1 2026:CGHC:21011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 73 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Raju Kushwaha S/o Shri Babulal Kushwaha, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Agriculturist, 2 - Smt. Lakhrani Devi, W/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 51 Years Occupation House Wife, Both are R/o Village Kaknesha, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Government Advocate appears along with Ms.Sonia Kuldeep, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 05.05.2026 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 07.10.2017, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.05.05 18:34:21 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (CG) in Sessions Trial No.R-25/2016, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage of deceased- Smt. Manju Kushwaha was solemnized with respondent No.1-Raju Kushwaha, 2-3 years prior to the occurrence of the incident, occurred on 19.12.2014, who on account of harassment made by her husband and mother-in-law, has committed suicide by jumping into the Well and died on 20.12.2014. On account of the alleged incident, an information/ merg intimation (Ex.P-3) was lodged by the Peon of the Community Health Centre, Wadrafnagar to the Police Station, Basantpur of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and based upon the alleged information, an inquiry was conducted and during the enquiry, it was revealed that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and mother-in-law on account of demand of motorcycle and, accordingly, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex. P-2, on 20.12.2014 and the dead body of her was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-9) who, vide her report (Ex.P-6/A) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia caused by respiratory failure due to drowning and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, who in turn, has committed the matter before the trial Court, where, based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to 3 the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the deceased- Manju Kushwaha has committed suicide on account of harassment and maltreatment given by her husband and mother-in-law, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of deceased’s father- Chhote Lal Kushwaha (PW-1), Mother- Smt. Indramati (PW-2) and brother- Manoj Kumar (PW-3) has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the deceased- Manju Kushwaha was solemnized with respondent No. 1- Raju Kushwaha, 2-3 years prior to the occurrence of the incident, which took place on 19.12.2014 when she jumped into the Well, owing to 4 which, she died and it was alleged by the prosecution that she committed suicide because of harassment and maltreatment given by her husband and mother-in-law on account of demand of motorcycle. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution as such, but from perusal of the statement of her father- Chhote Lal Kushwaha (PW-1), it appears that initially for two years of her marriage, his daughter and son-in-law were living in proper manner, but after that her husband and mother-in- law started abusing her and demanded motorcycle. It appears further from his statement that a meeting was convened in the village, where his daughter has informed that she was not being kept properly by her husband, who used to assault her. It appears further from his statement that in the evening around 7.00 pm on the date of the occurrence of the incident, he was informed by the younger son of one Ramkishun on mobile that, his daughter was killed by her husband and mother-in-law and thrown her dead body into the Well. 8. According to the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt.Indramati (PW- 2), her daughter was harassed by her husband and mother-in-law because of demand of motorcycle and, deposed further that she was assaulted by her mother-in-law with the aid of stick and, a meeting was also convened in this regard in the village. It, however, appears further from her testimony, as revealed from para 4, that since her daughter was unable to give birth to a child, therefore, she was tortured by them. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that the wife of the brother of her son-in-law’s, namely, Raj Narayan informed her that her daughter was killed and her dead body was thrown into the Well. More or less is the similar statement of her brother Manoj Kumar (PW-3). 5 9. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid testimonies of the close relatives of the deceased that initially she was kept in proper manner by her husband and mother-in-law, but, it was alleged that after some time, she was harassed by them on account of demand of motorcycle. But, from perusal of the statement of her mother – Smt. Indramati (PW-2), it, however, appears that since she was unable to give birth to a child, therefore, she was harassed. It is to be seen further, as reflected from their testimonies, that the parents of the deceased were informed on the date of the incident itself that she was murdered by the respondents and her dead body was thrown into the Well, but no report has ever been lodged by them and, the entire investigation was made only on the basis of the information furnished by the Peon of the Community Health Centre of Wadrafnagar. Even, from the statement of one Bigan Ram (PW-5), it appears that the respondent No.1-Raju Kushwaha, the husband of the deceased was living separately from his parents. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the deceased has committed suicide because of the abetment given by her husband and mother-in-law. 10. It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, wherein, it was 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 6 to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC . 11. Likewise, is the principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 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." (emphasis supplied) 12. 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. 7 13. However, in the instant matter, as observed herein-above, no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents have abetted or instigated the deceased for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on the said fateful day attributing the respondents for the commission of the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC. 14. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita