1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 512 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sarsiwa District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Lalkrishna Jatwar S/o. Parasram Jatwar Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village Pipardula, P.S. Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Vinita Jatwar D/o. Parasram Jatwar Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Pipardula, P.S. Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmi Gupta, on behalf of Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 11/03/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Balodabazar (C.G.) in ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.03.19 19:14:05 +0530 2 Sessions Case No. 46 of 2016, whereby the respondent/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of Section 306 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2015, in the intervening night of 11.12.2015 and 12.12.2015, the deceased Indra Jaatwar, wife of respondent/accused No. 1, committed suicide by hanging herself in her house. The merg was reported to the police on 12.12.2015 by the brother of the deceased, and the inquest (Ex. P/2) was prepared by the police in the presence of witnesses. The dead body was sent for post- mortem to the Community Health Centre, Bhilaigarh, where PW-8 Dr. Ritesh Sen conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and submitted his report (Ex. P/4). After conducting the post- mortem, the doctor opined that the cause of death was cardiac arrest and suffocation caused by hanging, and the nature of death was suicidal. On 14.12.2015, a written complaint (Ex. P/2) was lodged by Santosh Kumar Mahilong (PW-1), alleging that the deceased was murdered by the accused persons. Thereafter, FIR (Ex. P/5) was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC. 3. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar Bhatapara. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Court, Balodabazar from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the respondent/ accused persons for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, in which they denied and claimed trial. 3 5. In support of their case the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/ accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that the respondent accused No.1 submitted that his wife was suffering from breast ulcer and she was depressed that she could not recovered from that ailment thereby she committed suicide. 6. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused persons, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide and that there is no evidence with respect to instigation to commit suicide. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable which have been supported by the prosecution witnesses. There are sufficient and cogent evidence with respect to the harassment made to the deceased by the accused persons. The deceased, for one or other reason, continuously subjected to harassment and the respondent/ accused persons used to beat her regularly. There is also the evidence that the respondent accused No.1 having extra marital affair which were objected by the deceased. All these circumstances dragged her to commit suicide, yet the learned trial Court, by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the respondent/accused persons. There are sufficient evidence against 4 them for their conviction and thus impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused persons supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are missing and that there was no instigation or abetment by the respondents which led the deceased to commit suicide. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which have already been considered by the learned trial Court. She would submits that there is no evidence that in the close proximity of the incident the accused persons have harassed the deceased for which she committed the suicide. The general and omnibus allegation have been levelled by the witnesses that the deceased was being harassed and subjected to cruelty by the accused persons which are sufficient to hold the accused persons for the offence of abetment to commit suicide, therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence as well as law applicable to the field and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection as well as gone through the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The learned trial Court has observed in its judgment about the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence with respect to the incident of harassment or cruelty. The learned trial court has also considered the proximity of time in which the allegation of cruelty is levelled against the accused persons. 5 11. PW-1, Santosh Kumar brother of the deceased who is the complainant also. From the evidence of PW-1, it transpires that he disclosed the 06 months old incident from the date of incident, which relates to the time when he visited to the house of the deceased at the time of Rakshabandhan Festival and he made allegation that the deceased suspected that the respondent accused No.1 is having extra marital affair. For this reason there was a dispute between them. In the month of December, 2015 the respondent accused No.1 informed him about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that the breast ulcer of his sister could not be cured, despite providing treatment to her. There are certain omissions in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P/2. 12. PW-4, Mangali mother of the deceased also did not disclosed any specific incident in the close proximity of the present incident of suicide of the deceased, however, she stated general and omnibus allegation that her daughter was being harassed by the accused persons for one or other reason. Nothing in her evidence which supported the allegation of instigation or abetment to commit suicide to the deceased. 13. PW-2, Baghirati Mahilange is the cousin brother of the deceased have stated that the respondent/accused No.1 was having extra marital affair therefore, he committed murder of his sister. His evidence is also casual and there is no specific instance which give support to the allegation of harassment or abetment to commit suicide. He further stated that in the month of April 2015 his sister is informed about harassment made to her by the accused persons. 14. PW-5,Sita Banjare is the friend of the deceased she too have stated that whenever she visited to her parental house, she used to meet her 6 and then the deceased informed her that her husband is having extra marital affair for which there was a dispute between them. She further stated that the deceased visited to her house since 2 – 4 months back and informed that her husband is having extra marital affair. 15. There are other witnesses also PW-3 Devnarayan Verma, PW-7 Surendra K, PW-6 Sukmati, but nothing is there in the evidence to these witnesses in support of the allegation of harassment or cruelty the deceased for which she committed suicide. Though there may be some dispute between husband and wife but that itself are not sufficient to hold that the deceased was being instigated or abetted to commit suicide by the accused persons. 16. To constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1)SCC 433, in which it was observed as under:- “20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus: "Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling. causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or 7 omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 22. Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder: "107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1- A person, who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that doing. Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto. 27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of 8 Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder. "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide 9 appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707. 29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.” 17. Recently in Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025(4)SCC 801, the Supreme Court held as under: 12. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- “3….. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events……” 10 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:- "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 16. 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. 17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that 11 effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." 18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 18. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. 12 Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 19. In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 20. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 21. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an 13 appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 22. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok