JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1 This appeal is preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 31/2013 by learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, in connection with Crime No. 226/2012 registered at Police Station – Kumhari, District – Durg (C.G.). 2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the accused, Rohit Baghel, was married to Jyoti Baghel in 2011. On April 21, 2012, Jyoti Baghel was found hanging in her in-laws' residence at Roop Nagar, Uriya Mohalla, Kumhari, Police Station-Kumhari, District-Durg (Chhattisgarh). Upon receiving information from her husband, Rohit Baghel, a Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-10) was lodged at Kumhari Police Station. Dead body panchnama (Exhibit P-2) was prepared, and the body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-13) conducted the postmortem examination and submitted a report (Exhibit P- 23), stating that Jyoti Baghel's death was caused by asphyxia due to hanging. During the examination, it was also found that the deceased was approximately 16-18 weeks pregnant. A handwritten note was found in the deceased's undergarments during the postmortem examination, which was marked as Exhibit P-21 and Exhibit P-22. The said handwritten note was examined by Additional State Document Examiner, Kumari Manisha Dubey (PW-12). She submitted her examination report (Exhibit P-20), stating that the sample handwriting of the deceased, Jyoti Baghel, and the letters found in Exhibit P- 21 and Exhibit P-22 were in the same handwriting. In the letter, it was mentioned that the accused, Rohit Baghel, used to abuse and quarrel with Jyoti after drinking alcohol, and also told her not to return if she went to her parents' house, and further claimed that the pregnancy was not his. After the merg inquiry, the police registered an FIR (Exhibit P-15), recorded the statements of the witnesses, and after completing the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3 To bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused denied the evidence against him, claiming that he has been falsely implicated and that he is innocent. 3 To bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused denied the evidence against him, claiming that he has been falsely implicated and that he is innocent. However, the accused has not adduced any evidence in his defence. After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed the aforesaid impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court found Exhibits P-21 and P-22, the suicide notes of the deceased Jyoti Baghel, to be genuine. In these notes, the deceased clearly accused the respondent of arguing with her after drinking alcohol, harassing her, and refusing to acknowledge her pregnancy as his own. He further submits that the character assassination and harassment inflicted by the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The trial Court erred in drawing its conclusions by disbelieving the evidence, and its findings are not sustainable in law. The prosecution's case against the accused has been proved. Therefore, the order of acquittal under question is liable to be set aside, the appeal may be allowed, and the accused may be convicted and sentenced as per law. 5 Learned counsel for the accused/respondent submits that there is no reliable evidence on record to suggest that the deceased, Jyoti Baghel, was subjected to harassment by the accused. The alleged letter does not mention any specific incident. A perusal of the letter does not indicate that the deceased committed suicide due to any instigation by the accused. He further submits that if a person says something in a fit of anger, it cannot be concluded solely on that basis that the suicide was instigated by that statement. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 554 . He also submits that the ingredients of abetment to suicide have not been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The impugned judgment is well merited. The arguments raised by the appellant/State in the appeal are not admissible. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He also submits that the ingredients of abetment to suicide have not been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The impugned judgment is well merited. The arguments raised by the appellant/State in the appeal are not admissible. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the entire record with utmost circumspection. 7 In the matter of Mallappa and other vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 , some judicial principles have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to resolve the appeal against acquittal, which are as follows in paragraph 42:- “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court.” 8 In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is pertinent to consider whether sufficient evidence is available in the present case to overturn the acquittal and convert it into a conviction? 9 The evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clearly establishes that Jyoti Baghel was married to the accused, Rohit Baghel, in the year 2011. The incident occurred on April 21, 2012. 9 The evidence adduced by the prosecution it is clearly establishes that Jyoti Baghel was married to the accused, Rohit Baghel, in the year 2011. The incident occurred on April 21, 2012. The postmortem report submitted by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-13) and other evidence confirm that Jyoti Baghel committed suicide by hanging herself with a rope. 10 In the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 3 SCC 573 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has principally laid down the factum of abetment of suicide and held that there should be clear and reliable evidence for abetment, which shows that after abetment, there was no other option left for suicide and has held as under:- “15. Section 306 of the 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 fine.” 16. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 IPC 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 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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144 , has considered the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC observed as under:- “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. … 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 , it was observed as under:- “25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 18. This Court in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 , while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under:- “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 19. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. 20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. The Inspector of Police, (2023) 15 SCC 560 , after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC observed as under:- “45. …...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 their 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.” 21. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 , observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. 22. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. 22. This Court in Kashibai v. The State of Karnataka, (2023) 15 SCC 751 , observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.” 11 In light of the aforementioned judgments, upon considering the evidence presented in the instant case, it becomes clear that the notes marked as Exhibits P-21 and P-22, recovered from the deceased Jyoti Baghel's undergarments by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-13), were authenticated by the Additional Government Document Examiner, Ms. Manisha Dubey (PW-12). Based on this authentication, the trial Court concluded that the letter was written by the deceased Jyoti Baghel. 12 But, according to Exhibits P-21 and P-22, it is not clear on what date the accused consumed alcohol and then fought or argued with the deceased, Jyoti Baghel. However, it is mentioned that on the day of the incident, the accused told the deceased that if she went to her parents' house, she should not return. Furthermore, it is also mentioned that the accused denied paternity of the deceased's unborn child. The question arises whether these facts can be considered sufficient instigation for suicide? 13 In the matter of Sonti Rama Krishna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if words are uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention, they should not be considered as abetment of suicide. In this regard, paragraphs 3, 4 and 12 are reproduced herein as under:- “3. A complaint was filed by the appellant who is father of Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who was a highly qualified person and was employed in Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Machilipatnam. The allegations in the complaint were that his marriage was performed with Respondent 1-accused on 29-5-2004 at Tirupathi. It is alleged that while the accused was fair in complexion, the deceased was not good looking. The allegations in the complaint were that his marriage was performed with Respondent 1-accused on 29-5-2004 at Tirupathi. It is alleged that while the accused was fair in complexion, the deceased was not good looking. It is stated that while the family of the accused had informed that a house site stood in the name of the accused and that she had 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and that they would perform the marriage on a grand scale and pay Rs 25,000 towards the bride's clothes, subsequently, they changed their mind and promised to pay the sum of Rs 25,000 to the bride after nuptials. 4. Nuptials were fixed at the house of the accused on 2- 6-2004. On the next day morning the accused is alleged to have openly, in the presence of the mother and sister of the deceased and other relatives, insulted the deceased stating that he was impotent, that her life was spoiled and that she did not accept the marriage. The accused is alleged to have heckled her husband that it was better to die rather to live as an impotent husband and spoil her life. 12. …... It is fairly well settled that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.” 14 In light of the aforementioned judgments, it can be said that merely on the basis of Exhibits P-21 and P-22, written by the deceased, it cannot be concluded that the accused instigated the suicide and that Jyoti committed suicide as a result of the said instigation. 15 Generally, the person who commit suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain persons as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that, he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as trial to be held. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as trial to be held. 16 It is also noteworthy that the prosecution witnesses, the deceased's sister Guddi Benia (PW-2), brother Ravi (PW-3), and Gopi Baghel (PW-7), did not give any statement regarding whether the accused had subjected his wife, Jyoti Baghel, to any kind of harassment or threats. They also did not corroborate the contents of the letter. The other witnesses turned hostile. Thus, there is no substantive evidence on record to suggest that Jyoti Baghel was subjected to any such harassment by her husband, the accused Rohit Baghel alias Khenju Baghel, which could be considered as abetment to suicide. 17 In light of the above-cited judgments and the analysis of the evidence above, this Court finds that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is not contrary to or inconsistent with the facts and evidence available on record, and no illegality or irregularity appears in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, no interference is required. 18 Accordingly, the appeal against the acquittal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19 The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the original record, forthwith to the trial/appellate Court for information and compliance if any.