1 2025:CGHC:20090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 937 of 2019 1 - Babulal S/o Late Ramaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Armarikala, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Ishwari Bai W/o Babulal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Armarikala, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gurnem S/o Babulal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Armarikala, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.06 19:04:26 +0530 2 03/02/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 31.05.2019, passed learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2018, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 03 months to each of the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Jhamin Bai was married with the appellant No. 3- Gurnem in the year 2016. The appellants No.1 and 2 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law. On 24.01.2018, she was admitted to District Hospital, Durg for treatment of her burn injuries, which was of 95-100% burn. The MLC intimation was given to police and the police has obtained her MLC report (exhibit P-11) from the doctor, who treated the deceased. On 24.01.2018, her dying declaration (exhibit P-2) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, but she died on 24.01.2018, at 5:30 PM during her treatment. The merg information was sent from the hospital and unnumbered merg intimation (exhibit P-7) was recorded by the police. Inquest (exhibit P-3) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Government Hospital, Durg, where PW-6/Dr. Shrawan Doneriya conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave the postmortem report (exhibit P-6). After 3 conducting the postmortem, the doctor has found 95% burn injuries on whole of the body and opined that the cause of death is Asphyxia and shock due to antemortem burn, which is suicidal in nature. The numbered merg (exhibit P-13) was recorded at police station Supela, District Durg and the FIR (exhibit P-14) was registered against the appellants for the offence under Sections 306, 34 of IPC. Spot map (exhibit P-15) was prepared by the police and exhibit P-5 was prepared by the Patwari. The half burnt bed-sheet, one plastic jerrycan of kerosene oil and one match box and one notebook of the deceased was seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-3). The appellants Babulal and Ishwari Bai were arrested on 16.03.2018 and the appellant Gurnem was arrested on 31.03.2018. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg for the offence under Sections 306, 34 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Durg, from where the same was transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears 4 against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. 4. After considering the evidence produced by the prosecution in the case, and hearing them, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. No offence is made out against the appellants as alleged. There is no harassment given by the appellants to the deceased Jhamin Bai and were not treated her with cruelty at any point of time. There is no instigation or abatement from the appellants to commit suicide. The witnesses are not consistent in their evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions. There is no harassment to her so as to drove her to commit suicide. He would further submit that the deceased herself does not want to live with the appellants and she used to go to her parents’ house. She committed suicide at her parents’ house and not in her matrimonial house. There is no allegation that just before the incident, the appellants have instigated her to commit suicide or any act of the appellants amounts to instigation. Since the appellants have not treated her with cruelty and there was no instigation or abatement to commit suicide, the alleged offence is not made out against them. It is also submitted by him that, even if the dying declaration made by the deceased is found proved, 5 no ingredients of the instigation is there in her dying declaration also, therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted and are entitled for acquittal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and corroborative. Within two years after her marriage, the deceased has died in unnatural circumstance in her parents’ house. There are sufficient evidence with respect to harassment given by the accused persons to the deceased. Within a short span of her married life, she has died in unnatural circumstance. The dying declaration of the deceased further proves the harassment given by the accused persons to her by which under the compelling circumstances, she forced to reside with her parents’ house. The conduct of the accused persons drove her to commit suicide as she was not having the other way, except for the same, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused persons and the same needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. So far as the unnatural death of the deceased is concerned, the same has been proved by her postmortem report (exhibit P-6). PW- 6/Dr. Shrawan Doneriya has conducted the postmortem of the dead 6 body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report (exhibit P- 6). He stated in his evidence that on 25.01.2018, he conducted the postmortem of the deceased Jhamin Bai. During the postmortem, he found more than 95% burn injuries on all over her body, except the foot sole and underarm. The smell of kerosene was present. Heat rupture soft tissue put on medial part of both thighs, below left knee, below right knee. The doctor has opined that cause of death is Asphyxia and shock due to antemortem burn and it is suicidal in nature. 9. PW-9/Dr. Ku. Rakhi Sachdev, who was the medical officer at Sector- 9 Hospital, Durg has stated in her evidence that on 24.01.2018, she gave primary treatment to the deceased Jhamin Bai, who was brought in the hospital in burnt condition. She was received 95-100% burn injuries on all over body. She was admitted to burn unit of the hospital and referred for further management, her report is (exhibit P- 11). In cross-examination, a defence could not rebut the evidence of this doctor that the deceased Jhamin Bai has not received any burn injuries. 10. The defence could not challenge the nature of death of the deceased that she died for any other reason, but not by the burn injuries. It is not disputed that on 24.01.2018, the deceased Jhamin Bai committed suicide in her parents’ house by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene on herself. 7 11. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question are concerned, I again examined the evidence available on record. One of the important evidence is the dying declaration (exhibit P-2) of the deceased. The said dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 24.01.2018, at 1:30 PM, at Government Hospital, Durg by the Executive Magistrate (PW-1) Chandrashekhar Ujavane. He stated in his evidence that on 24.01.2018 on the request of the police station Supela and under the instruction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at District Hospital, Durg. He recorded the dying declaration in presence of the doctor, which is (exhibit P-2). In cross-examination, he stated that at the time of recording dying declaration, he and the doctor were present. Since the deceased was completely burnt, she was not able to make her signature. The relatives of the deceased were also present when he recorded the dying declaration. He further stated that he gave a request letter to the doctor for recording of dying declaration of the deceased at 3:20 PM and the doctor has made his note in the document (exhibit P-1) that patient is able to give her statement at present. 12. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate/PW-1 is supported by the evidence of PW-9/Dr. Ku. Rakhi Sachdev, who stated in her evidence that on 24.01.2018, the Executive Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Jhamin Bai in her presence and the contents of the dying declaration (exhibit P-2) is in her handwriting. During recording of her dying declaration, she 8 was conscious, which has been certified by her in the said dying declaration (exhibit P-2). In cross-examination, she further stated that at the time when she was brought before her, she disclosed that she committed suicide after pouring kerosene oil. After recording of the dying declaration (exhibit P-2), she read over the same twice and the deceased had also accepted its correctness. At the time of recording the dying declaration, along with her, one nurse, one police person and one relative of the deceased were there. 13. From the evidence of the Executive Magistrate/PW-1 and Doctor/PW-9, the recording of dying declaration has been proved by the prosecution and nothing in the evidence of these witnesses, which makes their evidence doubtful about recording of the dying declaration. 14. PW-10, Dr. Pooja Verma Patel has stated in her evidence that on 24.01.2018, she examined the deceased and gave her certificate that the deceased was able to give her statement. She certified at about 3:20 PM and made her endorsement in exhibit P-1. 15. To consider the ingredients of abetment of suicide, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the dying declaration, which reads as under:- “5- ?kVuk dk fnukad& 24-01-2018] LFkku&osadVs’oj VkWdht ds ihNs] lqisyk] fHkykbZ- 6- ;g ?kVuk dSls ?kVh& feV~Vh rsy 'kjhj esa Mkydj ekfpl ls vkx yxkbZ- 9 7- fdlh ls yM+kbZ >xM+k rks ugha gqvk& ifr] lkl] llqj ds }kjk ekj&ihV djus ,oa llqjky ls Hkxk nsus ds dkj.k nq%[kh gksdj feV~Vh rsy Mkydj Lo;a }kjk vkx yxkdj ty xbZ- 8- ?kVuk ds le; dkSu&dkSu mifLFkr Fks& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha Fkk- ¼eka dke is x;h Fkh½- 9- fdlh us vkidks ekjk@tyk;k@tgj fiyk;k& ifr] lkl] llqj- 10- bl ?kVuk ds fy, dkSu ftEesnkj gS& ifr] lkl] llqj- 11- vkidks vkSj dqN dguk gS& ugha-” 16. PW-2, Mainabai Sahu is the mother of the deceased, who stated in her evidence that at the time of incident, she was not in her house. She was residing at Sanjay Nagar, behind Venkteshwar Talkies, Supela and she was being informed by her landlord that her daughter is burning. When she reached to her house, her neighbours have already sent her daughter to the hospital. Her daughter informed her that her in-laws thrown her out from their house and since she was not having any support, she has committed suicide. She further stated that her daughter has got married with the appellant Gurnem in the year 2016 in Adarsh Vivah organized by the community. After the marriage, when she was residing in her matrimonial house, her husband used to beat her on trivial issues and thereafter, her husband left her to her house at Bhilai and returned back. Her daughter informed her that the appellant Gurnem regularly raised quarrel and used to beat her and used to throw her out from his house. On 22.01.2018, the appellants thrown her out from their house and then she came back in the evening. She tried to convince her, but she went in depression and on 24.01.2018, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil. In the District Hospital, Durg, her 10 statement was recorded, in which she stated that due to her in-laws she committed suicide. Till her last breath, she alleged her husband that due to him, she set herself on fire. In cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased Jhamin Bai is residing in her parents’ house since 7-8 months back. She also admitted that on 22.01.2018, her daughter had gone to her matrimonial house without informing her and when she returned back from there in the evening, after two days, the incident occurred. She further stated in her cross- examination that with respect to the harassment given to her daughter by the appellants, she has not made any complaint to any police station. She admitted that when the deceased and her husband were residing in her house, they were resided happily. She also admitted that a litigation was pending before the appellant No.3 Gurnem and her daughter before the learned Family Court. Her daughter wanted to reside with him, but her son-in-law does not want to keep her with him. 17. PW-3, Santoshi Bai Sahu, who is the sister of the deceased has stated in her evidence that, when she met with her sister, she alleged the name of Gurnem. When she asked from her about the incident, she disclosed that on 22.01.2018, when she had gone to her matrimonial house, her in-laws were not permitted her to reside there and therefore, she felt annoyed by their behaviour and committed suicide. 18. PW-4, Santram Sahu is the brother-in-law of the deceased, he stated in his evidence that when he met with the deceased in the hospital, 11 she was being inquired by the police persons and she disclosed them that on 22.01.2018, when she had gone to her matrimonial house, her in-laws have not permitted her to stay there. In cross- examination, he stated that that what has been written in his police statement (exhibit P-3), he did not know and he only signed it on the instance of police persons. 19. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is quite vivid that the marriage between the appellant No.3 Gurnem and the deceased was solemnized in the year 2016. Some matrimonial dispute was going on between them and she used to reside with her parents’ house since 7-8 months back. Two days prior to the date of incident, she had gone to her matrimonial house, but her in-laws refused to keep her in their house. The matrimonial litigation was also pending between the deceased and the appellant No.3 before the learned Family Court. In such circumstance, it is quite obvious that either the husband or the in-laws may not have been permitted the deceased to reside there, as there was matrimonial dispute going on since long and the litigation is also pending. It is not the case that immediately and on the same day she committed suicide, but after two days, she committed suicide. 20. In view of the above factual background, it is necessary to deal with the legal parameters for conviction under Section 306 of IPC. Section 306 of IPC provides the punishment for abetment of suicide and the abetment is defined in Sections 107 and 109 of IPC, which are as under:- 12 “306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.—Whoever abets 13 any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.” 21. As per definition given in Section 107 of IPC, abetment is constituted by (i) instigating a person to commit an offence; or (ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or (iii) intentionally adding a person to commit it. A person is said to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word “instigate” means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. 22. As section 306 of IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must 14 have engaged with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally add by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased. 23. From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the only fact come forward that the accused Gurnem (husband of the deceased) has left the deceased at her parents’ house and went back and as per the evidence of her mother/PW-2, the appellant No.3 Gurnem used to raise quarrel and committed marpeet with her. From the evidence of sister of the deceased/PW-3, when she met in the hospital, she named only Gurnem and did not disclose the name of other co- accused persons. Although, from the dying declaration (exhibit P-2), she disclosed that due to the harassment given by the appellants and thrown her out from her matrimonial house, she committed suicide, would not be substantially connected with the instigation or abetment to commit suicide, but the act of her husband (appellant No.3 Gurnem) would suffice to put him under the liability for which she compelled to took the extreme steps to commit suicide. 24. In case of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2011 (3) SCC 626 the Supreme Court has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to a clear mens rea to commit the offence, by observing as under- 15 “45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” 25. In the matter of Randhir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 2004 (13) SCC 129 the Supreme Court has held as under: “12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or . intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a parson can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. 13. In state of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR (1994) SC 1418 this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such 16 petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given', society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 26. In the matter of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1) SCC 433 the Supreme Court has observed as under: “…...It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC” 27. After considering the evidence on record, and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record does not demonstrate the unqualified clarity and conviction and role of the 17 appellant No. 1- Babulal and appellant No. 2- Smt. Ishwari Bai as contemplated by the provision so as to hold an unassailable findings of their culpability under Section 306 of IPC. The material on record do not suggest any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to provoke or compel the deceased to commit suicide with no alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellants No. 1 & 2 with the required provocative culpability is proved by the prosecution to infer that the deceased has been put in such a condition, either physically or mentally that she has chosen to commit suicide. However, the act of the appellant No.3 Gurnem does satisfy the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide with required culpability under Section 306 of IPC. 28. In the result, the appeal with respect to the appellant No. 1- Babulal and appellant No. 2- Smt. Ishwari Bai is allowed. They are acquitted from the charge of Section 306 of IPC and the judgment and conviction against them are set aside. The appeal with respect to the appellant No.3- Gurnem is hereby dismissed. 29. The appellants No. 1 and 2 are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for the further period of 06 months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. The appellant No.3- Gurnem is reported to be completed his entire jail sentence and has been released from jail after completion of sentence on 10.12.2022. He is not required to surrender before the learned trial Court. 18 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved