1 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 2025:CGHC:51423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1640 of 2017 1 - Sangeeta Roy And Another W/o Gora Chand Roy, Aged About 55 Years R/o Babu Line, Choti Bazar Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Sudipato Roy S/o Gora Chand Roy Aged About 25 Years R/o Babu Line, Choti Bazar Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Chirmiri , District Koriya Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 15/10/2025 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 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.17 15:55:26 +0530 2 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 12/10/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/2011 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 498A of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Gorachand Rai, who is the husband of appellant No.1 Sangeeta Rai, father of appellant No.2 Sudipto Kumar Rai, and father-in-law of Soneka Rai (since deceased) lodged a merg report (Ex.P/1) at the Chirmiri police station to the effect that his son appellant No.2 was married to the deceased Soneka, daughter of Devratan Kar of Haldibari, on June 30th, 2006. While his son studies in Delhi, his daughter-in-law Soneka Rai lives with them in Chirmiri. On December 16th, 2010, at 9:00 A.M., he had breakfast and went to his duty. His wife/appellant No.1 also left for school at 11:00 A.M. He returned home at around 2:00 P.M. and knocked the door, but Soneka did not open the door. Meanwhile, the neighbours gathered there. He then asked son of his neighbour namely; Sagar Adhikari to climb over the wall and knock the door, but the door was not opened. He then called upon the deceased over phone but she did not receive the 3 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 same. Thereafter, Prabal Chanda broke the latch of the front door and opened the gate. Then he and Prabal Chanda went inside and saw that Soneka Rai's saree was tied to the fan on which Soneka was hanging. On the basis of information received during investigation, after registering the Merg intimation, further proceedings were drawn at the spot, postmortem of the body was conducted and mobile was seized from the spot of incident. 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/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to them, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case without any cogent or convincing evidence. It is contended that in order to sustain a conviction under 4 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 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 appellants, 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. Similarly, to establish an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove specific instances of cruelty, demand of dowry, or ill- treatment. However, 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. The defence witnesses, who are neighbours, have consistently stated that the deceased was treated affectionately by her in-laws and that there was no dispute between them. Hence, in absence of any credible or reliable evidence, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 306 and 498-A 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 appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 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. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the appellant No.2 and the deceased was solemnized in the month of June, 2006 and the deceased committed suicide on 16/12/2010 in the house of the appellants in an unnatural situation. 10. The question for consideration arises before this Court is that whether the deceased Soneka Rai was physically and mentally tortured by the appellants, due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself. 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, neighbours, and other material witnesses which are observed beneath. 11. PW/1 – complainant, father-in-law of the deceased lodged the merg report (Ex.P1) before the police station and narrated the whole incident as it was happened. He stated that Soneka Rai was his daughter-in-law (Bahu) and she had a love marriage with his son. In his cross- examination, he stated that his daughter-in-law studied at the Music College, Khairagarh, while his son was studying in Indore. During her studies, her health deteriorated, and his son took her to Indore, where they started living together. While studying, she sometimes survived on minimal food as her parents did not provide enough financial support. 6 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 Disagreements arose between the families in Chirmiri, then he called both of them to Chirmiri. He stated that he proposed their marriage, which was initially rejected by Soneka Rai’s parents but later accepted after persuasion. They were married at the Mahamaya Temple, Chanwaridand, in 2006, and the wedding expenses borne by him. He further stated that it was an agreement that they would complete their studies before settling permanently. They lived separately for four years. During this period the deceased had a cordial relationship with them and served him well during his illness. He further stated that his wife treated the deceased like a daughter, supporting her and buying her personal items. 12. Gouri Kar (PW-3) is the mother of the deceased. She stated that the accused Sudipto Rai and her daughter moved to Indore from Khairagarh. She stated that Soneka was 20 years old when she went to Indore. After the marriage, it was agreed that Soneka would stay at her parents’ home for four years while Sudipto completed his studies. According to this witness the deceased treated her in-laws as her own parents. 13. PW-6, Surjeet Kaur, uncle of the deceased, stated that he knows the deceased and the appellants herein. Soneka Rai was married to Sudipto Rai. After the marriage, it was agreed between the families that the couple would live separately for four years until completing their studies. In cross-examination, he stated that after marriage, Soneka went to Khairagarh for her studies while Sudipto went to Indore and later 7 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 Delhi for his MBA. Soneka studied in Chirmiri, taking four years to complete her education. He also denied the suggestion that Soneka attempted suicide two years before marriage, and was induced to vomit at NCPH Hospital. He confirmed that Gorachand Rai had health issues and was treated in Apollo Hospital but later admitted in Chirmiri, where he visited. During her studies, Soneka stayed in Haldiwadi and sometimes at her own home for 8–10 days. He further stated that Soneka never reported any abuse to her. He also clarified that neither Devratan Kar nor Gauri Kar, who are parents of the deceased, taunted her about running away to Indore for marriage. He further stated that at no point of time did his niece disclose or express to him that she was being subjected to any kind of harassment. He also admitted the fact that Gorachand Rai and Sangeeta Rai (A1) treated the deceased like their own daughter and provided with all comforts. 14. PW-8, Devratan Kar, father of the deceased stated that his daughter Soneka Rai was married to Sudipto Rai. After the marriage, she initially stayed at her parental home for about a year, while her in-laws respected the agreement that she would remain with her parents until Sudipto completed his studies. During this period, Soneka frequently moved between her parental home and in-laws’ house. On 30th June, 2010, Sudipto Rai and Sangeeta Rai, appellant herein, brought Soneka to their home. He emphasized that Soneka’s in-laws generally treated her well and provided her with care and comfort. 8 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 In cross-examination, he clarified several points. He confirmed that Sudipto was pursuing his studies in Delhi and Soneka had sufficient financial and emotional support during this period. He denied that Soneka ran away to Indore or her marriage was against her will. He refuted any claim that Soneka was harassed or abused by Sudipto or Sangeeta Rai. He further explained that Soneka completed her MA in 2009 while living partly at her parental home and partly with her in- laws. After her studies, she stayed at her in-laws’ home for about four months, assisting with household duties while Sudipto was in Delhi for work. He asserted that Sudipto’s parents treated Soneka like their own daughter and provided her with all comforts, including fulfilling her personal preferences. He denied any prior suicide attempts by Soneka or that she received improper medical treatment, and emphasized that both families always monitored and cared for her well-being. He further clarified that Soneka and Sudipto did not face financial difficulties in Delhi and that his family never imposed restrictions that would amount to harassment or mental cruelty. 15. PW14, the Investigating Officer, stated that the First Information Report in this case was not in his handwriting; it was recorded by a constable. During the investigation, it was established that the parents of the deceased used to harass her over the phone. 16. Furthermore, from the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW/5), who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and 9 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 submitted the postmortem report vide Ex.P/3, it is evident that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to hanging. According to this witness the nature of death was suicidal. 17. It is the trite law that merely because the deceased was not happy about her situation, it would not be enough to convict the appellants, particularly since, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. The law on abetment has been crystallized by a plethora of decisions of 10 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 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. 21. 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 having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. 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. 22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 held thus at para 20 : 11 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 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. 23. 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 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 12 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 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. 24. 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. 25. From the depositions of PW-1 complainant/father-in-law of deceased, PW-3 mother of deceased, PW-6 uncle of deceased, and PW-8 father of deceased, it is evident that the relationship between the deceased, Soneka Rai, and her in-laws, including the present appellants, was largely cordial. The deceased was married to accused Sudipto Rai with the consent of both families after a love relationship. It is also borne out 13 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses themselves that after marriage, there was an understanding between both families that the couple would reside separately until they completed their education. The deceased used to visit her in-laws’ home occasionally and was treated with affection and care. Even PW8, father of the deceased, in his testimony, admitted that the accused treated his daughter well, provided her with necessary comforts, and never subjected her to any cruelty or harassment. 26. Moreover, PW-6, the uncle of the deceased, also confirmed that the deceased never reported any abuse to him and that the accused treated her like their own daughter. His version further negates any allegation of continuous harassment or instigation by the accused. Likewise, PW3, mother of the deceased, and PW1, father-in-law of the deceased, both admitted that the marriage was consensual. These admissions substantially weaken the prosecution’s case. 27. Despite perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, there were defence witnesses also examined as DW-1 Arun Chhatterjee and DW-2 Ratna Chanda, who were independent neighbours, further corroborated that the deceased shared a cordial relationship with her in- laws, was treated kindly, and that there were no quarrels or disputes in the accused’s household. Their evidence, supported by the admissions of the prosecution witnesses, clearly indicates that the deceased was not subjected to any cruelty or abetment by the appellants. 14 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022), 7 SCC 157, held that same treatment is required to be given to defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es). 29. Considering the entirety of evidence applying the law reiterated by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that there is no material to establish that the appellants, 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 the house of the accused persons 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 apparent that there is no allegation of treating the deceased with cruelty by assaulting or by demanding dowry and their ill habits may be the reason for committing suicide but may not ultimately amount to abetment. 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 appellants. Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 31. The appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they were tried. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period 15 CRA No. 1640 of 2017 of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 32. 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. 33. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/Gowri