1 2025:CGHC:61697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 414 of 2005 Milan Singh, aged about 42 years, S/o Jhaduram Sahu, R/o village Bucheebharda, Police Station Lalbag, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Lalbag, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 17/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st April, 2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short, “Sessions Judge”) in Special Case No. 211 / 2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of Teshu Bai was solemnized with the appellant / accused about 15 years prior to the date of 2 incident. They were blessed with two children. On 30.10.2004 at noon Teshu Bai consumed pesticides substance, therefore, she was admitted in District Hospital, Rajnandgaon from where she was referred to Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai, on the way to Bhilai at 10.30 pm, she died, as upon being reaching Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai, she was reported to be brought dead. Merg intimation was lodged by Anil Sahu (PW-2), who is brother of Teshu Bai (hereinafter referred to as, “deceased”). Inquest report (Ex.P-4) was prepared. Postmortem of dead body of deceased was got conducted by Dr. B.C.Jain (PW-6), in which vide report (Ex.P-6), he opined that cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, he preserved the viscera and advised for chemical examination of the same. Spot map was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Viscera of deceased – Teshu Bai was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-8). Substance of vomiting of deceased was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11). In merg enquiry, it was revealed that the victim was fed-up with the appellant's illicit relations with various women of the village. On 30.10.2004, when she went to ckM+h , then she caught red handed appellant with a female, hence, dispute erupted between appellant and deceased. Appellant/accused brought her by beating, due to which, under such stress, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide substance. Hence, FIR (Ex.P-16) under Section 306 IPC was registered against the appellant in Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). In FSL report, Monocrotophos (organophosphorus) pesticide was reported to be found in substance of vomit of deceased and her viscera. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 306 of IPC was filed against the appellant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court, thereafter, the case was tried by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. 3 3. Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has framed charge under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant and the same was read and explained to the appellant/accused, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant/accused, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded his innocence and false implication in crime in question. He has further stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he never committed any marpeet with the deceased and there was no quarrel between them. She was suffering from an earache, as her eardrum had ruptured and she was undergo treatment. Apart from this, appellant has examined three witnesses namely Smt. Chandrakal Bai (DW-1), Vikrant Kumar (DW-2) & Hincharam (DW-3) in his defence. 5. After completion of trial, learned Upper Sessions Judge vide its impugned judgment dated 21st April, 2005 has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sectioon 306 IPC and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment, which has been assailed by him in the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case of prosecution itself that the victim was fed-up with the alleged illicit relation of the appellant, but no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to substantiate aforesaid facts, rather evidence on this count, of relative witness of maternal side of deceased are hearsay evidence. He further submits that 4 Vikrant Kumar (DW-2), who is son of deceased and the appellant, has clearly stated in his evidence that relation of his father & mother was cordial, they never quarreled with each other, rather she was suffering from an earache, as she has developed abscess in her ear. This fact is also supported by Smt. Chandrakala Bai (DW-1), who is niece of deceased and Hinchharam (DW-3), who was their servant. He further submits that to convict appellant / accused, abetment (to commit suicide), as has been provided in Section 107 of the IPC, is required to be proved by the prosecution and in various judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there would have any illicit relation of husband, on account of which, wife committed suicide, then also it cannot be termed as “abetment” to the wife to commit suicide. He lastly submits that learned Sessions Judge merely on the basis of hearsay evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is perverse and contrary to the record, hence, he prays that appellant may be acquitted of the alleged charge and appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Special Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of the evidence, which does not require any interference in this appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record of trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. Anil Sahu (PW-2) and Narshing sahu (PW-3) are brother of deceased whereas Ku. Nutan (PW-9) is niece of deceased and Smt. Pomin Bai (PW- 10) is sister of deceased. These witnesses have stated in their deposition that deceased died, as she has consumed toxic substance. 5 Ex. P-4 is inquest report of deceased. Postmortem of deceased was conducted by Dr. B.C. Jain (PW-6). As per this witness, on the postmortem of dead body of the deceased, no injury upon her was found, he could not opine about cause of death of deceased, therefore, he preserved viscera of deceased, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-8). Vomitting substance of deceased was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11). Ex.P-17 is FSL report of viscera and vomiting substance of deceased, in which, in aforesaid substance, Monocrotophos (organophosphorus) pesticide is reported to be found. Thus, it is found that learned Sessions Judge has rightly held in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment that deceased Teshu Bai committed suicide by consuming Monocrotophos (organophosphorus) pesticide. 10. So far as allegation upon the appellant /accused with regard to abetment to deceased to commit suicide is concerned, from the evidence of Anil Sahu (PW-2), Narshing Sahu (PW-3), Ku. Nutan (PW-9) and Smt. Pomin Bai (PW-10), it reveals that appellant had illicit relation and deceased found appellant with a woman, but all these evidence deposed by them are hearsay. Though, Ganesh Ram Sahu (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that about 10 years prior to the incident, appellant had penalized by their Society to provide meal to the Society members, but if it would be supposed true, despite that aforesaid fact was happened 10 years prior to the incident, therefore, it cannot be linked to the instant incident. Apart from alleged illicit relation of the appellant with other woman, there is no other allegation upon appellant to be termed as 'abetment' to commit suicide of the deceased. 6 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 while considering the offence of 'abetment to commit suicide' has held in paragraph 20 & 21 as under :- “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. 21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the court 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 her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive 1 (2001) 9 SCC 618 7 to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such 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. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2 has held that, to prove the aspect of 'abetment', there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. 13. In case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab 3 , the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29, being relevant, are extracted below :- “21. 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 2 (2009) 16 SCC 605 3 (2017) 1 SCC 433 8 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. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal 4 that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held 4 (1994) 1 SCC 73 9 guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal5. 29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan6. 14. In the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat 7 , having considered facts situation of aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in the facts of the said case, alleged extra marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. 15. In the case of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and others vs. State of Gujarat 8 , Hon'ble Supreme Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the explanation to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. 16. Keeping in mind aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforecited cases, if case in hand is considered, then it is found that from evidence brought by the prosecution, it is not established that the appellant had illicit relation with other woman, which compelled the deceased to commit 5 (2010) 1 SCC 707 6 (2010) 12 SCC 190 7 (2013) 10 SCC 48 8 (2015) 11 SCC 753 10 suicide. Complete evidence of relative witnesses of maternal side of deceased about aforesaid fact are based on hearsay. Further, Vikrant Kumar (DW-2), who is son of deceased and appellant, has stated in his evidence that relation between them was good and no quarrel had taken place between them, rather the deceased was weary of her earache, as she had developed abscess in her ear. 17. There is no credible or lawful evidence on record to convict the appellant for the said charge, therefore, impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No. 211 / 2004 against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of the said charge. 19. The appellant / accused is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 20. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith original record be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information & necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge. amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.02 17:15:30 +0530