Page No.1 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 2025:CGHC:17313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2023 [Arising out of judgment dated 25.02.2023, passed in Sessions Case No.60 of 2021 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Rajtandon) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (CG)] Rajtandon, S/o Naveen Tandon, aged about 25 years, R/o Jodhapur Ward, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Judgment on Board) 09.04.2025 (1) This criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2023, passed in Sessions Case No.60 of 2021 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Rajtandon) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.04.16 10:26:16 +0530 Page No.2 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 Rs.2,000/- and, default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, in that on and prior to 14.08.2021, at Village Jodhapur, which comes within the ambit of Police Station City Kotwali, District Dhamtari (CG), the appellant- accused herein after consuming liquor used to treat his wife- Nisha Dhimar with cruelty, due to which, she suffered harassment mentally and physically and, ultimately, in the intervening night of 14/15.08.2021, Nisha Dhimar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) committed suicide by hanging and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 of IPC. (3) The further case of the prosecution is that when the matter is reported to the police, FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/12. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were issued and inquest proceedings were conducted. The dead-body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Diwakar Gajpal (PW-08) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/01), it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to cardiopulmonary arrest may be caused by hanging and nature of death seems to be suicidal. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. Appellant’s MLC report is Ex.P/17, wherein it has Page No.3 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 been mentioned that simple injuries were found on his body, which were caused by hard and rough object. Certain articles were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/13. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel vehemently argued that taking the case of the prosecution as it, no offence Page No.4 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 under Section 306 of IPC is made out or established against the appellant. By playing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & ors. v. State of Gujarat 1 , learned counsel prays for acquittal of the appellant for the offence in question. Hence, the present appeal be allowed in toto. (7) Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence mentioned herein-above and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. (8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (9) In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased within 02 years of her marriage (i.e. within 07 years) had committed suicide by hanging, which is not in dispute, as according to PM report of the deceased (Ex.P/01), Dr. Diwakar Gajpal (PW-08) has held the death of the deceased to be suicidal in nature. However, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding by accepting the version of the prosecution on the basis of statement of Saraswati 1 (2024) 12 SCR 439 : 2024 INSC 960 Page No.5 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 Dhimar (PW-02) [aunt (mausi) of the deceased], Seema Nirmalkar (PW-04) [cousin of the deceased] and Ku. Deepika (PW-05) [friend of the deceased] that after the marriage, the appellant used to commit cruelty on the deceased (his wife) under the influence of liquor, due to which, the deceased suffered harassment mentally and physically and, thereby committed suicide on the date and time of the offence. Therefore, the question for determination is as to whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case offence under Section 306 of IPC would be made against the appellant or not? (10) To resolve the controversy, it appears necessary first of all to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the IPC, which reads as under :- “S. 306. Abetment of suicide – If any person committs 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.” (11) Abatement has been defined in Section 107 which reads as under :- ”S. 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 peson or pesons 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 Page No.6 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 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.” (12) Punishment of abetment is provided under Section 109 of the IPC which reads as under :- “S. 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” (13) As per the definition given in Section 107 of the IPC, abatement is constituted by - - Instigating a person to commit an offence; or - Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or - Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. (14) A person is said to 'instigate' another to an Act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word Page No.7 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. (15) As Section 306 of the IPC makes abatement of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other person in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased. (16) Recently also, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra) has considered all the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC and held in Paras-17 to 24 & 26 as under: “17. Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or Page No.8 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life. 18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 wherein it was observed that: “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 19. To bring a conviction under Section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, defined the word Page No.9 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 “instigate” as under: “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 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.” 20. The essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are: I. the abetment; II. the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. 21. Thus, to bring a case under this provision, it is imperative that the accused intended by their act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, in cases of death of a wife, the Court must meticulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as assess the evidence presented. It is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide. 22. It is essential to establish that the death was a Page No.10 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission. This can involve instigating the victim or engaging in specific actions that facilitated the act. The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment. Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained. 23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly contributed to the victim’s decision to take their own life. Harassment, in itself, does not suffice unless it is accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation. Furthermore, these actions must be proximate to the time of the suicide, showcasing a clear connection between the accused’s behavior and the tragic outcome. It is only through the establishment of this direct link that a conviction under Section 306 IPC can be justified. The prosecution bears the burden of proving this active involvement to hold the accused accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. The same position has been laid down by this court in several judgments, such as: i. M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626; ii. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707; iii. Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka, (2007) SCC Online Kar 824. 24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused’s role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative Page No.11 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim’s self- esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused’s intent and its impact on the victim. 26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by this Court regarding Section 306, IPC, there appears no proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of selling of gold ornaments and subsequent physical and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred almost a year before the FIR was registered at the instance of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of the deceased’s cousins only mention instances which occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased. Further, selling of gold ornaments and the same was followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.” (17) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra) have clearly held that the intention to Page No.12 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 abet the act is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. It has further been held that it is necessary to determine whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no other option but to end their life. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be concrete proof of either direct or indirect acts of incitement that led to the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt. For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide. However, in the case at hand, though the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the deceased had committed suicide within 07 years of her marriage (i.e. within 02 years) and further relying upon the statements of Saraswati Dhimar (PW-02) [aunt (mausi) of the deceased], Seema Nirmalkar (PW-04) [cousin of the deceased] and Ku. Deepika (PW- 05) [friend of the deceased] also held that immediately after the marriage, the appellant used to commit cruelty on the deceased (his wife) under the influence of liquor, due to which, the deceased suffered harassment mentally and physically and, thereby, committed suicide on the date and time of the offence, but there appears no proximate link between the alleged facts, instances or harassment and the subsequent death of the deceased by hanging. Page No.13 of 13 IN CRA-545-2023 Mere harassment and quarrel between the wife (deceased) and her husband (appellant) do not appear to create a scenario where the deceased was left with no option other than to end her life. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellant did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did he commit any positive or direct act or omission of suicide by the deceased. We hereby hold accordingly. (19) Resultantly, in view of foregoing analysis, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 306 of IPC, as awarded to him by the learned trial Court, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, I direct that he be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (20) Consequently, this criminal appeal is allowed. (21) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if