1 2026:CGHC:14145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 48 of 2026 (Mrs.) Rajwala Devi W/o Omveer Singh Chaudhary Aged About 59 Years R/o Agrawal Colony, Shasani Road Ps Iglas, District Aligarh U.P. (Mother Of The Deceased) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh 2 - Pratibha Chaudhary W/o Late (Dr.) Arun Chaudhary Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Thulai, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras U.P. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The appellant/complainant has filed the present acquittal appeal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.01.2026, passed by learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, in Sessions Case VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.07 10:50:45 +0530 2 No. 62 of 2020, whereby the respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted from the offence of Section 306 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.2/accused is the wife of the deceased Dr. Arun Choudhary and the complainant/ appellant is his mother. On 05.05.2020, the police of police station Kawardha received an information that the deceased Dr. Arun Choudhary committed suicide by hanging himself in a ceiling fan inside his house and unnumbered Dehati Merg Intimation (exhibit P- 14) was recorded on the instance of the respondent No.2/accused Pratibha Choudhary. It was found that deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in the ceiling fan with the help of muffler. Inquest of the dead body of the deceased (exhibit P-7) was prepared. His mobile phone, one strip of tablets has been seized from the spot. A suicidal note has also been seized from the pocket of the pant of the deceased, in which he alleged the liability upon the respondent No.2/accused Pratibha Choudhary. During the merg inquiry, from the statement of the witnesses it was found that, the respondent No.2/ accused used to harass the deceased for various reasons. The FIR (exhibit P-17) was registered against the respondent No.2/accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The suicidal note was sent for its examination to the State Examiner of questioned document, FSL Raipur. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2/accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge for its trial and the same was transferred to the learned trial Court. 3 3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent No.2/accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, which she denied and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the respondent No.2/accused under Section 313 of CrPC has also been recorded, in which she denied the circumstances that appears against her, pleaded innocence and has submitted that, the witnesses are related to her in-laws and they were not happy with her marriage with the deceased. She also explained that when her husband was posted at Kawardha, after about 3-4 months, she also joined her at Kawardha, but he was having affair with his colleague. When he came to know that his colleague is going to marry, he went in distress and disturbed. Her in laws have separated them from family for the reason that, their marriage was inter-caste marriage, even he was not called in his brother’s marriage, which was performed in the month of February. All these may be a reason for committing suicide by him and she has never harassed him. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2/ accused from the alleged offence holding that, the prosecution has failed to prove any abetment or instigation to commit suicide and also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence this acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent No.2/accused for convicting her in the offence in question. From the 4 evidence of witnesses, it clearly established that the deceased was under the continuous harassment by the respondent No.2/accused, which culminated into his suicide. He would also submit that from the report of State Examiner of questioned document (exhibit P-24), it was also found proved that the suicidal note was written by the deceased, which was found from his pocket of the pant, yet the said suicidal note has not been considered as the proof of evidence of abetment to commit suicide. There are sufficient ingredients of instigation as required under Section 107 of the IPC. From the evidence of Omveer Singh (PW-1) and Atul Choudhary (PW-3), it also clearly proved that the deceased was harassed by the respondent No.2/accused and he suffered persistent course of mental harassment, which leads to his suicide. The learned trial Court has also erred in not considering the electronic evidence contained in the pen-drive (exhibit P-30), which recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased. He would also submit that the continuous course of harassment is sufficient proof thrown a person into mental trauma and under such extreme pressure, if he committed suicide, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out, yet the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.2/accused ignoring the well settled principles of law and evidence available on the record. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from illegality and perversity and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 5 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that while passing the judgment of acquittal, the learned trial Court has considered all the evidences available on record and also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relevant under the facts of the case. The suicidal death of the deceased is not in dispute. The appellant alleged that the respondent No.2/accused is responsible for his suicidal death and on her instigation the deceased committed suicide. The appellant is the mother of the deceased, however she has not been examined before the trial Court. Her husband Omveer Singh has been examined as PW-1. He stated in his evidence that his son has completed his MBBS course in 2016 and appointed at Bijapur and in the year 2019, he came to Kawardha and posted there at District Hospital, Kawardha. The accused is the resident of village Thulai, District Hathras. Whenever his son came to meet him, he informed that the accused stopped him not to continue the relation with them and threatened him that she will commit suicide and roped them in a false case. Even, she raised quarrel, when he attended the marriage ceremony of his brother. His son was under extreme pressure by the conduct of the accused. On 15.04.2020, his son made a telephonic call to him and asked him to get them divorced and also informed about harassment. Again on 01.05.2020, he made the same instance of harassment and after 3-4 days his son committed suicide. His wife even was not ready to perform his last rites and he committed suicide by the act of harassment given by the accused. In cross-examination he admitted that, the deceased performed inter-caste marriage and he and his family members were not happy with his marriage. They 6 were not attended his marriage function. He also admitted that after his marriage they terminated all the relations with him by publishing a notice in daily newspaper. He admitted that the allegation of stopping the deceased to meet his parents and allegation of falsely implicated in any case, have been disclosed before the police, but if it is not there in his police statement (exhibit D-1), he could not tell the reason. There are various discrepancies and omissions came in his evidence with respect to his police statement (exhibit D-1). He is the resident of Iglas, District Aligarh (U.P.) and the deceased was residing at Kabirdham. He further admitted that, he served a notice to the accused that she is not entitled for any departmental benefits of his son. There is nothing in his detailed cross-examination, that in the closed proximity of the incident the accused did any act, which dragged the deceased to commit suicide. It is only a general and omnibus allegation have been leveled by this witness that the accused harassed his son, not to continue relation with his family members. He admitted that he could not tell as to when the accused harassed his son and even, he could not produce any evidence before the police about the conversation between him and his son. 8. PW-3, Atul Choudhary is the cousin brother of the deceased. He too is the resident of Aligarh (U.P.). It was the time of COVID-19 Pandemic, they received information about the incident and came to Kawardha. He asked the accused about the incident, but she became anxious and has not replied. Later on, he feels from the situation that the accused was harassing the deceased. He further stated that at the time of Deepawali festival, the deceased met with him and he informed him that he is being harassing by the accused and at that 7 time he convinced him. Subsequently, he also came to know that a suicidal note was recovered from the pocket of the pant of deceased. His father also informed him that the deceased was under the extreme mental pressure by the conduct of the accused. In his cross- examination also, he admitted that he has not lodged any report or complaint with respect to alleged harassment made by the accused with the deceased. There is also material omissions and contradiction with that of his police statement (exhibit D-2). Except from the general allegation that, the accused was harassing the deceased not to continue with relation with his family members, no other specific instances have been deposed by the witness, which proved the instigation or abetment to commit suicide. 9. PW-4, Varun Choudhary is the brother of the deceased. He too is the resident of Iglas, District Aligarh and stated that when they received information about the incident, they came to Kawardha and then the accused informed him that there was a quarrel going on between her and the deceased. From his evidence also, there is no any specific instance deposed, which dragged the deceased to commit suicide. He admitted in his cross-examination that, when they came to Kawardha, they came to know about the staff nurse. 10. PW-5, Nikita Nelson is the staff nurse and working under the deceased. She turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution’s case. She also denied by giving her police statement (exhibit P-5). In cross-examination she admitted that, since she was the co-worker with the deceased as the deceased was the Gynecologist, she was well acquainted with his family affairs and his family members were not liking him. She also admitted that the 8 accused used to visit her house. During their duty, the deceased proposed her for making relation. When their relation spread up, she asked the deceased to inform his wife, but she did not know as to whether he informed her or not. When the accused came to know about their relation, she came to her house and raised objection. She further admitted that before commission of suicide by the deceased, she was in telephonic talk with the deceased. On the date of incident also, she met with the deceased in the evening. She also admitted that the deceased was defamed due to their relation. From her evidence also, there is nothing to hold that the deceased was being harassed by the accused for any reason in closed proximity of the incident. 11. PW-6, Anand Kumar Tiwari is the neighbour of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that he did not know about relation of the deceased and the accused. He turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. 12. PW-11, Hemant Paikra is the Tahsildar and neighbour of the deceased. On the date of incident, at about 10:30 in the night the accused was in his house and when she had gone to her house, the door was opened. When he also had gone to her house, but they could not be able to get the door opened, then they informed the police and thereafter, police came and entered from balcony side and came to know about the incident. This witness has also not disclosed any incriminating evidence against the accused, which can be considered for abetment to commit suicide. 13. PW-12, Raghuvansh Patil is the Sub-Inspector Police, who stated that he recovered a suicide letter from the pocket of the pant of the 9 deceased, in which it has been mentioned that the accused is responsible for his death and thereafter he sent the dead body for its postmortem. He also seized one mobile phone, strip of tablets having two tablets in the strip and the suicide note vide seizure memo (exhibit P-8). He also proved the other part of the investigation, which he conducted. 14. PW-13, Dr. S. Jaiswal, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (exhibit P-18) and opined that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 15. PW-14, Mukesh Som is the Police Inspector and conducted part of the investigation. He sent the suicidal note (exhibit P-26) for its handwriting examination to the State Examiner of questioned document and also sent the mobile phone of the deceased for its examination and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 16. From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, there is no any proximity link disclosed by the prosecution in their evidences, which sufficiently discloses the act of any instigation or abetment to commit suicide. The evidence suggests that the deceased was under the extreme mental pressure, but such state of the deceased was due to any act of the accused could not be established by the prosecution. The evidence also suggests that it was a COVID-19 Pandemic, all the doctors and staff nurses were under extreme mental pressure, the relation between the deceased and the staff nurse was came into knowledge of accused, which she objected, due to the inter-caste marriage between the accused and deceased, the relationship with his family members were broken down by his family members, and therefore all these instances cumulatively may cause the reason for commit suicide, but it certainly not the instigation or abetment to commit 10 suicide. There is no instances disclosed by the witnesses in the closed proximity of time of the incident. The deceased was a qualified medical doctor. From the evidence it has also not been established that, he was not having any other option except to commit suicide. 17. From perusal of the suicidal note, it also reveals that it is only one-lined suicidal note with the contents that “esjs suicide djus ds fy, Pratibha ftEesnkj gS”. There is no reason or any other instances disclosed in the suicidal note which dragged to conclude that the deceased was being harassed to the extent that he was not having any other option except to commit suicide. There may be a domestic quarrel between husband and wife, but that itself is not sufficient to conclude that she abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 18. To constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1) SCC 433, in which it was observed as under:- “20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus: "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. 11 21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling. causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 22. Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder: "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 12 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 doing. 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." Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto. 27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and 13 the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder. "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts 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 differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly 14 circumstanced 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." 28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707. 29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or 15 direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.” 19. Recently in Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (4) SCC 801, the Supreme Court held 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. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- “3….. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. 16 Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events……” 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held 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 17 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." 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. 17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under- 18 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by 19 Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." 18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are 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/she committed suicide." 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. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 20. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:- 20 "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 21. In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that 21 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 22. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re- appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 23. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the Appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is 22 not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 24. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved