1 2025:CGHC:43612 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 01.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 28.08.2025 CRA No. 361 of 2009 Mahendra Singh, S/o Ramrachhe@ Radhe Singh, aged about 26 years, Occupation-Agriculturist R/o Village Jamuwadand P.S. Balrampur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ...Appellant In Jail Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Balrampur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. C.A.V. Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 118/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 306 of IPC For three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for one week. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that the deceased Lakhpatiya was married to the accused/appellant Mahendra Singh. Before the date of incident, the deceased sold 4kgs wheat of her in-laws house without the consent of her husband/appellant, since then the accused/appellant used to call the deceased as thief and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty, due to this reason the accused/appellant used to say to the deceased that he will not keep her. The deceased Lakhpatiya apprised regarding what she underwent to her mother Smt. Banarasi, as such the in-laws of the accused/appellant made the appellant understand about the things and convinced him to keep their daughter with him. Thereafter, the accused/appellant took back his wife with him. At the time of incident, Smt. Banarasi (PW/01) the mother of the deceased got the information that he daughter/deceased Lakhpatiya had committed suicide as she set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, then the mother of the deceased rushed to Balrampur, at that time the deceased Lakhpatiya was unconscious and was not able to speak, her face, chest, stomach, waist were burnt, for better treatment, she was 3 referred to Ambikapur and there she was admitted at the Mission Hospital, during her treatment she died in the same night in the said hospital. As the deceased reached heavenly abode in Mission Hospital, which comes under the jurisdiction of Gandhinagar Police Station, as such the information was first sent to Gandhinagar Police Station, Ambikapur, on the basis of which morgue intimation vide Ex. P/03 was prepared and the said morgue intimation was registered by Deepak Sharma (PW/06). The post-mortem of the deceased Lakhpatiya was also completed under Gandhinagar Police Station, the said post-mortem report was completed by Dr. Uttam Singh (PW/07) his report is Ex. P/04 and he opined in his report that cause of death as shock due to fire on the body of the deceased. F.I.R. was registered against the accused/appellant vide Ex. P/06 by Brij Nath Sai (PW/10) and the investigation was started after registering the crime no. 11/08. 3. During the course of investigation, A.S.I. Brij Nath Sai (PW/10) vide seizure memo Ex. P/01, seized an iron kerosene lamp and a glass bottle from the house of the accused/appellant and recorded the statements of (PW/01) Smt. Banarasi, (PW/02) Rani Devi (PW/03) Ragmgahan Singh, (PW/09) Kaval Prasad, Sukhram alias Cholan Singh, Padumar, Mitrasen Singh, and accused/appellant under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material 4 contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 306 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been adduced by him in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on record, convicted the appellant under Sections 306 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is bad-in-law as well as facts available on record. The entire case of the prosecution was depended upon the statement of the mother of the deceased-Lakhpatiya, she is Banarasi but as per her statement, the prosecution was unable to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant. The prosecution was also unable to establish the act and conduct regarding the maltreatment or 5 cruelty against the appellant, as there was cordial relationship between the deceased and the appellant and the same was admitted by the witnesses, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and wrongly convicted the appellant despite there being no evidence regarding the instigation or provocation against the appellant which shows that the appellant committed same against the deceased, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 20.07.2016 in the matter of Khol Bahara and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in CRA No. 231/2002. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, as such the impugned judgment is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court. 10. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the 6 accused/appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. 12. Dr. Uttam Singh (PW/07) conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found one burn injury and opined that the cause of death was shock due to ante-mortem burn injury caused by excessive burn and gave his report vide Ex. P/04. 13. (PW/01) Smt. Banarasi, mother of the deceased stated that the accused/appellant Mahendra Singh is his son-in-law and the deceased-Lakhpati was her daughter and their marriage was solemnized prior to 07 years of the date of incident and out of their wedlock, three children were born out of which two of them have died and only one girl child is alive. She further stated that once her daughter sold 04 Kgs wheat, 01 kg chickpea (chana) as the deceased wanted to buy and plant garlic and on the date of incident, her daughter/deceased sold 02 Kgs rice. Then the accused/appellant called her a thief and he set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil. In her cross-examination she admitted that by saying that it is true as her son-in-law is a naive person and she further admitted that she has not seen her son-in-law setting her daughter/deceased ablaze and only by suspicion she is saying that her son-in-law has set her daughter ablaze and she deposed by saying that her daughter/deceased was straightaway taken for treatment by the accused/appellant. 7 14. (PW/02) Shani Devi, mother of the accused/appellant stated that they were working in the filed and upon reaching back home, they saw their daughter-in-law/deceased burning. The prosecution has declared her hostile and cross-examined, then she admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that earlier also her daughter-in- law/deceased attempted suicide as there were frequent quarrels between the accused/appellant and the deceased. 15. (PW/03) Ramgahan, (PW/04) Suresh Kumar Singh and (PW/05) Surendra Singh admitted their signatures on seizure memo Ex. P/01 and spot map Ex. P/02, but they have not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution declared them hostile and they have denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 16. The learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant on presumption and in para 24, the learned trial Court finds that in this case, the deceased has committed suicide by setting herself on fire, which gives a clear basis to presume that she must have been tortured in some way or the other and the learned trial Court convicted the appellant on presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 17. In this case, the learned trial Court has framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the accused/appellant and this Court held in CRA No. 231/2002 in paras 10 & 11 which reads as thus:- 8 “10. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as under : “107. Abetment of thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigate 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 thin; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 11. In the present case, it has to be decided as to whether the accused/appellants abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is not disputed that the deceased committed suicide but what had happened on the date of incident is very important material for the purpose of recording a finding on a question of abetment. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2001 9SCC 618 Hon'ble the Apex Court held in para 23 and 24 which reads thus :- 23. “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.” 24. “In State of West Bangal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.- MANU/SC/0321/1994 : 1994CriLJ2104 , this Court has cautioned that the Court 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 9 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 difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances 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.” In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. The State reported in 2019 3SCC 315 Hon'ble the Apex Court held in para 8 which reads thus :- 8. “The essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, Accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.” 18. In the light of above cited judgments and from the close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has only proved this fact that the deceased committed suicide and she was died due to burn injuries, but it is clear from the statements of PW/01 and PW/02 that there was no evidence towards the abetment or instigation of the accused/appellant and evidence of prosecution witnesses would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linking to the instigation or abetment by the accused/appellant. Mother of the deceased alleged that the accused/appellant killed her daughter, but ingredients of Section 107 of Evidence Act, 1872 are clearly 10 missing in this case. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and only on presumption convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2009 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 306 of IPC. 20. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju