1 2025:CGHC:49379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 30-07-2025 Judgment delivered on : 26-09-2025 CRA No. 678 of 2007 Ghurmin Tandan, S/o Bihariram Satnami, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Bade Katkoni, Thana Dhabra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, PS Dabra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Ku. Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Judgment The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in ST No.54/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for two months. Under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the appellant with Sukranti Bai (since deceased) was solemnized about five years prior to 15.6.2006 and from their wedlock, two children were born. On 14.6.2006 the appellant along with his wife Sukranti Bai and his parents attended the marriage of her cousin sister and thereafter, his wife returned to his house. The appellant, who runs a betel shop, after closing his shop and after departure of the guests returned to his house at 11.30 pm. However, when he entered his room he saw that his wife had hanged herself with a gamchha from Myar and was writhing in pain. He came out screaming and thereafter along with his parents, sister and others went inside the room, cut the gamchha with the help of a blade and lowered her down. However, by that time she had died. In the preliminary enquiry, statements of relatives of the deceased were recorded where it revealed that the appellant used to harass her too much, abuse her after drinking liquor and also beat her 3 as a result of which she committed suicide by hanging herself. Postmortem on the dead body was performed and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of IPC. However, there is no evidence to show that the accused/appellant in any manner instigated her to commit suicide or 4 engaged in a conspiracy for the act with another person, or intentionally aided the commission of the act through any act or illegal omission. Even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no offence is made out against the appellant. There is no mens rea on the part of the accused. From the overall evidence it does not transpire that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by the appellant or any of his relatives. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had by his act or omission or by continue course of conduct created such circumstances that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Looking to the statements of PW-2 Bhejram and PW-11 Rahas Bai it evident that the appellant and the deceased were leading a happy married life. There are major contradiction and omission in the statements of other prosecution witnesses which have been overlooked by learned trial court. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 5 SCC 371. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon 5 minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentence him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 09. It is not disputed in this case that deceased Sukranti Bai was wife of the accused/appellant and she committed suicide on 14.6.2006 by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. 10. PW-1 Pitambar, father of the deceased, states that the accused/appellant is his son-in-law; who used to torture the deceased, quarrel with her after consuming liquor and killed her on 14.6.2006. In cross-examination he admits the suggestion of defence that on being invited for marriage function, the accused/appellant and the deceased would come to attend the same. He also admits that no village panchayat was ever convened in connection with any quarrel between them and also no report was ever made to the police in this regard. He 6 admits that when he visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, she did not make any complaint to him. 11. PW-2 Bhejram, cousin of the deceased, admits his signature on inquest notice Ex.P/1, inquest memo Ex.P/2 and seizure memo Ex.P/3. He states that whenever he went to the house of parents of the deceased, he heard that there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased. However, in cross-examination he admits that the accused and the deceased were living well, they used to frequently visit the parental house of the deceased and whenever he visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, he found both of them living comfortably and she never made any complaint to him. 12. PW-11 Rahas Bai, grand-mother of the deceased, states that there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased over dowry. She states that after killing the deceased she was hanged by the accused. In cross-examination she admits that whenever she visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, she found both the accused and the deceased living well. She never told anyone about any ill-treatment and also no village panchayat was ever convened in this regard. 13. PW-12 Smt. Uttari Kumari, mother of the deceased, states that the accused/appellant used to torture the deceased for dowry. However, in cross-examination she states that whenever she visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, she was never told about any 7 such incident by the deceased. She went to the matrimonial house of the deceased 4-5 times but the deceased never told her anything. However, she states that after killing her daughter she was hanged. 14. PW-7 Dr. NP Mishra conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death seemed to be asphyxia and nature was suicidal vide Ex.P/5 which bears his signature from A to A part. 15. Though the mother, father and grand-mother of the deceased allege that it is the accused/appellant who killed the deceased and thereafter hanged her, however, the overall evidence, in particular the medical evidence, led by the prosecution clearly establish the present to be a case of suicide. Close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses makes it clear that there is no evidence regarding abetment by the accused/appellant to the deceased to commit suicide. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar (supra) held in paras 23 & 24 of its judgment as under: “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 8 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 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.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573 after observing its various earlier decisions held in para 25 of the judgment as under: “25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. 9 The ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. 18. In light of the above decisions, it is clear that in the present case also there is no such evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused/appellant having abetted commission of suicide by his wife may necessarily be drawn. The evidence led by the prosecution fall short of proving intention on the part of the accused/appellant to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to put an end to her life. The essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC which constitute the offence u/s 306 of IPC are extremely missing in this case. Likewise, considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution also failed to prove the essential elements of cruelty, harassment, or dowry demand on the part of the accused/appellant. Rather evidence of PW-1 father, PW-2 cousin, PW-11 grand-mother and PW-12 mother of the deceased goes to show that whenever they visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, they found both the accused/appellant and the deceased living together comfortably; she made no complaint to them regarding any harassment or ill-treatment for dowry etc. and that no village meeting was ever convened for sorting out any kind of dispute between them. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court was not justified in holding the accused/appellant guilty of the offence u/s 306 and 498A of IPC. 10 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned trial Court is hereby set aside and consequently, the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, he is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, he on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant has been undergoing the sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.09.26 12:30:17 +0530