1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 225 of 2021 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Ishwar Prajapati, S/o Kanwal Sai, Aged About 26 Years Caste - Kumhar, R/o. Village Tikrapara, Damaukund, Nimha, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 11.12.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.68/2016, whereby, the Respondent- Ishwar Prajapati has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.12.12 14:16:10 +0530 2 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Dhaneshwari Bai was solemnized with the Respondent- Ishwar Prajapti in accordance with their customary law, sometimes in the year 2013 and upon her marriage, she started living with her in-laws’ house at village Damaukund Nimha, Police Station- Udaypur and out of their wedlock, a son, aged about 02 years, namely, Bhupendra was born. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal the fact that on 08.03.2016, the deceased has committed suicide, while hanging herself and a merg intimation (Ex.P-12) was lodged by her husband, the Respondent herein, before the Police Station- Udaypur of District Surguja, stating therein, that on 08.03.2016 in the morning around 6.00 am, he went out of his house in order to answer the call of nature and his deceased- wife and the child were at home and when he returned around 7.00 am, his said child was found to be playing outside the house, but, the house was locked from inside and when it was not opened by her, therefore, while seeing from the roof of the house, his wife was found to be hanging. Based upon it, an inquiry was conducted, where, it was revealed that she was maltreated and harassed by the Respondent, therefore, an FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered on 26.03.2016 against the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 4. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the father of the deceased, namely, Mahendra Prasad was examined as PW-1, who stated that he received the information from the neighbour of his 3 son-in-law that his daughter has hanged herself in the house and after receiving the said information, he reached there, where his daughter was found to be hanged and the father of the Respondent informed him that because of quarrel, which took place between his son and the deceased, she has hanged herself. Further of his testimony would reveal the fact that 15-20 days prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, it was informed by her that she was harassed and maltreated because of demand of Rs.50,000/-, as also for the motorcycle. According to him, his daughter was murdered by her husband, for which, he lodged the report before the Superintendent of Police, but no such report, as such, was, however, placed on record. 5. It reveals further from his cross-examination that his daughter was a short-tempered lady and used to quarrel with her husband and in- laws’, owing to some issues and, it was admitted by him that no report was lodged by him that his daughter was harassed and maltreated by his son-in-law as they used to settle their trivial issues at the village itself and, more or less, similar is the statement of his wife, namely, Smt. Kunti Bai (PW-2). 6. In view of the evidence of the parents of the deceased, it is, thus, apparent that no cogent and reliable evidence was led by them, so as to infer that the Respondent has abetted or instigated his wife for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide. The evidence led by the prosecution, thus, falls short of proving intention on the part of the Respondent to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to put 4 an end of her life. The essential ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, which constitutes the offence under Section 306 IPC, are extremely missing in the matter. Even, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry on the part of the Respondent, as was alleged by the father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased and, even no report as such was ever lodged by them that their daughter was harassed and maltreated by the Respondent, as such. 7. It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, wherein, it was 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." 5 8. Likewise, similar is the view has been taken by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573, as relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, at para 25 as under :- “25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous”. 9. 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 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, which is, however, completely missing in the instant matter, as observed herein-above, 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 i.e 08.03.2016. 6 10. Consequently, I do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to call for any interference in the judgment under appeal passed by the trial Court acquitting the Respondent from the commission of the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC. The appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge sunita