1 2026:CGHC:170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 236 of 2023 Reserved on 17/12/2025 Pronounced on 02/01/2026 1 - Upendra Deshlahre, Aged About 58 Years, S/o Late Manrakhan Deshlahre, R/o Village Mokhetara, Police Station Aarang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ravi Kumar Gaikwad S/o Lakshan Kumar, Aged About 33 Years (wrongly mentioned 27 years in the impugned order), 2 - Shikha Sahu W/o Ravi Kumar Gaikwad (wrongly mentioned as D/o Ravi Kumar Gaikwad in the impugned order), Aged About 31 Years (wrongly mentioned 25 years in the impugned order), Both the Above Respondents 1 and 2 are R/o Village Barondabazar, Police Station And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh. Through SHO, Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal C A V Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-victim under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22/07/2022, passed SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.02 18:13:54 +0530 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.77/2017, whereby, the respondents no.1 and 2, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased, namely, Kunti was solemnized with the respondent no.1- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad, sometimes in the month of April, 2011, but, out of their wedlock, no child was born. It is alleged by the prosecution that, initially, the marital life of the deceased was cordial in nature for the period of 6 months, but, later on, as she was unable to give birth to a child, she was, therefore, harassed and maltreated by her husband and also by her in-laws’. She was also harassed because of her illiteracy as also because of coming with insufficient dowry at the time of marriage. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that her husband has developed illicit relations with one Shikha Sahu, the respondent no.2 herein and, both have started neglecting and torturing her, owing to which, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 04/06/2017. A merg intimation (Ex.P-7) was, therefore, lodged by her father-in-law, namely, Lakshan Kumar before the Police Station, Mahasamund and based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-20) was registered against them in connection with Crime No.349/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and autopsy of her body was done by Dr. D.K. Sinha (PW-18), who vide his report (Ex.P-19) opined the cause of death to be ‘asphyxia’, which occurred as a result of hanging and was, thus, opined to be suicidal in nature 3 and, during the course of inquiry, a Diary Note (Article A-1), written by the deceased, was recovered and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, who in turn, committed the matter to the trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents no.1 and 2 have been charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the deceased was either harassed or maltreated by her husband or in-laws’ on account of demand of dowry or because she failed to beget a child, or the respondents have instigated her because of the extra-marital relation of her husband and, in consequence, they have been acquitted for the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents have neither harassed or maltreated the deceased or have instigated her for taking such an extreme step for committing suicide, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner. It, however, ought to have seen and held that the 4 alleged extra-marital relation of the deceased’s husband with the respondent no.2- Shikha Sahu was of such a degree, which has disturbed the mental balance of her, compelling her to commit suicide, but, the trial Court has failed to consider the same in its proper perspective and, thereby, erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Siddaling vs. State and Babasaheb Apparao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 621 and (2008) 17 SCC 425, respectively. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2, while inviting attention towards the evidence of close relatives of the deceased, submits that since none of them have established the fact that because of the extra-marital relations of the respondent no.1 with the respondent no.2, the deceased was either harassed or instigated to commit suicide and, therefore, based upon the bald allegations, as levelled by her close relatives and, particularly in absence of proof of mens rea to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Kunti, who was the wife of the respondent no.1- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad, has committed suicide 5 by hanging herself on 04/06/2017 on account of the harassment and maltreatment given by her husband, the respondent no.1 and also by her in-laws’ as she was not only an illiterate lady, but was unable to beget a child and has come with inadequate dowry, coupled with an illicit relation of her husband- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad with the respondent no.2- Shikha Sahu, which had driven her for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on 04/06/2017. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the grandfather of the deceased, namely, Bhauram Deshlahre was examined as PW-1 and, according to him, the marriage of his grand-daughter- Kunti was solemnized with the respondent no.1- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad in the year 2011 and, he was informed by her that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on trivial issues, as she was an illiterate lady and also because she had come with insufficient amount of dowry. He deposed further that after 3-4 years of her marriage, she informed him that her husband had illicit relations with respondent no.2- Shikha Sahu, who has refused to discard her relations with her husband despite of making her efforts to this effect. Further of his testimony would show that a meeting was convened in the village in the month of May, 2017, where her husband- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad had agreed to end his alleged relation with Shikha Sahu, who was pregnant at that time, after the child is born. In his cross-examination, it was stated that the alleged illicit relation of her husband was informed by her grandfather-in-law, namely, Kanhaiyalal and he (PW-1) deposed further that he has an apprehension that she was, in fact, murdered by throttling her neck, 6 while levelling a charge upon her that she has committed suicide and, stated further that despite knowing the alleged fact neither any report was lodged by him, nor had advised her to lodge the report in this regard. More or less, similar is the statement of her father- Upendra Deshlahre (PW-2) and sister- Lileshwari Deshlahre (PW-3). 9. A close scrutiny of their testimonies would show that neither any specific allegation was made by them that she was harassed or maltreated either because of her illiteracy or because she was unable to beget a child or was tortured for want of insufficient dowry, except in succeeding to establish the fact that her husband has developed illicit relations with the respondent no.2- Shikha Sahu. It is now to be seen at this stage a ‘Diary Note’ (Article A-1) written by the deceased, in order to ascertain her mental status, which reads as under :- “
 अप प र
र  य ड   ब य र र  और ह
 र र इ 
 य
 अ ह र 

उ" प# बर 
 $ ह और शयद
र प ' यह $ ह ह( 
र प     " ह( उ
ह ' प रह  इ)ए इ
'  ह थ ह( पह  उ ड" )श,  ह थ ह(   थ 
र प र
र  य ड  पह  श द-शद ह( र  ' ह
 " .द ,र ब र द- ह( इ)ए
र  /रश ह(  उ ड"  ड  ड  द" ”। 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid “Note” would reveal the fact that she had in fact, no grievance with her husband- Ravi Kumar Gaikwad except to forget his alleged extra-marital relation with Shikha Sahu, who has ruined her marital life despite knowing the fact that he is a married man, and, therefore, she has shown her wish to get her 7 punished severely. It, however, not revealed from it that she was either harassed by them or instigated, so as to hold that because of their alleged conduct, she has taken such an extreme step for committing suicide. Even, it is not revealed when the alleged “ Note” was written, so as to hold that her mental condition was as such to which driven her to commit the suicide. 11. At this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48, is to be seen, where the Supreme Court had dealt with a question as to whether the extra-marital relationship between the appellant and the second respondent therein, had led to cruelty upon his wife within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and, whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC and, after considering the said issue, it was opined at para 27 as under :- “27. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide”. 8 12. Likewise, it was held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chourasiya and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 753, that even if the illicit relationship is proved, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, the cruelty defined under Section 498-A of IPC, would not be attracted. The relevant observation made therein at paragraph 21 reads as under :- “21………...True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal, but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted”. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is, thus, evident that solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship would, however, cannot be regarded as ‘mental cruelty’ for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. 14. It is, however, to be seen that in order to bring out an offence under 9 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 to be established as held in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628. The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 12, 13 and 16 read as under :- “12. 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. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC………..” 13. ............ In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the appellant-accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant- accused to face the trial.......……. 16……………...Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the person concerned by his acts, words, etc………………..”. 10 15. 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." 16. 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. However, in the instant matter, as observed herein- above, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents have abetted or instigated the deceased, the wife of respondent no.1- Ravi Kumar 11 Gaikwad, for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on the said fateful day attributing them for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 17. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita