1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1016 of 2016 Order Reserved on 04.11.2025 Order Delivered on 06.11.2025 1. Madhu Nirala, W/o Manoj Nirala, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Jogidipa, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 2. Hiraundi Banjare, W/o Chaitram Banjare, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Madhubankhurd, Police Station Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Order 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balodabazar, Bhatapara, C.G. in Sessions Case No. 07/2016, whereby charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against the present applicants. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased- Hemlata Banjare was married to co-accused- Umesh Banjare on 04.05.2015 as per social customs. Before this marriage, co-accused- Manoj, who was the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.11.06 16:15:08 +0530 2 fufa (maternal uncle) of the deceased and resided in her maternal home, allegedly had an illicit relationship with her and did not want her to get married. Despite this, deceased's family solemnized her marriage and sent her to her matrimonial home at village Bataupali. The prosecution alleges that after about two months of marriage, co- accused persons, namely, Manoj and Chaitram went to deceased's matrimonial house and made false allegations regarding her character, as a result of which, her husband (Umesh) began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. When deceased visited her maternal home, she informed her relations about this harassment. Her family members counselled both husband and wife and sent them back, but the harassment allegedly continued. Thereafter, a social meeting was convened and on 30.07.2015, a divorce was effected between the deceased and co-accused-Umesh. After the divorce, she returned to her maternal home. It is further alleged that about 10-15 days before the incident, some witnesses saw the present applicants assaulting the deceased and when they questioned her, she informed them that co-accused - Manoj had forcibly established physical relations with her and that the present applicants, having seen this, assaulted her. On 19.08.2015, deceased-Hemlata consumed poison at her maternal home and died. During inquiry, evidence emerged that the deceased had been subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment by her husband and co-accused persons and that she was distressed due to allegations on her character and the breakdown of her marriage. On the basis of above facts and the material collected during investigation, the police registered as case under Section 306 read with Section 34 of 3 IPC and filed the charge sheet against the present applicants and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that although the present applicants, who were the aunts of the deceased, have been charge-sheeted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC, but there is no material on record to justify framing of charge against them under Section 306/34 of IPC. He would further submit that there is no evidence to show that present applicants had instigated or abetted the deceased in any manner. He would further submit that when the applicants allegedly saw the deceased with co-accused Manoj in a compromising position, then a dispute arose between them, which was a natural reaction and such conduct does not fall within the ambit of Section 306 of IPC. He would contend that the deceased consumed poison after about 15 days of the said incident and even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no prima-facie case under Section 306/34 of IPC is made out against the present applicants. He would also submit that co-accused- Umesh, who had divorced the deceased prior to the incident, has already been discharged by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.734 of 2016 vide order dated 09.08.2018. Therefore, on the ground of parity as well, the present applicants deserve to be discharged. 4. Learned Counsel for the State/Respondent would support the impugned order and submit that from the material contained in the charge-sheet, prima facie, case under Section 306/34 of the IPC is made out against the applicants also. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge against them. 4 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code 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 an 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. Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate 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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 7. In (2002) 5 SCC 371 (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.), in paragraph 12 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 8. In (2011) 3 SCC 626 (M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police), the Supreme Court has held that "Abetment involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There should be clear mens rea to commit offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It requires commission of direct or active act by accused which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push victim into a position that he commits suicide". 5 9. On a close reading of Section 107 of the IPC and the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is apparent that in a case under Section 306 of the IPC, there should be clear mens rea to commit offence under this section and there should be direct or active act by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. That is to say that there must be some evidence of "instigation", "co-operation" or "initial assistance" by the accused to commit would be suicide by the victim/deceased. 10. Looking to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the deceased was married with co-accused- Umesh in May, 2015. From the prosecution story, it is evident that on 30.07.2015, a divorce took place between the deceased and co-accused Umesh in a social meeting and thereafter, the deceased began residing at her parental home along with co-accused persons. Allegedly, on 19.08.2015, she consumed poison. Deonarayan, the uncle of the deceased, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has categorically stated that 15 days prior to the date on which the deceased had consumed poison, he had gone to her house. At that time, he had seen that the present applicants, namely, Hirondi Banjare and Madhu Nirala were beating deceased- Hemlata. On being asked, deceased had told him that when co-accused- Manoj Nirala was committing sexual intercourse with her, it was seen by present applicants and, therefore, they were beating her. Jai Prakash Lahre, another witness, in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has also stated that on 30.7.2015, he was present in the social meeting in which with the consent of both the co-accused- Umesh and the deceased, divorce had taken place between them. Ramayanbai, grand mother of the deceased, has also stated that co-accused- Manoj 6 Nirala had an illicit relationship with the deceased even prior to her marriage with the co-accused- Umesh. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that after about 19-20 days of 30.7.2015, i.e., the date on which the divorce had taken place between the co-accused- Umesh and deceased- Hemlala, she consumed poison and that too at her paternal house. Furthermore, 15 days prior to her death, she was seen with co-accused- Manoj Nirala in a compromising position and out of objection, she had been beaten by applicants, which appears to be natural reaction and such conduct does not fall within the ambit of Section 306 of IPC. There is nothing on record to prima facie establish that the acts attributed to the present applicants fall within the purview of abetment or instigation as defined under Section 107 IPC. That apart, co-accused- Umesh, who had divorced the deceased prior to the incident, has already been discharged by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in absence of such essential ingredients, offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is not made out against the present applicants. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order framing charge against the present applicants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. The applicants are discharged from the criminal case. 13. Records of the learned trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh