1 2025:CGHC:57855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 533 of 2005 1 - Krishan Ram Kawar S/o Shobhit Ram Kawar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Lalutola, O/p Chichola, P.S- Churia, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahesh Kumar Kawar S/o Shobhit Ram Kawar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Lalutola, O/p Chichola, P.S- Churia, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - (Deleted) Shobhit Ram Kawar (Died) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-11- 2024) 4 - (Deleted) Rajeya @ Rajiya Bai (Died) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-11- 2024) 5 - Saroj Bai W/o Mahesh Kumar Kawar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Lalutola, O/p Chichola, P.S- Churia, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station, Chhuriya, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondent For appellants : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, PL. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.12.04 11:28:13 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 27-11-2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-6-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Session Case No. 155/2004, whereby each of the appellants/accused has been convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, marriage of Deepak Bai was solemnized with Jagdish son of appellant No. 3 Shobhit Ram but prior to Gona Rashm, Jagdish died, therefore, marriage of Deepak Bai was solemnized with appellant No. 1 Krishna Kanwar (younger brother of late Jagdish) as per rituals. After few days of marriage, accused persons/ her in-laws harassed her on trivial issues. Social meeting of their Kanwar society was also conducted on 27-12-2003 and 13-1- 2004, despite that, behavior of accused persons towards her did not improve. Hence, deceased Deepak Bai left her matrimonial home on 25-5-2004 and went to her parental home at village Machadur, where she committed suicide on 26-5-2004 by hanging. Merg report Ex. P-1 was lodged by her father Chatur Singh (PW 1) at PS Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon, on the basis of which, an un-numbered FIR (Ex. P-16) was registered at PS Ambagarh Chowki and numbered 3 FIR (Ex. P-19) was registered at PS Chhuria, Distt. Rajnandgaon against appellants/accused. Inquest of dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-3 and post mortem was got conducted from Dr. Vikas Bambeshwar (P.W. 10), in which vide PM report (Ex. P- 17), he opined that, cause of death was asphyxia because of hanging. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. The letters written by the deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-4. A notebook was seized from the place of incident vide Panchnama (Ex. P-5). Hand written notebook of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P-7. The letter written by the deceased to her father was seized vide Ex. P-8. Register of the society meeting (Ex. P-13) was seized vide Ex. P-11. Accused persons were arrested. 3. After usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 306/34 of the IPC was filed against the accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, who tried the case. 4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants/accused under Section 306 of the IPC, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants/accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and exhibited following documents :- WITNESSES PW 1 Chatur Singh P.W. 10 Dr. Vikas Bambeshwar PW 2 Nandlal Salame P.W. 11 P.R. Khare PW 3 Bisobai PW 12 Anand Kumar Thakur 4 PW 4 Santosh Kumar PW 13 Mandgu Ram PW 5 Ku. Purmina PW 14 Khorbahra Ram PW 6 Chandulal PW 15 Hariram Pujeri PW 7 Dharmendra PW 16 Kaliram PW 8 S.R. Thakur PW 17 Bhikham Singh PW 9 Birbal Singh PW 18 L.P. Jaiswal EXHIBITS 1. Ex. P-1 Marg intimation 14. Ex. P-14 Document of meeting 2. Ex. P-2 Panchnama notice 15. Ex. P-15 Decision of meeting 3. Ex. P-3 Inquest. 16. Ex. P-16 Un-numbered FIR 4. Ex. P-4 Seizure memo 17 Ex. P-17 PM report 5. Ex. P-5 Panchnama 18 Ex. P-18 Spot map 6. Ex. P-6 Spot map 19 Ex. P-19 Numbered FIR 7. Ex. P-7 Seizure memo 20 Ex. P-20 Arrest memo 8. Ex. P-8 Seizure memo 21 Ex. P-21 Arrest memo 9. Ex. P-9 Memo for post mortem 22 Ex. P-22 Arrest memo 10. Ex. P-10 Seizure memo 23 Ex. P-23 Arrest memo 11. Ex. P-11 Seizure memo 24 Ex. P-24 Arrest memo 12. Ex. P-12 Supurdnama 25 Ex. P-25 Application to handwriting examination 13. Ex. P-13 Social meeting document 26. Ex. P-26 Receipt of State examiner of questioned document Statements of the appellants were also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. They stated in their statements that, the deceased had illicit relation with one Kejram Yadav of their village Lalutola. They had made to understand her many times, despite that, her behaviour did not improve. She wanted to join company of Kejram Yadav, therefore, she herself left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home. Because of aforesaid behaviour of the deceased, her parents also 5 scolded her and also assaulted her, because of this, she committed suicide. They have examined one witnesses Vijay Kumar in their defence and exhibited 4 documents. 6. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. During the pendency of appeal, appellants No. 3 Shobhit Ram and appellant No. 4 Rajeya alias Rajiya Bai have died, therefore, the appeal has been declared abated pertaining to them. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that, for conviction of the appellants, prosecution is obliged to prove abetment extended by appellants to the victim, which compelled her to commit suicide, but this fact has not been proved by the prosecution, rather, father, other relatives and neighbour of the deceased have also not stated anything to prove the allegation that any abetment was committed by the appellants. They have stated only common fact of quarrel, which is a common phenomena in the families of the society of both the parties. He further submits that the deceased was having illicit relation with kejram Yadav, which was objected by the appellants. The victim wanted to join his company, therefore, she had left her matrimonial home. Because of aforesaid conduct of the deceased, her parents had scolded and assaulted her also and because of this, the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that, as per case of the prosecution, the letters written by the deceased to her father have been seized, but neither those letters have been filed/proved by the prosecution nor handwriting expert has been 6 examined. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellants, hence the appeal may be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record of the case including the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. Chatur Singh (P.W. 1), who is father of the deceased, has deposed in his deposition that, in intervening night of 25/26 of May, 2004, deceased committed suicide in his house at village Machadur. This fact also gets support from deposition of Nandlal Salame (P.W. 2), Bisobai (P.W. 3), Santosh Kumar (P.W. 4), inquest report (Ex. P-3) of the deceased and Post mortem report (Ex. P-17) of deceased, which was conducted by Dr. Vikas Bambeshwar (P.W. 10) who opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Thus, from aforesaid evidence and the evidence available on record, it is proved that, the deceased died on 26-5-2004 by hanging in her parental home at village Machadur. So far as allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellants is concerned, Chatur Singh (P.W. 1) is her father. He has stated in his deposition that, behaviour of the accused persons was not well with the deceased. They quarelled with her on trivial issues. They did not take water from her hand and did not eat meal prepared by her. He has further stated that, mother-in-law of the deceased always abused her and they also used to say her that, she does not know how to sweep. These facts were told by the deceased to him. Nandlal Salame (P.W. 2) and Bisobai (P.W. 3), who are 7 residents of village Machadur, have also stated aforesaid facts but they are hearsay witnesses. 12. Santosh Kumar (P.W. 4) is witness of social meeting. As per his deposition, the deceased made complaint in social meeting that the appellant did not behave with her properly. Ku. Purmina (P.W. 5) is cousin sister of the deceased, who has also stated that, the deceased told her that, the appellants used to scold her on trivial issues. Similar fact has also been stated by Chandulal (P.W. 6) and Dharmendra (P.W. 7). Mandguram (P.W. 13) was also present in social meeting, who has stated that the deceased had complained against the accused persons pertaining to trivial issues. Khorbahra Ram (P.W. 14), Hariram Pujeri (P.W. 15) and Kaliram (P.W. 16) have also stated about the harassment of the deceased on trivial issues by the appellants, but they are also hearsay witnesses. 13. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is found that the allegation levelled against the appellants by the father of the deceased and other prosecution witnesses is that, the deceased was allegedly harassed on account of trivial issues. Nothing has been stated by the aforesaid witnesses that, any harassment was made by them, which can be considered to be abetment, as has been provided in Section 107 of the IPC. 14. It would be appropriate here to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the I.P.C., which reads as under:- “S. 306. Abetment of suicide – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 8 description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 which reads as under :- “S. 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 4 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 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 16. Punishment of abetment is provided under Section 109 of the IPC which reads as under :- “S. 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” 17. As per the definition given in Section 107 of the IPC, an abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients:- 9 “(i) Instigating a person for doing of a thing, or (ii) engaging in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or (iii) intentionally aiding the doing of that thing.” 18. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an Act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. 19. As Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three ingredients as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased. 20. 20. The Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. 1 and held as under :- “9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr.2, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 1 (2002) 5 SCC 371 2 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 10 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.” 21. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 3 , the Supreme Court, while considering the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate where she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter, she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire, acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court held as under : “A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)4 had an occasion to deal with the aspect 3 2001 (9) SCC 618 4 (2009) 16 SCC 605 11 of abetment. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self - respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 23. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab5 , the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29, being relevant, are extracted below :- “21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the 5 (2017) 1 SCC 433 12 concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal6 that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.7 29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan8.” 24. Having considered the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforecited case law, if facts of instant case are considered, then it is found that nothing has been proved by the prosecution which can be considered to be abetment as provided under Section 107 of the IPC, on account of which, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Rather if the allegation levelled against the appellants by father of the 6 (1994) 1 SCC 73 7 (2010) 1 SCC 707 8 (2010)12 SCC 190 13 victim and other witnesses is considered, then it is found that, alleged allegations are relating to trivial issues and such trivial issues are quite common to the society to which the parties to the instant case belong. 25. On the other hand, the appellants have stated in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that, the deceased was having illicit relation with one Kejram Yadav of village Lalutola and despite made to understand, her behaviour did not change and because of aforesaid fact, she left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home, on account of which, her father had slapped her. This fact has been supported by Dharmendra (P.W. 7), who is nephew of the deceased. Allegation of illicit relation of deceased has also been supported by the defence witness Vijay Kumar (D.W. 1), who is an independent witness of village Lalutola. Having considered aforesaid evidence, it cannot be discarded that, because of aforesaid fact, which was also objected by parents of the deceased, she committed suicide. 26. In view of above discussion, it is found that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge against the appellants are perverse and against the evidence available on record, hence it cannot be sustained. 27. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. Conviction of appellants under Section 306 of the IPC and the sentence imposed upon them vide the impugned judgment are set aside. They are acquitted of aforesaid charge. 28. Appellants are reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by them shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the 14 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 29. Record of the Special Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-