1 2025:CGHC:38706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 292 of 2005 Santosh Singh, S/o Lakhan Singh Thakur, Aged about 36 years, Occupation Hotel R/o Mohline Bhata, P.S. Katghora, District Korba (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, District Korba (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi and Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nupur Sonkar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 05/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.PC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.3.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.42/2004, SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 whereby, learned Sessions Judge, Korba (CG) has convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 9 months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Satyabhama was earlier married to a person with a name similar to that of the appellant, Santosh Kumar Singh, in the year 1991. From this wedlock, she had two children one Himanshu Singh (PW-1), aged about 9 years and Nitesh Kumar Singh (PW-2), aged about 6 years. Deceased Satyabhama was posted as a Teacher in the Ashram School at Nagoi and the appellant was her colleague. After sometime, the deceased left her husband and entered into a live-in relationship with the appellant. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant frequently quarreled with the deceased and on 18.09.2003 as well, after consuming liquor, he quarrelled with her and assaulted her two children Himanshu Singh (PW-1) and Nitesh Kumar Singh (PW- 2). When the deceased protested, the appellant hit her head against the wall. Thereafter, the deceased went to her room and poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. On hearing the cries of the deceased, the people residing in the nearby locality assembled and one Ishwar Prasad Nayak (PW-8) took her to the hospital at CHC, Katghora with 100% burn injuries. Dr. Shyam Sunder Mishra (PW-12) initially examined the deceased vide Ex. P/11, and considering her critical condition, referred her to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the deceased was 3 admitted to MMI Hospital, Raipur on 21.09.2003, and ultimately died there at about 2:00 a.m. on 23.09.2003. Following her death, Vishnudeep, the ambulance driver of MMI Hospital, Raipur provided medico-legal information to Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur. The same was registered as Merg '0', and a numbered merg was subsequently registered at Police Station -Katghora vide Ex. P/13 on 5.11.2003. After the merg enquiry, the FIR was registered on 22.11.2003 vide Ex. P/17, by Inspector G.R. Diwan (PW-14). The death inquest report was prepared vide Ex. P/5. Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-13) conducted the postmortem and submitted his report vide Ex. P/12, opining that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure resulting from burns and their complications. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/14. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents vide Ex.P/1 to P/17. 5. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court held the appellant guilty under Section 306 of the IPC and awarded the sentence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. He submits that there is a lack of evidence regarding instigation, which is essential to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. For the above submission, he places reliance on the 4 judgment rendered in the matter of Velladurai Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police1 . Lastly, he prays that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment and submits that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is well established that to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court is obliged to see whether the harassment meted out by the appellants to the deceased was of such a nature which tantamounts to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC leaving the deceased with no other option except to put an end to his life by committing suicide. 10. In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused, the prosecution is first required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC 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 any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or 1 (2022) 17 SCC 523 5 Thirdly. – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 11. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 as under:- “20.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. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is 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 committed suicide.” 12. In the matter of Shenbagavalli and ors. vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and anr.3, the following has been observed at paras 15 & 16, which read as under:- “15.Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally 2 AIR 2010 SC 327 3 2025 INSC 607 6 aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M Arjunan v. State represented by its inspector of police (2019) 3 SCC 315) 16.Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been observed in para 16 as follows: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a 7 person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 8 13. In the State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another4, it was materially observed 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. 14. Recently in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat5, it was held that to attract the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit 4. 1994 CriLJ2104 5. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 503 9 suicide. 15. In the matter of Velladurai (supra), it has been observed that when the only allegation against the accused was that there was a quarrel, and there was no other material on record indicating abetment, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC was made out in the facts and circumstances of that case. The relevant paras 12 & 13 read as under : 12. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B.6 , mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by 6 (2010) 1 SCC 707 10 an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is indisputable that the deceased was a working woman and at the time of the incident, had left her husband and was in a live-in relationship with the appellant. The only allegation against the appellant is that he used to quarrel with the deceased, and on the date of the incident i.e. 18.09.2003, the appellant, while in a drunken condition, started quarreling with the deceased and assaulted the deceased and her two children. When the wife protested, the appellant hit her head against the wall. However, mother -Janki Devi (PW-3) and brother – Suresh (PW-4) of the deceased, gave a different version of the events. They deposed that when they met the deceased, she told them that while cooking, her sari caught fire after coming into contact with the stove, causing her to sustain burns. Similarly, Nitesh (PW-2), her son, also deposed in paragraph 12 that his mother caught fire while cooking. However, later he corrected his statement and deposed that at the relevant time, he was sleeping and therefore was not aware of how the incident occurred. Tilkunwar Gond (PW-6) also deposed that 11 when she met the deceased, she was informed that the deceased came into contact with a kerosene lamp and was burnt by the chimney. 17. Evidently, there are two sets of evidence in the case: first, the deceased herself disclosed to her close relatives—her mother, Janki Devi (PW-3), and her brother, Suresh (PW-4)—that the burn was accidental; and second, Tilkunwar Gond (PW-6) also stated that the deceased had disclosed to her that the burn was accidental. Furthermore, immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to the hospital at CHC, Katghora, where Dr. Shyam Sunder Mishra (PW-12) referred her to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. Subsequently, she was admitted to MMI Hospital, Raipur, on 21.09.2003, and during her treatment, she died on 23.09.2003 at about 2:00 a.m. Dr. Shyam Sunder Mishra (PW- 12), who initially examined the deceased on 18.09.2003 vide Ex. P/11, and Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem vide Ex. P/12, both found that the deceased was excessively burned. The postmortem report attributed the cause of death to burns and their complications. Ghurdas Panika (PW- 9), Kotwar, stated that after the incident, when he met the deceased, she told him that she frequently fell ill and could not bear it; for that reason, she had taken such an extreme step. The prosecution did not cross-examine the witness on this statement; therefore, it forms part of the prosecution’s record. All these factors indicate that the deceased gave differing versions regarding the incident. Apart from that, even if the conduct of the 12 appellant is examined, a mere quarrel would not suffice to attract an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, as a quarrel of such nature would not fall within the ambit of abetment unless it is established that the deceased had no other option but to commit suicide. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. 19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna