1 2026:CGHC:19844-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 43 of 2020 Girdhari Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Bhaunath Sahu, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Ring Road Risadi Chowk, Maruti Medical Stores, Thana Balco, Civil And Revenue, District Korba (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Korba, District Korba, (CG) 2 - Smt. Usha Bai Sahu W/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ompur Colony, Quarter No. B/31, Police Outpost Rajgamar, District Korba, (CG) 3 - Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG) 4 - Smt. Gayatri Sahu W/o Shri Shatrughan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Police Station Hasoud, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG) 5 - Ku. Sunita Sahu D/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG) 6 - Shatrughan Sahu S/o Shri Nawdharam Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Police Station Hasoud, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG) 7 - Gautam Lal Sahu S/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 to 6 : None For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Shaleen Siddique, Advocate SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.04.30 10:34:41 +0530 2 Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 29.04.2026 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.10.2019, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (CG) in Sessions Trial No.10/2014 (Crime No.142/2013), whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and 304-B of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Smt. Meena Sahu was solemnized with the Respondent No.7- Gautam Lal Sahu on 10/02/2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and she started living with her in-laws in the matrimonial house, who, however, after six months came to her parental house and has committed suicide on 17/06/2013 by hanging herself, owing to which, her grandfather, namely, Muritram Sahu has lodged the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) before the Police Station, Balco Nagar of District Korba, stating therein, that she has committed suicide while hanging herself on the ceiling fan. It appears that based upon the alleged intimation, an enquiry was conducted and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the respondents on 06/07/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3 306/34 of IPC, as during investigation, it was revealed that she was mentally and physically harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws immediately after the solemnization of her marriage as she came with inadequate dowry. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. O.S. Kanwar (PW-11), who vide her report (Ex.P- 11) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia occurred on account of hanging and, during further investigation, a suicidal note was recovered from the table of the deceased on 17/06/2013 vide Ex.P-7, marked as Article ‘A’, while other of her notes were recovered on 28/06/2013 from the possession of her brother, namely, Uttam Kumar Sahu vide Ex.P-9, which was marked as Article ‘B’. After completion of the due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and, in alternatively under Section 304-B of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 19 documents, apart from the Articles ‘A’ and ‘B’, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, 4 arrived at a conclusion after taking note of the statement of grandfather of the deceased, namely, Muritram Sahu (PW-1) and her father, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2), coupled with non- examination of the handwriting expert that neither the statements of her parents (PW-1 and PW-2) can be relied upon, nor the alleged suicidal note and the notes written by her could be held to be written by her and, in consequence, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the finding recorded by the trial court holding that the respondents are not involved for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to the materiel available on record, inasmuch, as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the father of the deceased, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2) has not been scanned in its proper manner and erred further in disbelieving her suicidal note as well as of her handwritten notes, while acquitting them as such. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shaleen Siddique, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7, while inviting attentions towards the statement of grandfather of the deceased, namely, Muritram Sahu and also the statement of her father, submits that the alleged demand was made only for purchasing the medicines for his Medical Shop and, therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the allegations as was levelled by the parents of the deceased that she 5 was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry which, compelled her to commit suicide by hanging herself on 17/06/2013. It is, therefore, contended that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents No.2 to 7 for commission of the alleged crime. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Meena Sahu was solemnized with respondent No.7-Gautam Lal Sahu on 10/02/2008 and, after the solemnization of her marriage, she started living with her in-laws. It appears that when she committed suicide by hanging herself on 17/06/2013, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by her grandfather, namely, Muritram Sahu and, based upon the said information, an enquiry was conducted and based upon that, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC on the allegation that she was harassed and maltreated by the respondents on account of demand of dowry and, they have, thus, been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and, in alternatively under Section 304-B of IPC. 9. 9. Although, it was alleged as such, but a bare perusal of the statement of her grandfather, namely, Muritram Sahu(PW-1) would reveal the fact that both the deceased- Meena Sahu and her husband- Gautam 6 Lal Sahu were living happily and it reveals further from his testimony that he was informed by his grand-daughter, the deceased, that her husband used to demand money for purchasing the medicines for keeping the same in his Medical Shop and, for which, her father Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2) had given him some amount as well. It reveals further from his testimony that he has pacified her not to live in parental house and simultaneously, pacified her husband to bring her back to his house. It reveals further from his testimony that the husband of the deceased, namely, Gautam Lal Sahu had taken some loan amount from his father-in-law, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu and wanted to repay the same, but since it was not repaid, therefore, a dispute arose between them and, he pacified his father-in-law (Girdhari Lal Sahu) that he will repay the same gradually in installments and told him not to keep his daughter as such at his home. Further of his testimony would reveal the fact that her husband had demanded Rs.2-3 lacs from her father for carrying on his business and, it reveals further from his testimony that he was stated by his deceased- grand-daughter that because of the existence of the dispute between her husband and father, she is not living comfortably and if, the settlement is not arrived at between them, she would commit suicide. It reveals further from para 30 of his testimony that she is residing in her parental house along with her son for about three years. 10. Father of the deceased, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2), though has alleged that his daughter was harassed and maltreated by her 7 in-laws because of demand of dowry, but no report to this effect has ever been lodged during her life time and, instead it was admitted specifically at paragraphs 9 to 12 that, his son-in-law had demanded Rs.2 lacs for purchasing medicines in order to carry on his Medical Shop. Further of his testimony would show that after taking the said amount of Rs.2 lacs, his son-in-law has taken his daughter back to his house at village- Pantora, where, he kept his daughter in cordial manner. It appears further from his testimony that after some time, his daughter came back to his house, as she was being tortured by them in her in-laws house and since then, his daughter has resided in his house at village- Risadi. He alleged further that because of the alleged pressure and torture with regard to the repeated demand of amount, his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. The statements of others’ are formal in nature. 11. What is, therefore, reflected from the allegations, levelled by the prosecution that since the deceased has come with inadequate amount, she was, therefore, harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws. But, as revealed from their testimonies that from date of her marriage, which took place on 10/02/2008, since the date of the occurrence of the alleged incident, occurred on 17/06/2013, no report as such was ever lodged by her parents that she was tortured and harassed either by her husband or by her in-laws. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was tortured as such on account of demand of dowry. It is to be noted here further that the deceased was living separately from her in-laws for a considerable period of about three 8 years, as such, it cannot be said that she was harassed or maltreated either by her husband or in-laws on account of the demand of dowry soon before her death, so as to hold them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and, the trial court has, therefore, not committed and illegality in acquitting them with regard to the alleged offence. 12. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that she has committed suicide because of the instigation made by them and, even the same cannot be inferred as well, as she was living separately from her husband and in-laws for a sufficient period of about three years and therefore, it cannot be said that during such a long period, she was ever instigated compelling her for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on 17/06/2013. It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801, wherein, while interpreting the provisions prescribed under Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, it was observed at paragraphs 12, 16 and 19, as under :- 12. “As is clear from the plain language of the sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - 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. 9 16. 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. 19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide…….” 13. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matter, 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 they could be convicted under Section 306 of IPC. 14. Since, as observed herein-above, none of the witnesses have stated anywhere that she was instigated to take such an extreme step of committing suicide, therefore, the trial court has not erred in acquitting them for the said offence as well. 10 15. Insofar as the suicidal note recovered vide Ex. P-7, on 17/06/2013, marked as Article ‘A’ from the table of the deceased, and of her handwritten notes on 28/06/2013, vide Ex.P-9 from her brother, marked as Article ‘B’, are concerned, in absence of the examination of the handwriting expert, the trial court has not erred in disbelieving those notes as well. 16. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Judge sunita