1 2025:CGHC:30302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 873 of 2007 1 - Uttam Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Late Sumanlal Nirmalkar, Aged about 24 years, R/o Mathpara, Urkura, Thana Khamtarai, District-Raipur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 03/07/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, Raipur, C.G. [constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989] in Special Sessions Trial No. 37/2007 whereby, the trial court has convicted the appellant and 2 sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months 2. Facts of the case, in nut shell, are that on 27-02-2007, when Ashok Kumar Porte went to work at Hira Steel Ranvabhatha Company at 7:00 pm, his wife Pramila, Purushottam and Neha were staying in his rented house. At around 9-10 pm, the accused reached there and started quarreling with Pramilabai and poured kerosene oil on her body and due to which, Pramilabai died. On the same date, at around 11:30 p.m., morgue intimation was given by the appellant Uttam himself to the Police Station- Amtarai immediately after the incident. The witnesses reached the spot. Later on, the husband of the deceased was called. The inquest was conducted by the police as per the morgue intimation. The body of the deceased was taken into custody by the police as per Ex.P/2. After the crime was found against the appellant, the FIR was lodged against him. statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seizure was made. FSL was done. Spot map was prepared. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. Later, it was transferred to this Court by the Sessions Judge Raipur for proper disposal. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of the 3 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to which appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18.09.2007, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted him under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and sentence dated 18.09.2007 passed by learned trial Court is bad in law and facts. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution story, hence the prosecution has failed to prove the accusation against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court did not consider that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. as well as Section 107 of I.P.C. are not attracted in this case and convicted the appellant which is not in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and contrary to material available on record as none of the witnesses have clearly supported the prosecution story. There is no motive or intention to instigate the deceased for 4 commission of suicide, therefore conviction of the appellant is improper and bad in law. The prosecution has failed to adduce the sufficient evidence to prove the case and the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the insufficient evidence available on record. The essential ingredients under Section 107 of IPC is required for conviction offence u/s 306 of I.P.C. which is missing in this case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and conviction deserves to be set-aside. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s judgment dated 18.11.2014 passed in CRA No. 1548 of 1998 in the matter of Kodu Ram Vs. State of M.P. (now C.G.) and judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed in CRA No. 3111 of 1999 in the matter of Gorakhnath & Others Vs. State of M.P. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant accordingly. Hence, the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 302 of IPC & convicted him for the offence under Section 306 of 5 IPC. 9. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court never framed charge under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant and appellant was tried under Section 302 of IPC. The learned trial Court found that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide and due to his instigation, deceased poured kerosene on her body and ablaze herself and thus committed suicide. Hence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. 10. Section 306 of IPC reads as under:- “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 life.” If we see the provisions of Section 306 of IPC, it is evidently clear that implicating somebody for the offence punishable under Section 306, the necessary ingredient to prove the said offence is abetment. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of IPC. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 107 is reproduced below:- "Section 107. 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 places 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. 6 Explanation 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, 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" 11.If we see the definition of abetment, it clearly stipulates that, firstly, there has to be an instigation by a person to do a thing; secondly, the person must engage himself with one or more than one person conspiring to do something and, thirdly, there should be an intentional aid by the said person or an illegal omission on the part of the said person for doing of that thing. 12. In his court statement, Omprakash (P.W.-1) stated that on the date of incident, his father went to company, at that time appellant came to his house and quarreled with his mother and poured kerosene oil on his mother (deceased) and set her ablaze. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion that his mother told the appellant that if he marries another girl, she will burn herself to death. Upon which, Uttam said that no one gets burn like this. Further, he admitted that his mother said that she would make it true and set herself ablaze. The appellant tried to extinguish the fire. Further, he admitted that her mother ran outside and fell in the street. Thereafter, Uttam took a bedsheet from the house and draped it over her. 13. Ashok Kumar Verma (P.W.-4) also stated that the appellant was trying to extinguish the fire. 7 14. Vishal Nirmalkar (P.W.-5) in his diary statement has stated that hearing the commotion when he reached the place of incident, he found the deceased burning and saw that the appellant was trying to extinguish the fire however, in his Court statement, he states that he did not make any such statement to the police. 15. Learned trial Court relying on the statement of Omprakash (P.W.-1) who is son of the deceased, found that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby convicted the appellant for the said offence as mentioned above. 16. In the matter of Kodu Ram (supra), this Court held in para 17 as under:- 17. Even otherwise, in order to convict a person for abetment of suicide, mere fact that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused/husband may not be sufficient to prove abetment by the accused in commission of the suicide. In order to amount to abetment, there must be mens rea or community of intention. Without knowledge or intention there can be no abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the crime and the assistance must be something proximate and something more than a mere passive acquiescence. The mere fact even if it is admitted that the deceased wife was treated with cruelty by the husband or her in-laws may not be sufficient to prove the fact that the accused abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. There has to be some proof of any incitement to the commission of the suicide or conspiracy or act facilitating the commission of suicide. It cannot be stated that merely the deceased was treating the deceased with cruelty, therefore abetment was 8 present. 17. Further, In the matter of Gorakhnath (supra), this Court held in paras 15 and 16 as under:- “15. So far as the law in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, it is by now well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision made in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State {2011 (3)SCC 626}, held that abetment involves a mental process of instigation or intentionally aiding a person to do a thing. It required commission of direct or active act by the accused which led the victim to commit suicide. Seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push the victim into a position that he or she commits suicide. That is to say, there must be some evidence of instigation, cooperation or initial assistance by the accused to commit suicide by the victim. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P. {2010 (1)SCC 750}. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in a series of judgement has spelt out as to what is the requirement of law to prove a case under Section 306 of IPC against a person. 16. In view of the aforesaid legal position as it stands and taking into consideration the nature of evidence which has come, except for the statement of the two interest witnesses i.e. the husband (PW-18) and son (PW-9) of the deceased, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the allegations leveled against the present Appellants so far as the abetment as is required under 9 Section 107 of IPC to make out a case under Section 306 of IPC.” 18. From the evidence on record, it transpires that the deceased, who was a married lady was having affair with the appellant. As per deposition of Omprakash (P.W.-1), son of the deceased, when his mother/deceased threatened the appellant of commiting suicide by burning herself if he marries another girl, the appellant did not take it seriously and out of anger, she poured kerosene on her body. While she was trying to set herself on fire, the appellant prevented her from doing so but she somehow set herself ablaze. 19. It is also coming from the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.-1) and Ashok Kumar Verma (P.W.-4) that it is the appellant who was trying to extinguish the fire. 20. Vishal Nirmalkar (P.W.-3) in his case diary statement has stated that upon hearing the commotion when he reached the place of incident, he saw the deceased burning and the appellant trying to extinguish the fire. However, in his deposition, he states that no such statement was given to police. Even otherwise, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the manner in which the incident took place, the role attributed to the appellant and the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.-1), who is eyewitness and Ashok Kumar Verma (P.W.-4), this Court is of the opinion that the act committed by the appellant does not make him liable for abetment to commit suicide. There appears to be no mens rea or any ill intention on the part of the appellant which could be said to have instigated or abetted the deceased for setting herself ablaze. The conduct of the appellant at the time of incident as is seen from the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.-1) & Ashok Kumar Verma 10 (P.W.-4) is suggestive of the fact that he was not intending to cause any such abetment to the deceased which could lead to suicide. 21. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, considering the nature of quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conduct of the appellant during the incident and subsequent thereto, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions govering the field, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. Thus, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the alleged offences. 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. 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 Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV