1 2025:CGHC:30357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 426 of 2016 Ravikant Singh S/o Dev Kumar Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kamleshwarpur, Mainpat, P.S. And Post Kamleshwarpur Civil And Rev. District Surguja Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh Respondent & CRA No. 366 of 2016 Dev Patel @ Dindayal Patel S/o Ramadhar Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Premnagar, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.04 14:31:40 +0530 2 For Appellant in CRA No. 426/2016 : Mr. Rishabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No. 366/2016 : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG and Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 03/07/2025 Heard. 1. Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of same Sessions trial No. 20/2015, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/03/2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 20/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21/01/2014 at 08:15 pm, Complainant Jaishankar Rajwada went to Udaipur police station and lodged a Merg report to the effect that he has a house in village Jhirmiti Road, Udaipur where 07 tenants live. He lives in his house at Patrapara. On 21/01/2014, his tenant Niranjan called him on his mobile and 3 informed that the room door of his tenant Ranimansha Singh (since deceased), who works as a staff nurse in the Community Health Center, Udaipur, was locked from inside, there was sound of TV playing inside the room but there was no voice of Ranimansha Singh. So he came to his rented house with Sunil Rajwada and when they called Ranimansha Singh to open the door, they were told from inside that two boys came to Ranimansha Singh's house at about 11:00 at night and no voice was heard. When they peeped through the window, they saw Ranimansha Singh (henceforth ‘the Deceased’) hanging from the noose with a dupatta. During investigation, it has been revealed that the Deceased had been living in his house on rent for 6-7 months before the incident. On 21/01/2014, a boy from Korba used to come to Tiwari's house from next door, whom he called his brother and they were quarreling inside and outside the house. To pacify them, he went to his house in Jhirmiti at 08:30 in the morning, but the Deceased was not found there. On the above information, the police registered the inquest report Ex.P.-2 on 21/01/2014. Subsequently, the door was opened and the Deceased was found hanging with a dupatta. The dead body of deceased was sent to Community Health Center- Udaipur for postmortem. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-1) and Dr. B.M. Kamre's team in which they found the death of the deceased was due to hypoxia and venous congestion due to hanging and the nature of death to be suicidal. 4 During investigation, statement of the witnesses were recorded and a suicidal note (Article-Q1) alleged to be written by the Deceased was recovered. On being found the appellants abetted the Deceased to commit suicide, the offence was registered against them and a charge- sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in its support. Statements of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05/03/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 6. Mr. Risabh Gupta and Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is nothing on record to indicate that, on the date of the unfortunate incident or any time in close proximity thereof there was any act of instigation on the part of the Appellants. They would submit that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled, as there appears to be no provocation or instigative act in close temporal proximity to the incident. The language employed in the suicidal note declaration does not reflect any direct inducement that left the deceased with no other recourse but to take such an extreme step. Even, it is not proved by the prosecution that the Suicidal Note (Article-Q1) was 5 written by the Deceased herself. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 5 SCC 371. Therefore, the convictions awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 7. Per contra, learned Dy. AG along with Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, would opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that there are sufficient evidence available on record to convict the appellants, and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Dr. Umashankar (PW1) has conducted the postmortem of the Deceased. As per his report, it is crystal clear that the Deceased had hanged herself and the death was suicidal. 10. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :- "107. Abetment of thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigate 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 6 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. Mother of deceased, Smt. Mamta Singh (PW10) in her statement has deposed that on 21/01/2014 in the afternoon, the Deceased had talked with her over mobile phone and informed that on 20/01/2014 in the night, Appellant- Devkumar (henceforth ‘A2’) came to her room and quarreled with her, then she called Appellant- Ravi (Henceforth ‘A1’) who also came there and they all quarreled. Subsequently, the deceased went to the hospital and informed to Sisters Jaiswal and Kerkatta and subsequently, the police informed and they have taken the appellants into custody. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that after cremation of the Deceased, she had disclosed the talks which happened between her and the Deceased on mobile phone, to her husband and father-in-law. 12. Father (PW6) of the Deceased has deposed in his statement that on 21/01/2014 before two days of the incident, mother (PW10) had talked with the Deceased and the Deceased told her that she is not well and she will get treatment. Nothing more was told by her. This witness in his further statement stated that while the Deceased was posted at Udaipur, and he had gone to meet her 2-3 times, and the Deceased had told him that two boys calls her over mobile phone and say, they love her and want to marry her. 7 13. Khileshwar Prashad Tiwari (PW12) is the neighbor of the Deceased. He has deposed that on the morning of the date when the Deceased committed suicide then the neighbors of his vicinity told him that A2 and another boy were quarreling with the Deceased. He admitted the fact that he did not know on what matter they were quarreling. 14. From bare perusal of the statement of mother and father of the Deceased, it is apparent that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statement. As the mother in examination-in-chief has stated that she had talk with the Deceased prior to the day of the incident and she had disclosed the said talking to her husband and father-in-law, whereas in her cross-examination, she has stated that after cremation of the Deceased, she had disclosed the said talks to her husband and father-in-law. Further, from the Statement of PW12, it only comes that he had listened from neighbors that the Deceased was quarreling with A2 and other boy in the morning of the date of incident. 15. The prosecution has further based its case on the Suicidal note (Article Q1) alleged to be written by the Deceased. The handwriting of the said suicidal note has been duly proved by the prosecution. The contents of the Suicidal notes are reproduced hereunder:- “ मैं रानी मशा िሺ ह आज बहुत ज्यादा ह्቏ होके आपनी जान दे रही हूँ जिज की जिजम्मेदार और कोई नहीं मैं स्वयं हु । Sony Papa & Sorry maa ……….& Love you…...to & Sorry to all person जिजन्हे में hurt की हू खा कर Ravi & Dev. में आपकी काबिबल नही थी xxx signed & dated 8 16. From perusal of the above suicidal note, it is apparent that the Deceased, was feeling hurt and as such, she committed suicide. She nowhere, in this note has written that since she was being harassed or was in some kind of trouble because of the appellant, therefore, committing suicide. Contrary to that, she has written in the note that “Sorry to all person जिजन्हे में hurt की हू खा कर Ravi & Dev. में आपकी काबिबल नही थी" . This Court does not find any instigating factor in such line written by the Deceased. Mere mentioning the names of the appellants in the suicide note cannot read as a factor of instigating the Deceased to commit suicide. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellants having abetted the Deceased into committing suicide. Even, no prior complaint has been lodged by the Deceased, her father or mother regarding any harassment by the appellants. 17. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or instigation’ and held as under:- 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 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 9 anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 18. It is the trite law that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, by his acts or 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 this case. 19. I find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 20. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set-aside. 21. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. 22. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall be remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 481 of the BNSS. 10 23. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri