1 CGHC010001992012 2026:CGHC:30758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 627 of 2012 State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. K.Venkatshwalu, S/o K. Shriramlu, aged About 36 Years, R/o Quarter No. 20/B, Street - 16, Sector - 9 Bhilainagar Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 2. Satish Patil S/o. Late D.D. Patil. Aged About 41 Years, R/o Quarter No. 21/A, Street No. 12, Sector - 1, Bhilainagar, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) 3. Mukundram S/o. Dukhiram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Quarter No. 12/E-1, Risali Sector, P.S. - Nevai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. Panchram Sahu S/o. Late S.R. Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Quarter No. 40/A H. Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.)] 5. Dr. Chintaram Sahu S/o Late Chhannulal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Achanakpur, PS - Utai, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 01 : Mr. P.K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 02 to 04 Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 05 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.21 15:22:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice [ Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. The applicant/State has preferred the present criminal revision against the judgment dated 26.07.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 09/2010, whereby the respondents were discharged from the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2009, one Bhagwati Dewangan lodged a morgue intimation at Police Station Nevai, stating that his neighbour, Rajanlal Sahu, had committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. Acting upon the said intimation, the police rushed to the spot, conducted the inquest over the dead body, and seized the ligature material along with two letters allegedly written by the deceased from the place of occurrence. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Tameshwar Lal Sahu, son of the deceased, stated that his father had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to Venkat Rao (respondent No. 1) on interest at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month. After paying interest for some time, Venkat Rao stopped making payments. When the deceased demanded repayment of the principal amount, Venkat Rao neither paid the outstanding interest nor refunded the principal amount and allegedly threatened the deceased by saying that he would not return the money even if the deceased went and died. Likewise, Satish Patil (respondent No. 2) had borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from the deceased but failed to repay the amount despite repeated demands and allegedly told the deceased that he would not return the money even if he went and died. The said witness further stated that the 3 deceased had borrowed money from Panchram Sahu (respondent No. 4) but was unable to repay the same. Panchram Sahu used to visit the deceased repeatedly to demand repayment and allegedly intimidated him by stating that if he could not repay the loan, he should die by hanging himself. The witness further stated that the deceased had sold his residential house to Mukund Yadav (respondent No. 3), who had failed to pay the entire sale consideration, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 85,000/-. It was further alleged that Mukund Yadav had retained possession of the keys of the house, and when the deceased demanded their return, he threatened the deceased by stating that he would not return the keys even if the deceased and his family went and died. The witness also stated that the deceased had constructed a new house in Village Achanakpur, which was allegedly under the unauthorized possession of Dr. Chintaram Sahu (respondent No. 5). Despite repeated requests, Dr. Chintaram Sahu did not vacate the house and allegedly threatened the deceased by stating that he would not vacate the premises even if the deceased went and died. According to the witness, owing to all these incidents, the deceased remained under severe mental distress and ultimately committed suicide by hanging himself. Similarly, Mohit Kumar Sahu, Ku. Omesh, and Smt. Hirabai Sahu (the son, daughter, and wife of the deceased, respectively) reiterated the version narrated by Tameshwar Lal Sahu. 3. A perusal of the two letters recovered from the place of occurrence reveals that they contain substantially the same allegations as those made by the aforesaid witnesses in their statements. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused persons were charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and were put to trial before the learned trial Court. 4 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties on the question of framing of charge, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to place on record any material sufficient to constitute the offence alleged against the accused persons or to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned trial Court discharged all the respondents from the offence alleged against them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/State has preferred the present criminal revision. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has erred in discharging the accused persons from the offence alleged against them. It is argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the close relatives of the deceased and has erred in placing exclusive reliance on the contents of the two letters allegedly written by the deceased while completely overlooking the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. It is respectfully submitted that the law relating to the framing of charge is well settled to the effect that, at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not required to evaluate the probative value or sufficiency of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The only question to be considered is whether the material available on record discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. It is respectfully submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sufficient to proceed against the respondents. The oral evidence of the witnesses is further corroborated by the contents of the two letters allegedly written by the deceased shortly before his death. It is respectfully submitted that the learned trial Court was not justified in holding that the deceased was suffering from depression and had, therefore, committed suicide, particularly in the 5 absence of any cogent material to support such a finding at the stage of framing of charge. It is respectfully submitted that, for the foregoing reasons and submissions, the order of discharge dated 26.07.2012 is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law. The same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned respective counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 09/2010 and submitted that the said order is just, proper, and well-reasoned, and therefore, calls for no interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 9. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial Court, in paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof, held as under: 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid legal principles, even if the entire charge-sheet is accepted as it stands, there is no material on record on the basis of which it can, prima facie, be held that the accused persons intentionally instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the statements of certain family members of the deceased recorded by the police are taken into consideration, they also do not disclose any clear intention on the part of the accused persons to abet the commission of suicide. In any event, in view of the suicide notes left by the deceased, the vague and ambiguous statements made by the witnesses before the police lose much of their evidentiary significance. 6 12. Even if the various articles seized from the accused persons during the course of investigation are accepted as such, they do not, in any manner, disclose any intention on the part of the accused persons to abet the commission of suicide. It is pertinent to note that the seized articles primarily consist of cheque books, stamp papers, ATM cards, mobile phones, passbooks, registers, sale deeds, lease deeds, and other documents pertaining to different individuals, which merely indicate the existence of financial transactions and the existence of various debtors. By themselves, these seized articles do not establish any act of abetment in relation to the suicide committed by the deceased. 10. Considering the material available on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie material exists to establish the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has rightly discharged the respondents, and this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek