1 2025:CGHC:37053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 348 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Narendra Kumar Komre Aged About 32 Years R/o, Buchatola, P.S. Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 29/07/2025 This acquittal appeal under Section 378 (1) of CrPC, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the appellant/State assailing legality, validity, correctness and judicial propriety of judgment dated 06/03/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.38/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Trial No.38/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh by which the respondent has been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 2 ‘IPC’). The respondent was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC inter alia stating that he mentally harassed the deceased–Gayatri @ Pushpa Yadav and instigated her to commit suicide as a result of which deceased Gayatri @ Pushpa Yadav set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her on 02/02/2017 at 19:30 hrs at village– Buchatola, Police Station – Chhuriya. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 02/02/2017, village Kotwar Panchram informed the Police Station–Chhuriya that he was informed by one Rajendra Kanwar that a woman is burning near the High School. When he along with Rajendra went to the spot, they saw Gayatri died. Thereafter, it was informed to Sarpanch Lalit Kanwar who also reached the spot. Kerosene smell was coming out of the dead body. One plastic bag, bedsheet, towel and election card was found. In the identity card of the deceased, her name was mentioned as Gayatri of village – Masul. 3. On the information of Panchram merg intimation in zero vide Ex.P/1 was registered at police Station–Chhuriya. Inquest was prepared. Photographs of the dead body was taken and after dead body panchanama, the same was sent to CHC, Chhuriya for post mortem and spot map was prepared. During the merg enquiry, it was found that the deceased Gayatri Bai was the resident of village-Mirche, Police Station -Chilhati. She was married to Santosh Yadav (PW1) of village -Masul in the year 2007 and was blessed with 2 daughters. It is also the case of the prosecution that the respondent who was already married and father of 4 children, on the pretext of marriage, took the deceased as his wife to Andhra Pradesh. While returning, left the deceased at Saundhhad Railway Station, Maharashtra on 01/02/2017 and came back alone. By that time, the deceased Gayatri Bai was carrying 3 months pregnancy. When Gayatri Bai somehow reached Village – Buchatola, the respondent harassed him and she was handed over to village kotwar. As a result of the harassment, the deceased who was carrying pregnancy committed suicide by setting her ablaze near 3 school of village–Buchatola. On completion of merg enquiry under crime no.77/2016, FIR was registered against the respondent under Section 306 of IPC. Suicide note, note book and other articles were seized from the place of incident. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Respondent was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed which was received by the trial Court on committal. Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the respondent. He abjured guilt and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Statement of the respondent under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded, in which, he claimed innocence and false implication. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / State argues that the finding of acquittal by the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified and contrary to the evidence on record and is bad in law. He submits that there are ample evidence on record to suggest that the appellant by continuous harassment, instigated the deceased which left no option to the deceased except to commit suicide. He further submits that the deceased was exploited by the respondent and on midway, when she was carrying pregnancy, left her and also harassed. The deceased left the suicide note which has been wrongly disbelieved by the trial Court. Therefore, the charge under Section 306 of IPC has been proved against the appellant and the glaring evidence have been overlooked by the learned trial Court resulting into his acquittal. He submits that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the respondent may be convicted under Section 306 of IPC sentencing him appropriately. 6. Per contra, Shri Koshta supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and 4 submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC to suggest that there was continuous instigation which left no option with Gayatri Bai except to commit suicide. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 306 IPC. He submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the respondent has harassed the deceased. Neither any medical evidence available to suggest that the pregnancy carried by the deceased was of the respondent and there is no evidence on record that the suicide note allegedly recovered to be written by the deceased. Therefore, the well merited finding recorded by the trial Court does not require any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal of the respondent. Though the appellate Court has ample power to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record and independently come to its own conclusion, however, the power with respect to certain riders which have time and again been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions with regard to powers of the appellate Court in the cases of acquittal appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 observed that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. It has been held in paragraph 9 as under - “Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the 5 conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be sustained. 9. In the case of M.C.Ali and anr. v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in which it has been held as under - 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes 6 of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 10. In this case, the charge against the respondent is under Section 306 of IPC. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to quote Section 107 IPC and Section 306 of IPC. “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 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” “306. 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 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. Prosecution, in order to establish the case against the respondent, basically relied upon the statement of PW1 (husband), PW5 (father), PW6 (mother) of the deceased and PW7 (wife of the respondent). Santosh Yadav (PW1) has simply stated 7 that the deceased was his wife and she left him about 9-10 months before the incident. She has passed away. He does know with whom she was living and how she died. This witness was declared hostile. Almost similar statement was given by Baisakhu Yadav (PW5) who simply states that the deceased was his daughter. He also stated the deceased was married to PW1 and thereafter she left him. This witness does not throw any important aspect with regard to instigation of any harassment against the respondent. Likewise, the other witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from this from the evidence on record, it does not appear that the suicidal note so recovered was in the hand writing of the deceased and the report and the report of the hand writing expert is not available on record. Learned trial Court held that it is not established as to who has written the suicide note. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under - “17. 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. 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 case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below - “20. 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 8 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.” 13. In the light of above, the evidence which has been brought by the prosecution are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondent under Section 306 of IPC. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record acquitted the respondent on the above charges. In the light of the judgments with regard to powers of the appellate Court in acquittal appeal cited above and proof of charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC as cited above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment to take a different view which has already been taken by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.08.07 11:38:16 +0530