1 2025:CGHC:42646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 529 of 2019 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant. versus Ghanshyamdas Andani S/o Judiyamal Andani Aged About 50 Years R/o Patankar Colony, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Accused). ... Respondent. For State/Appellant : Shri SK Puria, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Shri Kishan Kumar Yadav appears on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 22/08/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2017 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.144/16 whereby, respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 306/34 of IPC. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.25 14:50:23 +0530 2 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that co-accused persons namely Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani were tenants of deceased landlady namely Samita Batra. There was dispute about vacating the house between the landlady and the tenants. Deceased Samita Batra was residing along with her husband namely Santosh Batra (PW-4), her daughter Divya and son Labhansh in the first floor of the house, whereas the tenants were given the ground floor. Complainant party asked to the tenants to vacate the house so many times, however, the tenants were not ready for the same because of which, frequent quarrels used to take place between them. On 21.03.2016, upon being asked by the complainant to vacate the house, the accused persons namely Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani, in the night at about 10:00-10:30 pm came to the first floor of the house and caught hold of collar of the husband of the deceased namely Santosh Batra and forcefully took him to the ground floor and abused him in filthy language. When the deceased/wife intervened and requested the accused persons not to do the same, the accused persons also abused her in filthy language and made allegations as to her character that she has relations with other men. The deceased was annoyed on such allegations against her and could not bear such words and poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. Thereafter, the deceased was hospitalized in Sector-9 hospital Bhilai and during treatment, she died in the morning of 30.03.2016 at about 6:15 am. 3. Medico Legal Information (Ex.P/10) was given by the hospital to Sector 6 Kotwali Police Station Bhilai. Zero merg was registered vide Ex.P/11 and numbered merg was registered vide Ex.P/19. Death inquest was 3 carried out after giving notice vide Ex.P/2 and Naksha panchyatnama vide ExP/3 was prepared. 4. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla (PW-11) who vide his report (Ex.P/15) opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia due to superficial to deep burn approximately 60 % with septicemia. Mohan Soni, Head Constable (PW-12) recorded dying declaration vide Ex.P/18 wherein, it was mentioned that present respondent/accused also came along with the co-accused persons namely Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani and all three of them have committed the aforesaid incident with her husband. The deceased also alleged in the dying declaration that due to such behavior of all the three accused persons, she has taken such an extreme step. 5. After the merg enquiry, on 01.05.16 husband of the deceased made a written complaint with the police station Mohan Nagar, Durg vide Ex.P/4. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/4A. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P./5. Plastic bottle which was used by the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/6. Patwari Chagan Sinha prepared spot map vide ExP./7. 6. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and after committal of the case, during trial, respondent and other accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited 24 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24. 8. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent/accused 4 pleaded false implication and that he did not go to the place of incident on the fateful day of incident. He also pleaded that Rakesh Batra (PW-3), younger brother of deceased’s husband had asked him to convince his brother and nephew, and when he refused for the same, he has been falsely roped in the case. Other co-accused persons took a defence that there was dispute for vacating the house for which they had sought one month time and further stated that the deceased earlier also tried to commit suicide twice. In their defence, they had examined Ishwari Goklani (DW-1). 9. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, convicted the co-accused persons namely Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani for commission of offence under Sections 294 & 306/34 of IPC and acquitted the present respondent of the said charges. Hence this Appeal. 10.Counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective as the deceased in her dying declaration (Ex.P/18) categorically named the respondent as one of the persons because of whom she committed suicide, therefore, this Appeal may be allowed and the respondent be also convicted. 11.Counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that there was dispute between the tenants and the landlady for vacating the house. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to instigate the deceased or to abet her to commit suicide. He submits that there is lack of evidence to prove abetment on the part of accused persons as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. He further submits that present respondent was not the tenant and was living in another house. He 5 submits that only upon hearing the quarrel, when the respondent reached the spot to pacify both the parties and because he is a relative of other accused persons, he has been roped in the case. He further submits that dying declaration (Ex.P/18) itself is a suspicious document and the prosecution has not been able to prove the contents of the same so as to make it fully reliable. He also submits that the time as to when recording of the statement commenced and its conclusion has not been mentioned and further, no efforts have been made to record the dying declaration through Executive Magistrate as no application was filed for the purpose. He also submits that even the written complaint has been filed belatedly on 01.05.2016 (Ex.P/4) though the alleged incident occurred on 21.03.2016 and in the said complaint, there were no specific averments or any specific allegation against the present respondent. He also submits that the other independent witnesses categorically deposed that the present respondent along with other local neighbor came to calm down the quarrel between the tenants and the landlady. Lastly, he submits that trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent and the impugned judgment is well merited which does not call for any interference. 12.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 13.It is undisputed that Santosh Kumar (PW-4), husband of the deceased had given the ground floor of the house on rent to the accused Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani and there was dispute for vacating the house between the landlord and the tenants. Husband of the deceased (PW-4) 6 admits that on the date of incident when he asked to vacate the house, a dispute arose. He materially admits that present respondent was not his tenant and he is residing separately with the family at Sindhi colony. This witness further deposed that in the night of 21.03.2016 at about 10- 10:30 pm, all accused persons came to his house and asked to open the door. When he opened the door, all three accused persons caught hold of his collar and forcefully took him down to the ground floor. Thereafter, when his wife came, the accused persons started abusing both of them in filthy language and made allegations on the wife/deceased as to her character that she used to call outside boys in the house. This witness further admits that after hearing the noise of the quarrel, local people assembled and asked them to calm down and everything became normal and the accused persons also went to their house. After some time, deceased poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. The deceased was admitted in the Sector 9 hospital Bhilai and during treatment, she died on 30.03.2016. Hospital gave the Medico Legal Information vide Ex.P/10. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla (PW-11) who conducted post-mortem vide his report (Ex.P/15) opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia due to superficial to deep burn approximately 60 % with septicemia. As such, the Prosecution has proved the fact that deceased had committed suicide on the date of incident. 14. Now the material question is as to whether the present respondent/accused, in any manner, abetted the deceased to commit suicide? 15.In this regard, neighbor Meena Batra (PW-1) categorically stated that 7 after hearing the noise of quarrel, she along with other persons namely Bhavna Makhija (PW-2) and the present respondent reached the spot to calm down both the parties and everything became normal. After one hour, the said act was committed by deceased Samita Batra. 16. Bhavna Makhija (PW-2) has been declared hostile, however, she admits that respondent is a relative of the other co-accused persons namely Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani, but denied the fact that present respondent/accused was also involved in the said quarrel. 17. Even in the written complaint which has been filed with a delay of about 2 months by the husband of the deceased on 01.05.2016 vide Ex.P/4, there is no mention about the specific role attributed to the present respondent that he was also involved and abused, in any manner, to the deceased and her husband. Only in the last line of the complaint, a simple prayer has been made to take action against all three accused persons. 18.Furthermore, the prosecution’s case rests only on the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P/18) which has been recorded by Mohan Soni, Head Constable (PW-12) on 09.03.2016. In cross-examination, Mohan Soni categorically admits that the time when the said statement was recorded has not been mentioned. Even, at the time of recording dying declaration whether any medical Officer was present or not, has also not been mentioned, as no signature was obtained by the Doctor on the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P/18). Although in Ex.P/17, Dr. Uday Kumar (PW- 7), Head of the Burn Unit, gave an opinion that the deceased was in fit state of mind to give her statement, but while recording the statement of 8 Dr. Uday Kumar (PW-7) before the Court, the prosecution has not proved the said fact and the said document (Ex.P/17) was proved by Mohan Soni, Head Constable (PW-12). Hence, prosecution has not duly proved Ex.P/17. 19.Furthermore, Mohan Soni (PW-12) also admits that there is no mention in the dying declaration (Ex.P/18) that it was read over and explained to the deceased. 20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shaikh Bakshu and Others vs. State of Maharashtra {(2007) 11 SCC 269}, has held that when it has not been mentioned in the dying declaration that it was read over and explained to the deceased, such a nature of dying declaration cannot be accepted and cannot be presumed to be correct. Even otherwise, perusal of dying declaration (Ex.P/18) shows that at the time of incident, tenants Ghanshyam (admittedly he is not the tenant of the house) Bhajanlal Andani and Vipin Andani came to the house and caught hold of collar of her husband and forcefully took him down and started beating him. The deceased intervened and asked not to bring boys in intoxicated state in the house as she lives alone with her eleven years daughter. During the said incident, accused persons also committed theft of gold locket from the neck of her mentally challenged child. She asked the accused persons to vacate the house and the accused persons promised to vacate the house within next 3-4 months but they did not vacate the house and for the aforesaid reasons, she has taken such extreme step. 21.On perusing the aforesaid statement, it appears that the deceased has 9 wrongly stated that the respondent/accused is one of the tenants of the house. Undisputedly, there was dispute between the tenants and the landlord and from the statement of other independent witnesses, it is evident that respondent/accused also reached to the spot to calm down both the parties. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no specific role can be attributed to the respondent/accused which constitute abetment. 22. Moreover, in order to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court is obliged to see whether the harassment meted out by the appellants to the deceased was of such a nature which tantamounts to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC leaving the deceased with no other option except to put an end to his life by committing suicide. 23. In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused, the prosecution is first required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:- “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 any 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.” 10 24. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 as under:- “20.Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is 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 committed suicide.” 25. In the matter of Shenbagavalli and ors. vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and anr.2, the following has been observed at paras 15 & 16, which read as under:- “15.Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and 1 AIR 2010 SC 327 2 2025 INSC 607 11 instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M Arjunan v. State represented by its inspector of police (2019) 3 SCC 315). 16.Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been observed in para 16 as follows: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of 12 suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 13 26.In the State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another3, it was materially observed 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 the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances 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. 27.Recently in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat4, it was held that to attract the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, 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. 28. In the matter of Velladurai vs. State Represented by the Inspector of 3. 1994 CriLJ2104 4. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 503 14 Police5, it has been observed that when the only allegation against the accused was that there was a quarrel, and there was no other material on record indicating abetment, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC was made out in the facts and circumstances of that case. The relevant paras 12 & 13 read as under : 12. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B.6 , mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by 5 (2022) 17 SCC 523 6 (2010) 1 SCC 707 15 an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 29. Considering the role of the present respondent/accused as he was not the tenant of the house and for the reason that as per the statement of independent witness, he also reached the spot only to pacify both the parties, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 294 & 306/34 of IPC and no case is made out for interference. 30.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash