1 2025:CGHC:48649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.190 of 2022 Jageshwar Chandra S/o Shri Ram Kumar Chandra, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Salonikala, P.S. Bhatgaon, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhatgaon, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajay Vishwakarma S/o Loknath Vishwakarma, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Salonikala, P.S. Bhatgaon, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 22.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (deceased’s cousin brother) under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.64/2021, whereby, the Respondent No.2-Ajay Vishwakarma has been SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.22 18:49:48 +0530 2 acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased, namely, Puja Chandra was in love affair with the Respondent No.2-Ajay Vishwakarma, but, the said respondent has got married with someone else, namely, Rajni Vishwakarma in the month of March, 2020 and despite of his solemnization as such, he continuously made his relation with the deceased and, on 17.08.2020 in the night, he called her to his house on the pretext of running away from the house. It is alleged further that when she reached his house, he abused her physically and mentally, owing to which, after returning home, she has committed suicide on 18.08.2020 while consuming poison. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.2- Ajay Vishwakarma and the deceased was in love affair and, from perusal of the statement of her father-Bharat Lal (PW-1) and her cousin brother-Parmeshwar Chandra (PW-2), it appears that they were aware that the marriage of the said respondent with one Rajni was solemnized in the month of March, 2020. It is to be seen further that although, the deceased has committed suicide and died on 18.08.2020, but, no complaint as such was lodged by any of her relatives at the time of inquest of her deadbody and, the alleged report (Ex.P-14) was found to be lodged only on 07.04.2021, i.e., after passing of the considerable period of more than 7 & ½ months even without explaining any plausible reasons for it. Although, it 3 reveals from the statement of her father that a written report was lodged by him immediately after the occurrence of the alleged incident, but, no report as such was, however, found to be placed on the record. 4. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the statement of deceased’s relatives, namely, father-Bharat Lal (PW-1) and her cousin brother- Parmeshwar Chandra (PW-2) that she was threatened by the respondent-accused to viral her video and insisted her to make physical relation with him, but, the said fact was, however, not reflected from the allegation of the prosecution. Though, it was stated that on 17.08.2020, the deceased was called by the said respondent, but the said fact has, however, not found to be established that on the said day, she was called by him. 5. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat”, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, wherein, it was held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 6. Likewise, in the matter of “Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.” reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at para 12 as under :- 4 “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." (emphasis supplied) 7. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, it is, thus, evident that in order to bring a case within the purview 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 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 8. However, in the instant matter, as observed hereinabove, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent has abetted or instigated the deceased for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on the said fateful day. In view of the said background, the trial Court has, thus, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 5 9. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane