1 2026:CGHC:4551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 08. 01.2026 Judgment Delivered on 28.01.2026 CRA No. 477 of 2005 Shanker Puri, S/o. Shri Hempuri, aged about 24 years, R/o. Checkpost, Bhadrapara, Balco, Korba (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh , Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Korba Chowki Balco, Distt. Korba (CG) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) CAV Judgment 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2004 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Korba (CG) in Sessions Case No.79/04, whereby the learned Upper Sessions Judge (henceforth, ‘trial Court’), after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- 2 Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 306 IPC RI for 07 years Rs.5000/- RI for 06 months 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, marriage of the appellant was solemnized with deceased Madhupuri about 03 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with a girl child. On 25.01.2004 at about 9 - 10 pm, Madhupuri suffered burn injuries and she was admitted in 100 Bed Hospital, Korba on 26.01.2004 and thereafter, she was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where she was admitted on the same day. She died on 06.02.2004 on account of said burn injuries. Upon information received from the hospital, unnumbered merg report was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur. Inquest of dead body of the deceased was prepared, postmortem was conducted by Dr. Maya Pandey (PW-6), in which vide Postmortem report (Ex-P/2), she opined that cause of death of deceased was antemortem burn and its complications. Merg ID was transferred to the Police Station Balco, Distt. Korba within whose jurisdiction said incident was occurred. In the merg inquiry, it was found that the appellant used to harass the deceased showing his dissatisfaction towards the articles received in the marriage and also taunted her as daughter of beggar. He also used to torture her physically and mentally and she died in suspicious circumstances on account of burn injuries. Therefore FIR (Ex-P/8) under Section 304B of IPC was registered against the appellant. Statement of the witnesses were recorded, spot map (Ex-P/4 & P/6) were prepared and the appellant was arrested. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 304B IPC was filed against the appellant before concerned 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. Thereafter the case was transferred to Upper Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial. The learned Upper Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 304B and 306 IPC and explained to him, who denied the charges and pleaded innocence seeking trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 09 documents. The appellant has also exhibited 07 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence. The appellant has examined witness Hetram in his defence as DW-1. 5. The learned Upper Sessions Judge, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 30.4.2004, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 304B IPC but convicted and sentenced him under Section 306 IPC, as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a poor person and he earns his livelihood by labour work. Though the relatives of the deceased have alleged that the appellant used to harass the deceased on account of dissatisfaction of articles received in the marriage, but no such complaint was made in this regard prior to the incident. Ex-C/2 is the complaint dated 07.02.2004 made by the mother of the deceased, but in that complaint also, no specific fact has been mentioned in this regard. He further submits that they belong to poor family, hence they were always in financial 4 crunch, therefore, dispute occurred between the appellant and the deceased occasionally and on heat of anger, some time he used to beat the deceased. He further submits that due to such grudge, the prosecution witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, have made false allegation against the appellant. He further submits that Ganeshi Bai (PW-2) immediately reached to the house of the appellant on being heard the screaming of the deceased. This witness has specifically deposed in her deposition that the victim had told her that she was caught fire of the chimney (lamp) while sleeping with her child. This fact is also got support from deposition of PW-15, councillor of the village. He next submits that the deceased was admitted in the 100 Bed hospital , Korba on 26.01.2004 and at that time her dying declaration was recorded by Constable Hetram, Police Chowki Rampur. That dying declaration was filed by the appellant and the appellant has also examined Constable Hetram as his defence witness. In that dying declaration, the deceased has stated that she was caught fire accidentally, as while lighting the chimney, it suddently burst into flams. He lastly submits that to convict the accused persons under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove the fact that the accused has abetted the victim as has been contemplated in Section 107 IPC, but no such act or conduct of the appellant has been proved. Common dispute which happens in the family cannot be termed as abetment to commit suicide, but without any lawful evidence, the appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court, hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge by setting aside impugned judgment. 7. When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the appellant that as to how the dying declaration recorded by the police 5 constable reached to the appellant, then he could not apprise any satisfactory facts to the Court in this regard. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record of trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. The appellant / accused was charged for the offence under Section 304 (B) of the IPC, but he has been acquitted of aforesaid charge by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, which has not been challenged by the respondent / State, but instead of aforesaid charge, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 11. Undisputedly, deceased Madhupuri was wife of appellant and she died within 3 -4 years of their marriage. They have been blessed with a girl child. 12. Smt. Kamala Bai (PW-1) is mother of deceased, Ganeshi Bai (PW-2) is their neibhbour of marital home, Gambhir Giri (PW-3) is maternal grandfather, Heeramati (PW-4) is Bua (parental aunt) and Krishna Giri (PW-5) is father of deceased. Narayan (PW-9) is neighbour of appellant/accused. Sitaram (PW-10) is maternal uncle of the deceased. These witnesses have stated in their deposition that deceased had sustained burn injuries on 25.01.2004 in her matrimonial home and she was admitted in 100 Bed Hospital, Korba on 26.01.2004 from where she was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where she succumbed to those burn injuries on 06.02.2004. This fact also gets support from FIR (Ex.P-8) and postmortem 6 report of deceased (Ex.P-2), which was conducted by Dr. (Smt.) Maya Pandey (PW-6) and Demonstrator, Forensic Department, CIMS, Bilaspur. As per postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was antimortem burn and its complications. 13. Neighbour of appellant – Ganeshi Bai (PW-2) has stated in her deposition that during night, on being heard “cpkvks cpkvks” from inside the house of Madhupuri (since deceased), her husband Shankarpuri and she herself went to house of the appellant, then they saw that Madhupuri had burnt and she had wore other clothes. On being asked, she told that her clothes caught from the flame of the chimney due to which, she got burnt. 14. Chandra Kumar Verma, (PW-15), who is Councilor of the ward of deceased, has stated in his deposition that upon receiving information about the incident, he had gone to 100 Bed Hospital, Korba where Madhupuri was admitted. There police officials were asking her about the incident, then she had told that in the night while trying to hold her daughter, she caught fire from the flame of chimney. Though aforesaid fact get support from alleged statement Ex.D-7 of deceased (Ex.D-7), which was recorded by Constable Hetram (DW-1) when she was admitted in 100 Bed Hospital, Korba. If Ex.D-7 was statement of deceased recorded by Constable – Hetram (DW-1), then it ought to have been handed over to the Investigating Officer, but it was produced by appellant /accused as defence evidence. Since, appellant/accused or constable – Hetram (DW-1) was not valid person to have possession of Ex.D-7, therefore, it cannot be relied upon. Further, it has not been proved by calling rojnamcha sanha No. 944, in which, recording of aforesaid statement of deceased was mentioned. Therefore, appellant cannot get support from statement (Ex.D-7). 7 15. Smt. Kamal Bai (PW-1), Gambhir Giri (PW-3), Heeramati (PW-4) and Krishna Giri (PW-5), who are parents and other relatives of deceased, have stated in their deposition that appellant poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze, as he harass her physically and mentally, because he was not satisfied with the gifts, which he received at the time of marriage, but appellant has already been acquitted by learned Upper Sessions Judge of the charge under Section 304-B of the IPC. On the other hand, Ganeshi Bai (PW-2) and Councilor Chandra Kumar Verma (PW-15) have stated in their statements that the deceased had told that her clothes caught fire from the flame of the chimney, therefore, she had burnt, Khilawan Puri (PW-7), who is maternal uncle of the deceased, has also stated in his deposition that when deceased was admitted in 100 Bed Hospital, Korba, then, he had gone there and asked her, to which, she told him that she burnt with the flame of chimney. Thus, in presence of any reliable evidence, it cannot be held proved that deceased had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, rather from deposition of Ganeshi Bai (PW-2), Khilawanpuri (PW-7) and Chandra Kumar Verma (PW-15), it appears that deceased had got burnt accidentally from flame of chimni. 16. Even otherwise, if the case is considered from the aspect as to whether deceased committed suicide on account of abetment by the appellant ?, then it is settled proposition of law that, in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of IPC specific “abetment” as contemplated under Section 107 of 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 to be proved by the prosecution. It was also required to be proved by the prosecution, that 8 the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide, is necessary for attracting Section 306 of the IPC. 17. In the instant case, Smt. Kamala Bai (PW-1), who is mother of deceased, has stated in her deposition that after 2 -3 months of marriage, appellant used to manhandle the deceased by saying that she is daughter of beggar and she did not bring anything in the marriage. Appellant also used to assault her by hot iron rod. She has stated that because of such physical harassment, deceased had come to their house, then appellant came there and assured her that he will not consume liquor and gamble, therefore, on being understand to her by villagers, she has gone with him but again appellant assaulted her after consuming liquor, therefore, she had brought her to their house, thereafter, appellant again took her after getting compromise and by assuring that he will not commit marpeet with her. In this regard, appellant had also executed Ikrarnama on 08.12.2003 vide Ex.P-7. This fact has also been supported by grandfather – Gambhir Giri (PW-3), father - Krishna Giri (PW-5) of victim. It has also been supported by Ramcharan Kanwar, neighbour of appellant (PW-14). Thus, as per evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the appellant used to come home drunk and commit marpeet with the deceased, therefore, she had left her matrimonial home twice and appellant took her both the times by making assurance that he will not commit marpeet with her, despite that his behaviour did not change, hence, deceased committed suicide. 18. If aforesaid evidence is taken in its face value, despite that it cannot be held proved that the appellant used to beat deceased consuming liquor so as to ‘abet’ her to commit suicide. If he would have such an intention, then he would not have brought her by assuring her that he will improve his 9 behaviour, rather from aforesaid evidence, it appears that appellant was a drunkard and after consuming liquor, he harrased deceased, but it cannot be held proved that appellant used to do such act to abet deceased to commit suicide. 19. In the matter of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 , their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the simillar issue has observed in paragraph Nos.22 and 23 as under: "22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 1 2025 SCC Online SC 812 10 23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 IPC. 20. In the case of Prakash v. State of Maharashtra 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing various decisions on the point summed up the legal position of Section 306 and 107 IPC in the following manner : “14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close 2 JT 2025 (1) SC156 11 proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.” 21. In the matter of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the provision of Section 306 of IPC raised an issue, whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in the case, would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide, is a vexed question the Courts are called upon to decide when a charge is raised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred and relied to the judgments of Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, 12 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 as well as undefined State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73. 22. In the case of Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it was observed that mens rea is required to be proved, as has been noted in the case of Ude Singh (supra), which has been reiterated in the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 in following terms : "... 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." 23. The three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra) had an occasion to deal with a case, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like." The Court in para- 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para-20 of the said judgment reads as under : "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 13 the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 24. In the case of Ude Singh and others (supra), their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under :- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of 14 accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 25. To bring conviction under Section 306 IPC, it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea by the instigating of the accused leaving victim with no other option except to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, 15 creation of circumstances, words, which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka3 after reviewing series of judgments on the subject matter while summing up, concluded thus :- "47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide; it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant." 27. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh4 , it was held as under :- "In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of 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 of IPC." 3 AIR 2024 SC 1283 4 AIR 2025 SC 568 16 28. By applying law rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, if evidence of instant case is considered, then it is found that even if it is assumed that the appellant was a drunkard and was in a state of intoxication, he repeatedly used to commit marpeet with the deceased, despite that it cannot be held that deceased left with no other option except to commit suicide, as she may detach herself from company of appellant/accused, as many times, she went to her parental house. 29. 29. In the instant case, no evidence of any positive action proximate to time of incident on the part of the appellant / accused is found, which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, conviction of appellant in terms of Section 306 IPC is not found to be sustainable. 30. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, it is found that prosecution has failed to prove the fact that deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze and even if it is held ‘positive’ despite that, no evidence is found to hold guilty appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC deserves to be set aside. 31. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Case No. 79/2004 against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside. The appellant / accused is acquitted of the said charge. 32. The appellant / accused is reported to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 17 33. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith original record be returned to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information & necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge. amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.30 11:10:41 +0530