1 2025:CGHC:49919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 173 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Tilda-Newra, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus Ramesh Batra S/o Late Laxman Das Batra, Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Purana Nagar Palika Chowk, Newra, P.S. Tilda- Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : None SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 28.01.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.32/2021, whereby, the respondent-Ramesh Batra has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.10.08 16:10:04 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on account of the death of Kamini Dandekar, a merg intimation was recorded by the Police Station Tilda-Newra and upon its inquiry, it was revealed that she had committed suicide on account of physical and mental torture being given by the respondent with a bad intention. It was alleged further by the prosecution that the victim/deceased was working in the shop of the respondent, but due to his bad intention, she left the job and owing to which, he started harassing and torturing her, as a consequence of which, she committed suicide in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd October, 2018 near Jogi Dabri situated at village Tulsi. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation that the deceased has committed suicide because of the maltreatment and harassment given by the respondent, the father of the deceased, namely, Dheeraj Dandekar was examined as (PW/1) and it appears from his testimony that in the night of occurrence of the alleged incident, when the respondent had come for demanding his mobile from his daughter, she was in normal condition and, it was denied by him with regard to the fact that, his deceased daughter after leaving her job from his shop was in distress. It reveals further from his testimony that when the respondent has taken his mobile from his deceased-daughter, she has, however, raised no complaint, whatsoever, against him. Further of his evidence, would show that 3 when his daughter was working in his shop, she has, however, raised no complaint against him. 4. Deen Dayal Dandekar (P.W./2) is the brother of the deceased and according to his evidence, it appears that 8 hours prior to the death of his sister, she has demanded his mobile and talked for about 45 minutes with someone else. It reveals further from his testimony that prior to committing the suicide as such, neither she nor he or his parents have lodged any complaint against the respondent. Further of his evidence would reveal the fact that 6 to 7 years prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, she had left the house on her own and has fled away somewhere along with her ‘fiance’. It reveals further from his testimony that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent and his deceased sister was a guarantor and, the amount so borrowed was not returned by him. 5. Smt. Narmada Dandekar (PW/4) is the mother of the deceased and according to her statement, it appears that there was no dispute exists between the respondent and her daughter, and it appears further from her testimony that in the night of the said fateful day, the respondent came to her house and after taking the mobile of him from her (deceased-daughter) has gone to his house. 6. Vaibhav Dandekar (PW/5) is the sister of the deceased and it reveals from her testimony also that her deceased sister has gone somewhere else in the Year 2012, alongwith one Raju Yadav because of her love affairs with him and, it appears further, as revealed from para 7 of her testimony, that a dispute between the 4 respondent and her deceased’s sister was pertaining to the trivial issues. 7. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is, therefore, difficult to hold that the deceased has committed suicide because of the maltreatment or harassment meted out by the respondent, as alleged by the prosecution. 8. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat”, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, wherein, it was held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 9. Likewise, in the matter of “Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.” reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at para 12 as under :- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the 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 but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement 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 person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 10. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, it is, thus, evident that in order to bring a 5 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. 11. However, in the instant matter, as observed hereinabove, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent has abetted or instigated the deceased for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on the said fateful day. In view of the said background, the trial Court has, thus, not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 12. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Arpan