1 2025:CGHC:18445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 245 of 2005 1 - Keshav @ Keshabo S/o. Duaroo, aged about 22 years, R/o. Village Korta Mundapara, P.S. Nagarnar, District Bastar, CG. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate Jagdalpur, District Bastar, CG. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Ms. M. Asha, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 23/04/2025 What is assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 22.01.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2004 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur, CG, by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500, in default of fine one month RI was imposed. 2. Two accused persons were put to trial and accused Duaaru S/o- Somsai was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that appellant committed continuous sexual intercourse with the deceased on the pretext of marriage. When she became pregnant, the 2 appellant denied to marry her and offer her to take pill for miscarriage however, she did not take the pill. On 21.01.2004 the deceased along with her friends had gone to village Kota to witness the dance program and was coming thereafter and met the appellant on the way near the mango tree and told that he will drop the deceased to home. Thereafter, the deceased went with the appellant. On 22.01.2004 the deceased was found hanging in the banyan tree near the tracing ground of the kitchen garden of the appellant. The deceased has committed suicide by hanging. The following recital was written in the hand of the deceased “ के सबो उ्቞ भर बिबोना आपके के रण जा ना दे रही ही. जिजातना भ बोल रही ही, सबोझूठ ही, जारूर सही प्या र था , केभ ना केभ भगवा ना जारूर बिदेखा याग .” Merg intimation Ex. P-8 was registered by acquitted accused Duaaru at Police Chouki Bakawand. The dead body could not be identified, upon which Surendra Kumar Dubey (PW-10) registered the First Information Report (Ex.P-9). After giving notice Ex. P-7 to the witnesses, prepared the panchnama of the dead body (Ex. P-5) and spot map (Ex. P-5). Through an application Ex. P-1 the dead body was sent for postmortem to primary health centre Bakawand. Dr. Mamta Sende (PW-4) conducted the autopsy of the dead body and opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia on account of hanging which is prior to 30 to 36 hours. The nature of death was suicidal. The deceased was carrying five month fetus. She gave her report Ex. P-3. It is further case of the prosecution is that before the death, deceased had given a letter and photograph of the appellant to her brother Ghasiram (PW-7) which was seized by the police vide Ex. P-1 and from witness Ratiram (PW-9) the note book of class 9 and 10 written by the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-2. Seized note books and letter was sent to hand writing expert who gave the report Ex. P- 17. Patwari Bhola Patel (PW-11) prepared the spot map of the place of incident vide Ex. P- 13. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court which was made over to the trial Court for trial. 4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 306 and 201 IPC against accused Duaaru and against present appellant framed charge under Section 306 IPC only. They 3 denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents in support of its case. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 6. By the judgment impugned, the learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Duaaru from all the charges, however, the convicted the appellant as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is per se illegal & bad in law. He further submits that ingredient of Section 306 is not proved by the appellant and there is no instigation on the part of the appellant as defined under Section 107 IPC. He further submits that the letters and note books sent to the hand writing expert cannot be relied upon as a report has been submitted for comparison, it cannot be opined that the hand writing in the note book or letters is of the deceased. He further submits that nothing is on record to substantiate that the fetus carried by the deceased was as a result of sexual intercourse by the appellant and it is not established on record that the appellant and the deceased were in relationship. Arguendo, even if it is presumed that the appellant and the deceased were having love affair, the refusal to marry ipso facto would not mean that the appellant has instigated the deceased which left the deceased no choice except to commit suicide. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police reported in AIR 2025 SC 153 therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgment. She submits that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is 4 establish on record that the appellant was having love relationship with the deceased and also promised to marry her and thereafter refuted from the promise which has caused mental trauma to the deceased and which could safely be amount to instigation on the part of the appellant therefore, the meritorious findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the commission of offence, cannot be found fault with, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The prosecution brought its case with an allegation that the appellant and the deceased was having love relationship and as a result of their relationship, the deceased carried a pregnancy of about five months. It is the case of the prosecution that once the appellant refused to marry the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. The first fact which requires to be proved by the prosecution is that the appellant and deceased was having love relationship. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses brought by the prosecution, none of the witnesses stated that the deceased had love relationship with the appellant. Aashmati (PW-6) has stated that she is not aware about the fact that Kaisbo assured deceased for marriage and thereafter refused to marry, as a result deceased died. Apart from this, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellant and the deceased was having love relationship. The prosecution in order to substantiate this fact also seized the letters and the note books of the deceased, but it is not established on record that the hand writing in the said letters and note books is of the deceased. The learned trial Court heavily placed reliance on the recital found in the hand of the deceased which was quoted earlier. Perusal of the statement of the witnesses who were present at the time of panchnama of the dead body clearly goes to show that they have not stated that what is the actual wording written in the hand of the deceased. One of the witness Gambhir Singh (PW-8) has not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. Another witness Ratiram Kashyap (PW-9) simply states that the 5 deceased has written some letters and he has read it and there was some matter with regard to marriage of the deceased with the appellant and the appellant might have refused to marry, therefore, the deceased has died. This witness is also a witness to seizure of the panchnama of the recital written in the hand of the deceased and the seizure of note book of the deceased. Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned trial court on the recital made and from the statement of PW-9 it appears that something was going on between the appellant and the deceased with regard to their marriage and he might have refused and therefore, the deceased has died. The learned trial Court also observed that since the deceased carrying five months pregnancy and the recital in the hand of the deceased was with regard to the deceased and she had love affair with the deceased and as a result of which the deceased became pregnant and assumed that before the incident the appellant has taken the deceased with him and said something which according to the deceased was false and as a result of which she committed suicide behind the house of the appellant therefore, learned trial court has given a finding that the appellant has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Perusal of the entire record does not discloses that any instigation made by the appellant. 11. This Court is required to see as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of section 107 & 306 of the IPC that fell for consideration are reproduced as under: Section 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 an 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.” Explanation 6 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Section 306. Abetment of Suicide “Abetment of Suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 12. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 13. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, 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. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi (supra) has held as under: “29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide. 7 30. If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused-appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide.” 15. With almost identical facts observed that accused-appellant had simply refused to marry deceased and even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship would not amount to abatement to suicide. 16. Therefore, relying the judgment as stated above, this Court is of the opinion that ingredient of Section 107 of the IPC has not been fulfilled by the prosecution and benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charge. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Appellant is said to be on bail during pendency of the appeal. His bail bond shall be kept alive for six months as per provision of section 481 of BNSS, 2023. The record of the trial Court with copy of the judgment be sent back for information and compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan