1 CRA No. 837 of 2016 2025:CGHC:53654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 837 of 2016 Chandrakant Bhoutekar S/o Late Mahangulal Bhoutekar Aged About 26 Years R/o Lendejhari, P.S. Varasivni, District Balaghat M.P.. , Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 03/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/06/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 231/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.07 12:24:39 +0530 2 CRA No. 837 of 2016 Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, Neetu alias Rani, was a resident of Ambedkar Chowk, Shankar Nagar, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), and her husband, the accused Chandrakant Bhoutekar, was a resident of village Lendejhari, Tehsil Warasivani, District Balaghat (M.P.). On May 30th, 2010, the deceased was married to the accused Chandrakant Bhoutekar, according to social customs. After the marriage, the deceased resided with her husband. At the time of marriage, the deceased's family provided the accused with a substantial dowry commensurate with their wealth. The deceased occasionally visited her parents' home in Durg. Whenever the deceased used to visit her maternal home in Durg, her mother Smt. Geeta Gharde (PW-6) used to tell that her husband, always used to ask her to bring money from her parents' home and sometimes demanded Rs 50,000/- and sometimes Rs 1 lakh and used to beat her after drinking alcohol. The deceased's mother used to tell all these things to the deceased's father. In response to the accused's demands, the deceased's maternal family purchased a pickup vehicle, bearing No. MP 50/G/0251, for two lakh and fifty-five thousand rupees. Even after this, the accused continued to beat the deceased after drinking alcohol and harassing her to bring gold and silver. In response to the accused's demands, the deceased's father, arranged a social 3 CRA No. 837 of 2016 meeting to discuss the matter, but even then, the accused continued to demand dowry. The deceased submitted a written application to the Women's Police Station in Durg and the Family Reconciliation Center. Thereafter, the accused took the deceased with him after writing a written consent. Despite this, the accused continued to physically and mentally torture her and sent her to her maternal home on 28.09.2011. While she was at her maternal home, the accused occasionally visited Durg, and the accused and the deceased also communicated by phone. Due to excessive harassment by the accused for dowry, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on 21.11.2011. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The statement of the witnesses was recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to him, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28/06/2016, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4 CRA No. 837 of 2016 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant been falsely implicated in the present case without any cogent or convincing evidence. It is contended that in order to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must establish the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC; however, in the present case, there is no material on record to show that the appellant, by any act or omission, either directly or indirectly, instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that mere allegations of harassment, without proof of intention to abet the act, cannot attract conviction under Section 306 of IPC. In the instant case, the prosecution witnesses have failed to specify any particular date, time, or incident of cruelty and there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, in absence of any credible or reliable evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 306 of the IPC is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. 5 CRA No. 837 of 2016 9. It is undisputed that the accused married the deceased in 2010. The accused was posted as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department. After marriage, the accused lived with his wife, the deceased for 7-8 months. Upon transfer, he moved to Balaghat and then went to Shivpuri for Forest Guard training. The deceased came to village Lendejhari, District Balaghat (M.P.) on 16.10.2011. The deceased died by suicide by hanging on November 21st, 2011, in her own house at Shankar Nagar, Durg. 10. The question for consideration arises before this Court is that whether the act of accused towards the deceased attract the offence of abetment to suicide and the same is sufficient to prove the act of instigation or incitement of suicide, which abetted her to commit suicide? For which, the Court has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, including the testimonies of the family members of the deceased and other material evidence which are observed beneath. Appreciation of Evidence : 11. The prosecution examined PW-4 (Mukesh Gharde), brother of the deceased. He stated in his statement that the marriage of his sister with the appellant took place on 30.05.2010 and thereafter the accused allegedly consumed liquor and demanded money. However, in his cross- examination he candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the social meetings held in village Lendejhari and he had not attended any such meetings. He further admitted that he did not inform the 6 CRA No. 837 of 2016 accused about her sister's death, and he did not remember when his police statement was recorded indeed, he conceded it was recorded after about two months of the incident He also admitted that the accused never demanded any money or dowry from him personally, and his parents were away in Nagpur and his elder brother was at the office on the date of the incident. Significantly he accepted that he never saw the suicide note and his knowledge of its existence came only from what the police and family members told him. Thus, statement of PW/4 is largely hearsay, resting on what the deceased is said to have told him at unspecified times, without dates or particulars. His evidence also suffers from material omissions and contradictions to his earlier police statement, seriously impairing its reliability. 12. PW-6, Smt. Geeta Bhotekar (Mother of the Deceased) stated that the accused demanded money, her husband gave a pickup vehicle, and the accused continued to harass her daughter. She also stated that the deceased had lodged a report at the Women’s Police Station, Durg, which ended in a compromise. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the families were already related prior to marriage; the accused’s sister was married to her brother’s son, and the deceased and accused had liked each other before marriage. She did not mention in her police statement any demand for Rs.25,000/- for wedding expenses and voluntarily explained that the police had instructed her to say whatever she wanted in Court, a 7 CRA No. 837 of 2016 statement which itself diminishes the evidentiary value of her deposition. She stated that she did not read the suicide note and did not know its contents. She also stated that she acknowledged that both families had attempted reconciliation and the deceased was pursuing a computer course at Durg, leading an apparently normal life shortly before the incident. At this stage, her testimony, therefore, is marked by material contradictions, omissions, and improvements, rendering it unsafe to rely upon without corroboration. 13. The prosecution has not produced any evidence of direct instigation, provocation, or wilful conduct by the accused proximate to the incident of suicide. The alleged demands for money or vehicle are appears to be vague, undated, and not substantiated by any independent witness or documentary proof. The only contemporaneous material available is the suicide note which is not conclusive or convincing evidence linking it to the accused. Both PW-4 and PW-6 admitted that they did not read the note and were told of it by the police. The contents of the suicide note (Ex. P/25) is reproduced hereinbelow :- “eSa vius ifr ls rax vkdj vkRegR;k dj jgh gwa esjs ifr us ges’kk nq[k fn;k gS vkSj tks eSa mlls mEehn dh Fkh og ges’kk viuh eka dh otg ls eq>ls >xM+k djrs jgs blfy;s eSa vius ifr ds dkj.k mlds vR;kpkj ds dkj.k vkRegR;k dj jgh gwaA blesa esjs ikik eEeh rFkk esjs HkkbZ;ksa dk dksbZ dlwj ugha gSaA ysfdu eSa t:j okil vkmaxhA eSa [kq’k ugha jgh gwa mlh rjg cYyw vki Hkh dHkh [kq’k ugha jg ldrs ges’kk vki esjs fy, rM+iksxsA Sorry Mammi PaPa 8 CRA No. 837 of 2016 vkSj esjs yk’k dks esjs lkFk vkSj esjs ifr dks gkFk u yxkuh nh tk;s esjs vk[kjh bPNk gSA” 14. From perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the contents of the suicide note (Ex.P/25), it does not appear that the act of the accused in any manner attracts the definition under Section 107 of the IPC and there is no act of instigation by the accused owing to which the deceased committed suicide. 15. Furthermore, from the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Rajkumar Nayak (PW/12), who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and submitted the postmortem report vide Ex.P/12, it is evident that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. According to this witness the nature of death was suicidal. On external examination, he found that the deceased was a woman of about 20 years of age, lying unconscious. The body was bluish and stiff. Both eyes and mouth were half-open. The ligature mark was deep and located on the upper side of the thyroid cartilage in the neck, oriented upward, outward, and backward. On internal examination of the body he found the following:- 1. Skull, cranium, vertebrae were healthy and ciliary, brain were congested. 2. The membrane, ribs, soft tissue, lungs and large vessels were healthy. 3. Throat, trachea, both lungs were congested. 4. The right side of the heart was filled with thick blood and the left side chamber was empty. 9 CRA No. 837 of 2016 5. Intestinal membranes, mouth, esophagus, liver, spleen, kidneys were congested. 6. The stomach contained undigested food. The small intestine contained undigested food and gas, and the large intestine contained feces and gas. 7. The uterus was normal. The cavity was empty. The size was 5 x 3 x 2 cm. The ovaries were normal. 16. The doctor has opined that the hanging was of antemortem nature. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It is not possible to determine the time of death because the body was kept in a freezer. The cause of death was suicidal. The autopsy was conducted by a team of two doctors. Their report is Exhibit P-12. 17. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove any concrete evidence to prove the charge leveled against the appellant. To sustain conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused instigated, aided, or abetted the commission of suicide. Mere harassment or quarrels, absent a direct act of instigation or intentional aid, do not constitute abetment. 18. In the case at hand, the deceased was staying with her parental family and not under the direct control of the accused at the time of death. There is no reliable proof of any act or communication from the accused immediately preceding the suicide that could constitute instigation. The alleged statements of the prosecution witnesses that the accused had 10 CRA No. 837 of 2016 beaten her or demanded money is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The prosecution evidence thus fails to establish the mens rea or direct involvement of the accused in abetting the suicide. 19. Given the inconsistencies, omissions and lack of immediate evidence, the prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record, at best, indicates marital discord and strained relations, which cannot constitute abetment of suicide. 20. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the evidence discloses only ordinary domestic discord or demand of money without a clear nexus with the suicide, conviction under Section 306 cannot be upheld. 21. It is the trite law that merely because the deceased was not happy about her situation, it would not be enough to convict the appellant, particularly since, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled. 22. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 11 CRA No. 837 of 2016 23. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 24. The law on abetment has been crystallized by a plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. 25. It is the well settled proposition of law that even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident 12 CRA No. 837 of 2016 having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. 26. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 held thus at para 20 : 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 anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 27. Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725 held thus at paras 20 and 21 : 20. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the I.P.C. was interpreted by one of us in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (B.R. Gavai J., as he then was) in the following manner: "14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the 13 CRA No. 837 of 2016 accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide." 21. It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained. 28. Upon careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it emerges that the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredients of abetment to suicide as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be cogent and reliable evidence demonstrating that the accused had intentionally instigated, aided, or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 29. Considering the entirety of evidence applying the law reiterated by the 14 CRA No. 837 of 2016 Supreme Court, this Court finds that there is no material to establish that the appellant, either by words or conduct, had instigated or intentionally aided the deceased in taking the extreme step of committing suicide. It is quite vivid that the deceased committed suicide in her own parental house by hanging herself. However, considering the material available on record and upon bare perusal of the evidence adduced by the family members of the deceased, it is found that there is no clear proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused with close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased with cruelty by assaulting or by demanding dowry. The prosecution case rests on conjectures and assumptions rather than clear proof of abetment. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must go to the appellant. Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 31. The appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 32. The record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. S Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar