check when does she come to college. In morning not earlier that 10.30 a.m. and in afternoon not before 3.00 P.M. Are these the office timings? Miss Usha, you are dean, I should say you are a dictator, you always keep everyone scared of you, nobody can enter and tell you something. You the whole sole authority of Home Science College, doesn’t listen then who will listen. Should students like me go to V.C. straight. Do you remember I came to you & asked for two minutes. You refused, because you hold a post and pride of that authority makes you feel like this. When Mrs. Kohli told you about my cheating, shouldn’t you give a second thought to her words? How did you believe her every word so easily I was here since 6 years. Did you receive any complaints of this type from my side. You were my advisor in B.Sc. for whole of the 4 years. Does advisor has right to exploit students should she make me work for her. To correct the answer copies of the courses she takes, should she make me sit and ask to correct the totals and all even though I was not with her in assistantship. You can check that I was with you Mrs. Bhattacharya & Mrs Pushpa Shukla. But Mrs Kohli wanted that I should sit with her and make all totalings until the completes corrections was it may duty to hung on her each and every word. When I stopped survey in January 88, after she had asked me to stop. In April she forget that she had stopped me and said to carry on again. I told her Madam you asked me to stop “she said, It does not matter, now start again “. I told her madam it is dificult to go he families after two months and ask them, but she persisted and did not listen to me. She knew what problem I had already faced there. I didn ’t want to go to that hell again. At that time, I was busy with my thesis experiments. I told her madam it is dificult to go he families after two months and ask them, but she persisted and did not listen to me. She knew what problem I had already faced there. I didn ’t want to go to that hell again. At that time, I was busy with my thesis experiments. I had no time to waste to gain nothing, no valuable information & I manipulated the values. Does this fault of mine was so huge that a meeting to make it noticed. After doing all this, She is harassing me like anything. Today, she said, “Rashmi, I may make your whole thesis repeat just after you complete your work & you wont be able to go before 3 years. “I don’t want such degree which breaks a person into thousand shattered pieces. If you have a little bit of humanity just try to feel my pain and my tensions of being announced a CHEAT that I am certainly not, but Mrs. Kohli is a WHOLE CHEAT, and does not know what is duty of a teacher. 9. Apart from above, the accused has also written letter (Ex. A10) to her father on 22.07.1988, which was also recovered from the room of the deceased, after her death. The said letter is written in Hindi and appended with the note in English, which reads as under : “Mrs Kohli is responsible for my death” S/d Rashmi” 10. Also, the diary of the deceased found from her room contains note dated 23.07.1988, purports to have written before her death is quoted below. The said letter is written in Hindi and appended with the note in English, which reads as under : “Mrs Kohli is responsible for my death” S/d Rashmi” 10. Also, the diary of the deceased found from her room contains note dated 23.07.1988, purports to have written before her death is quoted below. dy jkr ls fny esa ,d cspSuh] ?kcjkgV lh gSA fdlh ckr dk Mj gS eq>sA mls eS ugha gksus nsuk pkgrhA ftu ckrksa dks Hkqykus dh vc rd dksf”k”k djrh vk;h] mls vc dksbZ ;kn fnykuk pkgrk gSA ftanxh dk og fgLlk tks ,d uklwj lk Fkk nq%[krk Fkk] mls eSus dkV fn;k] eSa lc dqN Hkwy pqdh gwWa A ftu ckrksa dks Hkqykus ds fy, eSa vc rd bZ”oj ls izkFkZuk djrh vk;h] D;k vc eSa fQj muls ;kn fnykus dh izkFkZuk d:WaA ftl yM+dh dks oDr us cny fn;k] mls fparkvksa ls eqDr dj fn;k] vc mls fQj D;ksa nksgjkuk pkgrk gS ;g oDrA ftl yM+dh dk fny iRFkj gks pqdk] vkWalw lw[k pqds] Hkko [kRe gks pqds] mls ykSVkus ls eq>s D;k feysxk] fdlh dks D;k feysxk fdlh dk lgkjk] lgkuqHkwfr ds dqN “kCn] tks t:jr iM+us ij ugha feysA vkSj vc mudh eq>s t:jr ugha gSaA u tkus dc ls esjs fny vkSj fnekx es ,d }Un py jgk gSA ftanxh D;k gS vkSj ekSr D;k gSA iy iy ?kqVuk iy iy vkWlw cgkuk rks gj iy dh ekSr gSA D;k bl ekSr ls ,d ckj dh ekSr csgrj ugha gksxhA ,slk ugha fd eSa thuk ugha pkgrh eSa Hkh thuk pkgrh gWwa ysfdu fdlh ds “kCn tc ges”kk lhus esa dkWaVsa dh rjg pqHkrs jgs] lhuk Nyuh dj nsa] fdlh dh ?kwjrh fuxkgsa vkidks Mjkrh jgsa rks bUlku ds dne [kqn c [kqn ekSr ds jkLrs ij c<+rs pys tk;saxsA ;g fdlh vkSj dksbZ ugha esjh ,Mokbtj felst dksgyh gh gSaA ;g vkSjr vius ifr dks tks [kk gh x;h vkSj vc eq>s [kkuk pkgrh gSA gj jkst tc Hkh eSa blds ikl tkrh gwWa rks [kqn dks rS;kj dj ds tkrh gWaw vius fny ij iRFkj j[k ds exj mlds “kCnks esa tks tgj gS og iRFkj rksM+dj Hkh fny rd igqWaprk gSA vkSj tc eSa mlls nwj gksrh gwWa mlds ogh “kCn vkSj ?kwjrh fuxkgsa esjs pkjksa vksj ?kwerh jgrh gSaA vkSj eq>s ikxy cuk nsrh gSaA og vkSjr eq>s ekSr ds eqg esa /kdsyrh tk jgh gSA mlds dqN “kCn eSa fy[k dj tkÅxhA ‘You don’t do any work and keep on dancing. You have cheated me. You are dishonest. You should not be given a degree of science. Don’t make me upset. I am not interested in your problems. I have lost my trust in you, so I can make your whole thesis repeated and you won’t be able to go before three years. I don’t have time today. Don’t tell me stories. Don’t make excuses.’ 11. All the above letters and note are proved by PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (father of the deceased). PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal in his oral statement has stated that his daughter Rashmi Agarwal was a gold medalist in B.Sc. (Home Science) and she was tortured by accused/appellant Uma Kohli. This witness in Para No.7 of his statement states that accused/appellant Uma Kohli wanted to compel his daughter to submit her thesis for one Ms. Shuchismita Jetley as desired by co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha. This witness has further told in Para No.3 of his statement that Ms. Shuchismita Jetley was daughter of S.K. Sharma [said to be Deputy Controller (Administration) of University]. It is also alleged in Para No.8 of the statement of PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal that to compel Rashmi Agarwal to submit the thesis prepared by her for Ms. Shuchismita Jetley, the deceased was given D Grade (failed) in “Special Problem”. 12. Apparently, from the above evidence though it appears as if the accused /appellant Uma Kohli harassed the deceased for the purpose as above, but on careful scrutiny of the evidence on record given by the witnesses, it does not appear that either of the two accused had abetted commission of suicide by the deceased or they had put her on fear of injury in order to commit extortion. 13. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that PW4 Dr. H.S. Chouhan, Professor of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, who was Chairman of the Committee constituted by the University to enquire in to the incident has told to court in his cross-examination that every student is given a separate topic for the thesis and the same topic is never given to two students. It is argued before this Court that the story of submitting thesis prepared by the deceased on the topic given to Rashmi Agarwal could not have utilized for Ms Shuchismita Jetley as suggested by prosecution. It is argued before this Court that the story of submitting thesis prepared by the deceased on the topic given to Rashmi Agarwal could not have utilized for Ms Shuchismita Jetley as suggested by prosecution. Not only this, it is also to be kept in mind that Ms Shuchismita Jetley was a student of M. Sc. (Home Science) Part-I of the University, and PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal (father of the deceased) himself has admitted in the cross-examination that the topic of the thesis is given to a student only in M.Sc. Part-II. Though PW2 Gopal Saran Agarwal has stated in his examination in chief that the thesis was taken by accused/appellant Uma Kohli, which was not returned to the deceased and he further stated that the thesis was not found in the room of the deceased, but recovery memo (Ex. A39) shows that among the articles recovered from the room of the deceased, there is mention of recovery of two copies of the thesis prepared by Rashmi Agarwal (deceased). Also, Ex A42 shows that the same were given to the father of the deceased on 18.09.1989. In reply to this, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that these copies were other than the copy given by the deceased to Mrs Uma Kohli. However, there is no such evidence on record, suggesting that the thesis had been submitted by the deceased before the accused/appellant Uma Kohli. 14. From the letters quoted above, it is clear that after the deceased appeared before the committee in connection with the ‘Special Problem’ where in appellant Uma Kohli called her a cheat, which perturbed the deceased, and within a week thereafter she (Rashmi Agarwal) committed suicide. It is relevant to mention here that whether the alleged aspersion made by the appellant Uma Kohli amounts to instigating the deceased to commit suicide or not. In this connection, statement of PW11 Smt. Leena Bhattacharya, Professor of the University, shows that before the committee of which PW1 1 Smt. Leena Bhattacharya, herself was a Chairman has stated that on 18.07.1988 in the meeting Rashmi Agarwal (deceased) admitted that she had fabricated the datas for thesis on which she was awarded D grade. This fact is gets corroborated from the copy of the minutes of meeting (Ex. B 10). This fact is gets corroborated from the copy of the minutes of meeting (Ex. B 10). PW1 1 Smt. Leena Bhattacharya when recalled on 21.11.1996, made further disclosures, which are being reproduced below by translating the same in English: ‘Q1. Whether Ms. Shuchismita Jetley and Rashmi Agarwal had the same topic for the thesis? Ans1. Topics of both the students was not same rather they had separate topics. Q2. Whether Ms Shuchismita Jetley was dropped from the academic probation from the University, if so at what stage? Ans 2. Yes, Ms Shuchismita Jetley was dropped after she got failed in second semester and she was dropped before the completion of third semester. Q3. Whether the deceased had presented “Special Problem” in connection with the thesis, if no, by what date the thesis was to be submitted? Ans 3. Report given by the deceased was not the thesis. There was no fixed date for submission of the thesis. Q4. Whether it was necessary to submit the thesis to the Advisor for her approval and comments? Ans 4. Yes, thesis is checked by the Advisor and only thereafter it goes to Advisory Committee or the Registrar XXXXXX For defence Nil Opportunity given only’. 15. The above quoted statement on PW1 1 read with the disclosures as mentioned in Ex B 1 that the deceased had herself admitted that she had fabricated the data, it cannot be said that calling her a “cheat” and giving her Grade D in connection with the ‘Special Problem’ of the thesis, cannot be said to be sufficient instigation for committing suicide by the deceased, nor can it be said that the deceased was put in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. 16. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal filed by the convict Uma Kohli deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence under Section 306 passed by the trial court is set aside. In view of the discussion made above both the appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of Uma Kohli from the charge of offence punishable under Section 385 of I.P.C., and one relating to acquittal of co-accused Ms. M.S. Usha, Dean of Home Science College, from the charge of offences punishable under Section 306 and 385 of I.P.C., are hereby dismissed. Lower court record be sent back.