1 2025:CGHC:43197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 28 of 2005 Ajayshankar Rao Ghode, S/o Shankar Rao Ghode, aged about 37 years, R/o MIG-I/928, HUDCO, PS Bhilai Nagar, presently residing at above Jeet Batteries, Dakshin Gangotri, Supela-Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Appellant. versus State of Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 26/08/2025 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.212/2002 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.28 14:24:55 +0530 2 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the deceased namely Ashwini was solemnized with the appellant on 19.11.1995 as per social rituals. Out of their relations, one child namely Aditya was born. Further case of the prosecution is that appellant was in the business of inverter and on account of loss in the said business, he always asked the deceased/wife to bring money from her maternal home. Thereafter, mother of the deceased had given Rs.20,000/-, 2,000/-, 5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- to the appellant. Appellant also kept a lady namely Sona @ Iwa Chatterjee as his wife and he used to quarrel with the deceased and also committed maar-peet with her. Bedi (not examined), a servant of the house gave a photograph (Ex.P/8) to brother of the deceased namely Hemant (PW-3). Thereafter, parents of the appellant along with his elder brother came to convince him about such conduct and elder brother of the appellant took Ashwini/deceased to Amravati. On 17th January, deceased returned back from Amravati with the appellant. However, thereafter also harassment continued. On 25.01.2002, brother of the deceased namely Hemant (PW-3) went to house of the appellant and convinced him regarding the dispute. In the night of said date at about 11:00 pm, when the appellant came in intoxicated condition, the deceased consumed acid poison. Thereafter, appellant took the deceased to her brother’s home and they both took the deceased to Sector 9 hospital, Bhilai. During treatment, she died in the evening of 26.01.2002, at about 6:45 pm. Dr. AH Khan (PW-10) gave Medico Legal Information vide Ex.P/17. Merg intimation (Ex.P/20) was lodged with the police station Bhilainagar by Smt. Shivdulari David (PW-15). After giving 3 notice, death inquest panchnama (Ex.P/5A) was prepared by Tehsildar namely Siddharth Das (PW-12). Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-1) and Dr. VK Sao (DW-2) conducted the post-mortem vide Ex.P/1 and opined that cause of death is shock due to perforation of stomach due to antemortem acid consumed by the deceased. To confirm the same, Viscera was preserved. In the Viscera report (not exhibited), presence of acid was found. After completing merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P/11) was registered by SK Naqvi, SHO (PW-7). The acid which was found in the stomach of the deceased was collected by Dr. PK Rath (PW-13) which was seized vide Ex.P/9. 3. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant pleaded false implication and examined his father namely Shankar Annaji Ghode (DW-1) and Dr. VK Sao (DW-2) who conducted post-mortem vide Ex.P/1. 7. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B of IPC and convicted him of the charge as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant as the deceased had a doubt that appellant has 4 kept another lady namely Sona @ Iwa Chatterjee as his wife. Although, during investigation, the said lady denied any such relations with the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the photograph (Ex.P/8) is not a marriage photograph and only on the basis of the said photograph, marriage cannot be presumed. Even, the said conduct does not attract the ingredients of instigation on the part of the appellant as only on account of the same, the quarrel used to take place. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even on the date of incident, brother of the deceased came to appellant’s house to convince both the appellant/husband and deceased/wife and thereafter returned back which shows that everything became normal between them. Learned counsel also submits that no complaint has been made by the deceased in her life time. The trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B of IPC and as the appellant himself had taken the deceased to the hospital to save her life, there is no intention on the part of the appellant compelling the wife/deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submits that there was domestic quarrel between the appellant/husband and the deceased/wife who might be a hypersensitive lady, therefore, she took such an extreme step. Taking into consideration the backdrop, the conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not justifiable and the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant of the said charge by giving him benefit of doubt. Lastly, learned counsel prays to allow the Appeal and acquit the appellant of the charge. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant of the charge under Section 306 of IPC as 5 there is ample evidence on record against the appellant and appellant/husband had not taken the deceased/wife directly to the hospital, instead, he took the deceased to her brother’s house and thereafter, both took her to the hospital. He submits submits that the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11.Admittedly, marriage of the deceased/wife was solemnized with the appellant on 19.11.1995. Maternal home of the deceased is situated at Nagpur, Maharashtra and the deceased was residing along with her husband/appellant at Bhilai Durg (C.G.). Brother of the deceased namely Hemant (PW-3) deposed that appellant was in the business of inverter and on account of loss in the said business, appellant used to demand money through the deceased/wife and from time to time, they had helped the appellant. 12.Learned trial Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact as there was no dowry demand soon before death of the deceased and for the reason that there was no cruelty on such account, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B of IPC and convicted him of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. There was an allegation against the appellant that he had kept another lady namely Sona @ Iwa Chatterjee as his wife and during the investigation, prosecution has collected one photograph (Ex.P/8). Although, there is no witness as to who has clicked the said photograph and at what time. Bedi who had given the said 6 photograph to brother of the deceased has neither been examined during the investigation nor produced during the trial. Hence, the source from where the photograph has been collected is missing and there is no other clinching or cogent evidence that the appellant has solemnized any marriage with the lady namely Sona @ Iwa Chatterjee. 13.Investigating Officer namely Ramgyan Mourya, Sub Inspector (PW-8) categorically admits, in his statement, that during investigation, he had recorded the statement of lady namely Sona who refused any such relations with the appellant and she also explained about the photograph that as she is neigbour of the appellant, therefore, she used to visit his house. 14.Narendra Ingle, colleague of mother of the deceased (PW-4) in whose house on 22.01.2002, a function had been arranged wherein, the deceased had also participated and told this witness that her husband/appellant has cheated her and solemnized marriage with lady namely Sona, resident of Sindhiyanagar and from 2-4 days, he has not returned home and is residing in the house of Sona. The deceased also complained that the appellant asked her to bring money from her parents’ home and upon refusing the said demand, appellant committed maar- peet with her. This witness further deposed that he convinced the deceased that after some time everything will be normal. 15.Even on the date of incident i.e. 25.01.2002, brother of the deceased namely Hemant (PW-3) went to house of the deceased in the evening and found that she was very much disturbed and he convinced his sister and returned. Thereafter, in the night at about 11:30 pm, appellant along 7 with the deceased came and informed that the deceased has consumed poison-acid and also asked to take her to the hospital. Thereafter, appellant and Hemant (PW-3) took the deceased to Sector 9 Hospital Bhilai. Dr. AL Benjamin (PW-9) firstly treated the deceased and admitted her into the hospital and proved his report vide Ex.P/13A. Dr. AH Khan (PW-10) deposed that during treatment, the deceased died on 26.01.2002 at about 6:45 pm. Thereafter, he gave the Medico Legal Information vide Ex.P/17 and on the basis of it, Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/20. Death inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/5A by Tehsildar namely Siddharth Das (PW-12). Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Chandrashekhar (PW-1) and Dr. VK Sao (DW-2) vide Ex.P/1 wherein, they opined that cause of death is due to consumption of poison like acid. Hence, it is established that deceased has committed suicide on the date of incident. 16.Now the material bearing question is as to whether the appellant, in any manner, abetted the deceased to commit suicide ? 17.In order to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court is obliged to see whether the harassment meted out by the appellant 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. 18. 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 8 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 Thirdly. – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 19. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 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.” 20. In the matter of Shenbagavalli and ors. vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and anr.2, the following has been observed at 1 AIR 2010 SC 327 2 2025 INSC 607 9 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 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 10 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 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 11 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.” 21.In the State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another3, 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. 22.Recently in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. 3. 1994 CriLJ2104 12 State of Gujarat4, 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 suicide. 23. In the matter of Velladurai vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police5, 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 4. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 503 5 (2022) 17 SCC 523 13 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 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. 24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the evidence that the deceased had a suspicion that the appellant has solemnized marriage with another lady namely Sona @ Iwa Chatterjee and due to such suspicion, quarrel used to take place between the appellant and deceased/wife and the appellant committed maar-peet with the deceased but during the life time of the deceased, there is no report about any such behaviour. Even the lady along with whom suspicious relations of the 6 (2010) 1 SCC 707 14 appellant has been alleged, has denied any such relation and due to being neighbor of the appellant and deceased/wife, she used to come to the house of the appellant. After the incident, appellant himself had taken the wife/deceased to the hospital to save her life, therefore, it appears that there was usual domestic quarrel between the husband/appellant and wife/deceased. 25.From the aforesaid evidence, an interference that the appellant had an intention to instigate the deceased/wife to commit suicide cannot be drawn. Hence, finding recorded by the trial Court while convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is not justifiable. 26.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 306 of IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is reported to be 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. 27.Let a copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash