1 2026:CGHC:6309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 5 of 2026 Arman Ali S/o Late Rajjab Ali, Aged About 27 Years R/o Chantidih, Pathan Mohalla, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Akbar Khan S/o Gulabjaan Khan, Aged About 55 Years R/o G-2/910, Devnandan Nagar, Phase - 1, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Tayyab Hussain, S/o Akhtar Hussain, Aged About 40 Years R/o Magarpara, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 04/02/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.92/2024, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused / respondent from the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.10.2022, Hamam Ali @ Arman Ali, son of deceased Ranjab Ali, submitted a written complaint at Police Station Sarkanda alleging that the accused persons had been repeatedly threatening the deceased and his family with the intention of forcibly occupying their shop and residential house. It was further alleged that the accused persons used to bring along 25–30 persons and intimidate the family, causing severe mental harassment. Owing to such continuous harassment, Ranjab Ali committed suicide. Upon receipt of information regarding the death of Ranjab Ali from the informant Sheikh Babba, a Merg Intimation No. 123/2022 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda vide (Exhibit P/08). Notices were issued to the witnesses for inquest proceedings vide (Exhibit P/03), and Merg statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded. The inquest (Panchnama) of the dead body was conducted, and the Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide (Exhibit P/06). Thereafter, the dead body was sent to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for post-mortem examination along with the requisition vide (Exhibit P/07), and the post-mortem report was obtained vide (Exhibit P/07-A). 3. After the post-mortem examination, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives in accordance with Supurdnama (Exhibit P/24), and a duty certificate was issued vide (Exhibit P/25). A spot map (Nazri Naksha) was prepared vide (Exhibit P/04). During 3 the inquest proceedings, in the presence of witnesses, a handwritten suicide note found in the pocket of the deceased’s lower, one Nokia mobile phone, and cash amounting to Rs.1,520/- were seized under seizure memo (Exhibit P/05). On 04.10.2022, Merg statements of Sheikh Babba, Arman Ali, Riyaz Ali, Shabana Begum, Rehman Ali, and Mohammad Wasim were recorded. 4. During the course of investigation, a handwritten page written by the deceased was seized from his son, Arman Ali vide seizure memo (Exhibit P/13). Notices were issued to Arman Ali vide (Exhibits P/14 and P/15) for producing documents containing the natural handwriting of the deceased in connection with verification of the suicide note. Upon production, the documents containing the natural handwriting of the deceased were seized vide (Exhibit P/12), and a certificate submitted by Arman Ali in this regard was taken on record vide (Exhibit P/16). During further investigation, on 14.04.2024, notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued to Wasim Qureshi vide (Exhibit P/33) and to Mohammad Saddam vide (Exhibit P/19) for assistance in investigation. On the same date, the memorandum statement of accused Akbar Khan was recorded vide (Exhibit P/20). Pursuant thereto, in the presence of witnesses Wasim Qureshi and Mohammad Saddam, documents relating to demarcation were produced by accused, Akbar Khan at Devnandan Nagar, Phase-01, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, which were seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P/21). 5. Upon completion of Merg inquiry, a prima facie cognizable offence was found to have been committed, as reported by the Additional 4 Superintendent of Police (City), District Bilaspur. Consequently, on 05.01.2024, FIR No. 28/2024 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Tayyab Hussain and Akbar Khan vide (Exhibit P/27). On 14.04.2024, accused Akbar Khan was arrested in the presence of witnesses Wasim Qureshi and Mohammad Saddam vide arrest memo (Exhibit P/22), and information regarding his arrest was furnished to his relative Mohammad Rasool vide (Exhibit P/34- A). Thereafter, applications were forwarded for recording statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the statements so recorded were placed on record. The seized suicide note and admitted handwriting of the deceased were sent to the State Questioned Documents Examiner, Naya Raipur, for examination, and acknowledgement thereof was received. A requisition was also sent to the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, vide (Exhibit P/32), for production of revenue records relating to ownership of land bearing Khasra Nos. 368/1 and 369. Upon receipt, the said documents were taken on record. Thereafter, the expert report along with documents from the State Questioned Documents Examiner, Naya Raipur, was received and filed in the case. 6. Upon completion of investigation, and as accused, Tayyab Hussain was absconding, a Fugitive Panchnama was prepared against him. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, on 29.06.2024. Subsequently, pursuant to orders of the learned 5 Sessions Judge, the case was transferred and received by the Additional Sessions Court on 04.07.2024, and thereafter, upon further transfer, was received by the Court on 03.04.2025. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P- 35) and (article-01 to article 19A). After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the accused persons pleaded innocence and did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has committed manifest error in law as well as on facts while recording the judgment of acquittal, which is perverse and unsustainable. The learned trial Court proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law of abetment by holding that harassment does not amount to abetment unless there is an immediate instigating act preceding the suicide. The settled legal position is that sustained harassment, continuous threats, and mental torture, if of such intensity as to drive a person to commit suicide, constitute “instigation” within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and are sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC. The insistence of the trial Court on a last-minute provocation is contrary to the scheme and spirit of the law relating to abetment of suicide and has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. 6 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in discarding material and reliable prosecution evidence on wholly untenable grounds. The rejection of the suicide note merely on the ground that it did not bear a date or signature, and that comparison documents were not earlier marked as articles, is legally perverse. The suicide note was recovered from the person of the deceased during inquest, was identified by witnesses as being in the handwriting of the deceased, and its authorship was supported by the opinion of the handwriting expert. Such deficiencies do not render a suicide note inadmissible, particularly when corroborated by oral and expert evidence. Further, the learned trial Court erroneously rejected the consistent testimonies of the deceased’s sons (PW-4 and PW-16) and independent neighbours (PW-6 and PW-8), who uniformly deposed that the accused persons repeatedly threatened the deceased, arrived with groups of men to intimidate him, and pressurized him to vacate the disputed land, causing extreme mental distress. Discarding their evidence merely on the ground of relationship or perceived interest is contrary to settled law that credible testimony cannot be rejected solely on that basis. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned trial Court has misdirected itself by relying upon irrelevant considerations and by ignoring material circumstances proved on record. The absence of a prior written complaint by the deceased was treated as fatal, overlooking the reality that victims of intimidation often refrain from lodging complaints due to fear, and that the deceased had 7 consistently disclosed the harassment to his family members. The trial Court further erred in treating the delay in registration of FIR No. 28/2024 as fatal, without appreciating that the case initially commenced as a Merg under Section 174 CrPC, that prompt inquest, post-mortem and recording of statements were undertaken, and that the FIR was registered pursuant to supervisory findings. Minor omissions and trivial contradictions were unduly magnified, while the complete failure of the accused to offer any plausible explanation in their statements under Section 313 CrPC regarding their repeated acts of intimidation, presence with large groups, and role in the land dispute was ignored. The prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the learned trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused–respondent, and the said well- reasoned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 13. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the 8 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." 14. In the present case, the first and foundational aspect requiring determination is the nature of the death of the deceased Ranjab Ali. Upon a cumulative consideration of the Merg intimation, inquest proceedings, post-mortem report and the consistent testimony of the medical officer, it stands conclusively established that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature, caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The said finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is fully supported by medical and ocular evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 15. The pivotal question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused persons had abetted the commission of suicide within the meaning of Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the suicide note recovered from the person of the deceased, though proved to be in his handwriting, does not attribute any role, act of instigation or harassment to the accused persons. The second document, allegedly produced by the son of the deceased, has been rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court in view of the categorical 9 opinion of the handwriting expert, coupled with serious infirmities regarding its seizure, absence of date and signature, and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses associated with its production. The oral evidence of the sons of the deceased alleging repeated threats and intimidation by the accused suffers from material contradictions, embellishments and improvements when compared with their earlier Merg statements and police statements. The allegation that the accused used to arrive with large groups of persons to threaten the deceased does not find mention in the earliest versions, thereby affecting the credibility of such testimony. Independent witnesses have either not supported the prosecution version or have confined themselves to formal aspects of investigation, without attributing any specific overt act of instigation to the accused. It has also been established from the revenue records and demarcation documents that the shop of the deceased was not situated on land recorded in his name and that the demarcation proceedings were undertaken by revenue authorities pursuant to an application filed by a third party. A civil or revenue dispute, or lawful demarcation proceedings carried out by competent authorities, cannot by itself constitute abetment of suicide. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint by the deceased, coupled with the delay in registration of the FIR after completion of Merg proceedings, further weakens the prosecution case. 16. The learned trial Court has meticulously analyzed both oral and documentary evidence and has taken a view which is not only 10 possible but also reasonable and plausible on the basis of the record. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the findings of the trial Court are perverse, manifestly illegal or based on a complete misappreciation of evidence. Mere possibility of a different view is not a ground to overturn an order of acquittal. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2025. The prosecution having failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment as required under Sections 107 and 306 of IPC, the acquittal of the accused does not call for interference. 18. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil