1 2025:CGHC:23803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 439 of 2024 1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o. Late Daniram Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o. Baramkela, P.S. Baramkela, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through DM, Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Manoj Agrawal S/o. Nand Kishor Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o. Thana- Baramkela, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o. Nand Kishor Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o. Thana- Baramkela, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. H.A.P.S Bhatia, PL For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.16 14:09:53 +0530 2 2. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed by the 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh in Session Trial No.23/2016, whereby, the respondents/accuseds were acquitted of the charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Daniram Agrawal committed suicide at Hotel Shivam in Room No.105 and on 18.06.2015, at about 7:30 AM his dead body was shifted to Mortuary, Raigarh vide Ex-P/5. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex-P/6. During the investigation, it has been revealed that the deceased left a suicide note (Article A-1) wherein he alleged that, due to business rivalry, the accused persons were harassing him and earlier they had also beaten him and made a complaint to the administration and the administration has seized paddy of the deceased; therefore, he has committed suicide by using insecticide. After merg enquiry, FIR No.482/2015 was registered at Police Station, Raigarh vide Ex-P/16. Inquest report was prepared vide Ex-P/2. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. Devraj Behra (PW-2) vide Ex-P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The questioned suicide note and the writing of the deceased were sent for the forensic examination and thereafter, a report (Ex-P/13) was given by Prakash Chand Trivedi (PW-12), expert of the questioned document FSL, Raipur. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 4. During the trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and 5 articles. The 3 respondents/accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and examined 4 defence witnesses namely, Murarilal Agrawal (DW-1), Prashant Kumar Panda (DW-2), Keshav Prasad Devta (DW-3) and Dr. Anuradha Singh (DW-4) and exhibited 12 documents vide Ex-D/1 to D/12 to show that the deceased was suffering from mental ailments. 5. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence, this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, though the wife of the deceased (PW-5) categorically stated that prior to the incident, on 16.06.2015 at night, about 8:30 hours, the respondent/accused quarreled with the deceased, earlier also they had raised quarrel and due to their continuous harassment, the deceased committed suicide and the said fact has also been mentioned by him in his suicide note (Article A-1), therefore, considering this backdrop of the case, he prays to allow the Appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and 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 accused person to the deceased was of such a nature which tantamounts 4 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 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 Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327 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. 5 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 M. Mohan v. State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, the Supreme Court, by the following observation, has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence: “45.The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed suicide.” 13.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the trial Court has rightly observed at para 39 about the suicide note (Article A-1) wherein the deceased has made allegations against the accused persons. Apart from the accused persons, allegation has also been made against one Yudhishthir Naik that he has also not paid his loan amount of 6 Rs.4,40,000/- and further made allegations that the accused persons had earlier beaten him and threatened to kill him and also made a complaint due to which his paddy was seized by the administration. 14.When the accused person has made any complaint against the conduct of the deceased, the deceased has every right to defend him in a legal manner. If the accused person has committed any wrong earlier, he has a remedy to make a complaint about such a nature of the injury caused to him by the accused person. The accused persons have raised a probable defence that the deceased was suffering from mental ailments by examining Dr. Anuradha Singh (DW-4), so the trial Court has rightly observed that due to the financial crises the deceased could not bear the expenses of the treatment and also for the release of the paddy which was seized by the administration. So there is no nexus or any proximate or live link with the conduct of the accused persons which attracts the definition of the abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC and the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. It is well settled that when two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken see Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773. 15.For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that this Appeal has no merit or substance. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge