1 / 5 2025:CGHC:14152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 411 of 2025 Pradeep Gupta S/o Late Dukhi Sao Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Dhondha Chauki Rewti P.S. Chandaura District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellants(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 24.03.2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur, District - Surajpur, (C.G.), in Special Case No.09/2020, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 306 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional RI. 2 / 5 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on pretext of marriage, appellant established physical relation with deceased (Priyanka Gond), when deceased was going to lodged complaint against appellant, he promised to marry her and took her back. Thereafter, appellant solemnized marriage with deceased, but did not take her to his house. On 01.04.2019, appellant took the deceased to Ambikapur for wondering and forcefully taken her sign on Talaqnama and submitted the same before the Court. Being aggrieved by such alleged act of appellant, the deceased consumed poison, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Wadrufnagar where her dying declaration was recorded and referred her to the Medical College, Ambikapur where on 03.04.2019, she died. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 06.06.2019 and appellant has been arrested. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against him for offence under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST Act. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence not examined any witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned 3 / 5 judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Exhibit- P/25, dying declaration of deceased clearly shows that deceased has denied that the appellant has instigated her to commit suicide. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. It is well settled principal of law that in order to make out the offence of abatement to suicide, necessary requirement is that the culprit has either instigated the victim to commit suicide or has engaged in conspiracy with others, but in the present case, no such ingredients are available. Merely mentioning of name in the dying declaration would not amount to abatement as held by Hon'bla Apex Court in various judgments/decisions. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the material available on record. As such, the appeal deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserve to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that based on material/evidence available on record, trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order/judgment and convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. Hence, present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 4 / 5 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. PW-1, PW-2 & PW-4 (brother, father and sister of deceased) in their evidence have stated that appellant-accused has pressurized the deceased for divorce, therefore, she consumed the poison and died during treatment in the hospital. They further admitted that appellant and deceased have performed love marriage. 11. Prosecution have relied upon the dying declaration of deceased (Exhibit- P/25), perusal of which, would reveal that deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison only on the basis of statement of her husband (appellant/accused) that he wants to divorce her. 12. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: “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.” 13. It is clear from the above quoted section that offence of abatement by instigation depends upon the intention of a person who abates and not upon the act which is done by the person, who has been abated. Abatement may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aids as provided under the above quoted Section. The words uses in a hit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 14. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the appeal, submission of counsel for the parties, provision of Section 107 of IPC, 5 / 5 particularly the exhibit- P/25 dying-declaration of deceased in which she accepted that she consumed poison only on the basis of statement of her husband (appellant/accused) that he wants to divorce her, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 15.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforementioned charge. He is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 16.The appellant is directed to file personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-