1 2025:CGHC:52720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.144 of 2007 Judgment reserved on : 11.08.2025 Judgment delivered on : 29.10.2025 1 - Sant Ram S/o Chain Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years Occupation Agriculturist 2 - Alen S/o Late Cheturam Sahu Aged About 60 Years, Occupation Agriculturist 3 - Keju Ram, S/o Teksai Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Sarpanch All R/o Village Bohardih, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jitendra Dhruw and Mr. Shashikant Chauhan, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2007 passed by the learned 10th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Session Trial No.154/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased namely Chandrahas and one Ku. Ranjana Thakur had Love affair. On 02.02.2006, the deceased had gone to the house of Ku. Ranjana Thakur. The accused persons and villagers caught hold the deceased at the residence of Ku. Ranjana Thakur. Thereafter a social village meeting was convened. In the meeting both i.e. deceased and Ku.Ranjana Thakur written a letter that they will not meet in future and they shall not maintain relation to each other. The accused persons time to time after the said incident used to taunt, defame and instigate the deceased regarding shame act committed by the deceased. On account of such action on the part of the accused persons the deceased felt humiliated and insulted hence committed suicide by jumping before a running Train. The police registered the case against the accused persons. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. The ingredients constituting the offence of abatement were missing. Infact there was no instigation or abatement by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide. It reveals from perusal of suicidal notes as allegedly written by the deceased that in said suicidal notes, deceased himself mentioned that there was old enmity between the party, as such it could not be said that the accused persons have abated the deceased in any manner to commit suicide. The prosecution has failed to prove the intention on the part of the appellants to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 of Indian Penal Code are missing and not made out against the appellants. It is a simple case of suicide committed by the deceased as when he was caught hold by the accused persons and other villagers in the house of Ku. Ranjana Thakur, hence being found in guilty position he committed suicide. The social village meeting was convened in which the deceased and Ku. Ranjana Thakur voluntarily accepted the relation of each other and written a letter to the villagers (Panchayat) that they will not meet in future as well as they shall not maintain relation in future, as such in view of said meeting and executed documents, no case of instigation or abatement is 4 made out against the appellants. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar vs State of Karnataka, passed in CRA No.1427/2011, decided on 01.03.2024 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Kamal Kumar Sahu and another vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.441/2016, decided on 26.06.2025. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. Nand Kumar (PW-1) stated that Chandrahas was his nephew. He committed suicide by jumping before train. In his purse, one diary was found. In this diary, the deceased stated that some people used to harass him thatys why he is committing suicide and 5 wrote some names but he does not remember those names. 8. Ramcharan Sahu (PW-3), father of deceased, stated that on 02.02.2006 Chandrahas was found in Dinu Thakur’s home and was beaten by the accused persons. They pressured him to give apology in writing, upon which he gave affidavit, wherein it was written that he will never meet Ranjana but even they used to torture Chandrahas, as a result of which he committed suicide. 9. Dinu Ram (PW-5), Girwar Lal (PW-6), Rohit Kumar Sahu (PW-7), Smt. Savitri Bai (PW-9), Ranjana Thakur (PW-10), Rameshwar Sahu (PW-11), Yashwant Kumar Sahu (PW-13) and Poshan Lal (PW-15) all the witnesses have stated that Chandrahas was found in Ranjana Thakur’s home, thereafter village panchayat was called and they pressured him to write affidavits (Article 1-A & Article 2-A) from Ranjana and Chandrahas, upon which the deceased got wrote affidavit by writing that he will never meet Rajana, after some days he committed suicide. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of the diary found in the pocket of deceased, in which it was written that the accused persons harassed and tortured him that why he is committing suicide and the same was sent for handwriting expert but the prosecution did not file this diary before the learned Trial Court. It is an admitted position that in the village meeting all the accused persons were punch and sarpanch and they punished Chandrahas and Ranjana Thakur. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar (supra) held 6 in paras 35, 35.1, 36 & 38 as under:- 35. Again in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by ‘goading’ or ‘urging forward’. This Court held as follows: 17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.). 18. Similarly, “urge” means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 35.1. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessarity concomitant of investigation. 36. In Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu versus State of West Bengal, this Court after referring to some of the 7 previous decisions held that it has been the consistent 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 to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act (s) ofincitement 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 deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under: 13. 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. 38. In Rajesh versus State of Haryana5, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC held as follows: 9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. 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 11. In light of the above, it is clear that the accused persons were only the members of panchayat and pressurized the deceased and his friend to give undertaking in writing that they will never talk to each other and if they are found in violation of the same, they will be punished. 12. Sections 306 and 107 of IPC provides as under:- “307. Attempt to murder.— Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.Attempts by life convicts.— When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. Section 107- Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: Instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 13. In view of the above, It is clear that the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are missing in this case. This Court found none of the ingredients required to make out a case under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case and the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of law and facts and circumstances of the case. 9 Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 306/34 of IPC. 15. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. 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/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala