1 2026:CGHC:4823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 468 of 2025 1 - Manharan Kariyare S/o. Lt. Tularam Kariyare, Aged About 53 Years R/o Hanuman Chowk, Deori, P.S. Saragaon, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In-Charge, P.S.- Civil Lines, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Anita Khare, W/o Lt. Vinod Kariyare, Aged About 35 Years R/o Pali, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Pali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. R. L. Rajak, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. Present is an acquittal appeal filed by the complainant under Section 413 of B.N.S.S., 2023, against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba, in Sessions Case No. 57/2024, whereby the respondent No. 2/ Accused has been acquitted of the offence of Section 306 of IPC. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.26 17:33:44 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Vinod Kariyare has committed suicide by consuming poison (pesticide) on 01.10.2023 in his house at New Rajaswa Colony, Rampur, and he died during treatment on 14.10.2023 at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Merg was informed to the police, and during the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased was married to the respondent No. 2/ accused for 5-6 months, and his wife was harassing him for one or other reason and threatened him to involve him in any false case. FIR was registered against the respondent No. 2/ accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, and after the completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, which the respondent No. 2 denied and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the respondent No. 2/ accused has been recorded in which she denied the circumstances that appear against her, pleaded innocence and has submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the offence. One defence witness, Virendra Kumar Khare (DW/1), has been examined by the respondent No. 2/ accused. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted respondent No. 2 from the alleged offence of Section 306 of IPC holding that the deceased was indebted for a huge sum of Rs. 16 lakhs which may be one of the reasons to commit suicide and looking to his condition at the time when he was admitted to the hospital, making statement to the witnesses is doubtful and the ingredients of abatement to commit suicide is missing. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is sufficient 3 and overwhelming evidence against the respondent No. 2/ accused that, by the continuous course of her conduct and harassment of the deceased, he committed suicide, which was the direct cause of his death. The deceased was alive for about 14 days and made an oral dying declaration to the witnesses, which clearly demonstrates the instigation to commit suicide. He would further submit that within short span of time of her marriage the respondent No. 2/ accused created pressure upon the deceased for various reasons like handing over the entire salary to her, not to go to his ancestral house, threatened him that she will commit suicide etc. the deceased was having no any alternative option but to take his life and the conduct of the respondent No. 2/ accused lead to a finding of mens-rea and then the deceased has committed suicide. PW/11 Jagdish Prash Khare is the coworker of the deceased and disclosed the conduct of his wife. Krishna Kumar Rathore is also a friend of the deceased who also disclosed that the deceased was indebted Rs. 20 lakhs and he has to repay the loan and a major part of his salary was spent in the installments due to which he was an extreme pressure, clubbed with harassment of the respondent No. 2/ accused that she had taken entire salary of the deceased. In view of the evidence available on record, the consideration of the learned trial Court is perverse, and the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered that the doctor who initially treated the deceased at J.K. Hospital had not been made a witness in the case and his evidence has not been recorded. He would be the best witness with respect to the oral dying declaration because, as per the statement of Jagdish Prasad Khare (PW/11), when Dr. Jay Lahare treated the deceased, his condition became normal, and then the police persons inquired from the deceased. From the evidence of Dr. 4 B. K. Jhaleriya (PW/5), it comes that at the time when he was taken to 100 bedded hospital, Korba, he was not in a position to give his statement. Further as per the statement of Dr. Anurag Singh (PW/12) when the deceased was taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, he was not in a condition to understand the commands and thus, when the deceased was not in a position to speak anything and his condition was so serious, the oral dying declaration made before (PW/2) Gayanath, PW/3 Pramod Kaliyare, PW/4 Manharana Kaliyare, PW/15 Daya Xalxo, PW/18 Krishna Kumar Rathore and PW/19 Dhiraj Kumar Dubey are suspicious. The learned trial Court further considered that the deceased was indebted for about 16 Lakhs rupees, which may be a reason for his stress, and the routine domestic quarrel cannot be a reason to instigate or abatement to commit suicide. 8. Although some sort of evidence with respect to a diary, allegedly written by the deceased, came in evidence, no diary has been produced by the prosecution to prove the same. 9. PW/2, Gayanath, who is the friend of the deceased, though has stated about their domestic quarrel between the deceased and respondent No. 2/ accused but from his evidence it transpires that the alleged incident of domestic is much before of the date of incident and even after the alleged domestic quarrel he visited times with the deceased and stated about various instances of their quarrel. Subsequently, he came to know on 01.10.2023 that the deceased consumed poison. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not informed his family members about the domestic quarrel between the deceased and respondent No. 2/ accused. He further admitted that the deceased informed him that he had taken a loan for marriage and a vehicle. He further admitted that the deceased obtained a compassionate appointment, and due to this, his other family members are also demanding money from him. From the evidence of this witness, there is nothing that 5 suggests that the respondent No. 2/ accused in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 10.PW/3 Pramod Kaliyare is the brother of the deceased who stated in his evidence that his brother had informed him that the respondent No. 2/ accused was harassing him. A day before the date of the incident, his brother called him and informed him about the conduct of the accused, and the next day, he committed suicide. When he met with the deceased at Apollo hospital, he was recovering, and then the deceased informed him about the incident, and he also informed him about the diary in which the entire sequence of events is mentioned. In cross-examination, he admitted that his brother had obtained a compassionate appointment. Two months before his marriage, he had taken a home loan. Though he denied that the deceased of indebted from various persons, and he demanded money from him to repay the amount of the loan, a dispute arose between them, but from the evidence of this witness and the suggestion given by the defence, it transpires that the deceased was heavily indebted. 11.PW/3 Manharan Kaliyare is also one of the brothers of the deceased, and he too has stated about the quarrel between the deceased and respondent No. 2/ accused. He also stated that when he met with the deceased at Korba hospital, he disclosed the quarrel between him and the accused. He also gave the audio-video of the conversation of the deceased on a pen drive to the Police, and a transcript (Ex-P/6) was prepared by the Police. In cross- examination, he admitted that the deceased had taken a home loan in which he was a guarantor. He denied certain parts of his Police statement. He admitted that his younger brother is in the police services, who was with him for about 13 days. During this period of 13 days, they have not made any complaint to the Police. He admitted that he had a telephonic call with the accused about a month back. On the date of the incident, the deceased came back to his house after a party at about 3 am, and the accused informed him 6 that the deceased was heavily drunk. He further admitted that they have never made any complaint to the parents of the accused about her conduct. 12.PW/11, Jagdish Khare, who was the co-worker of the deceased, who has stated about the conduct of the accused, which was disclosed to him by the deceased. He is not the direct witness, but he stated whatever the deceased disclosed to him about his quarrel with the accused. He stated that about 15 days before the date of the incident, the deceased called him at his house by saying that the accused was trying to commit suicide and when he went there, he found everything normal. After about a week of the said incident, the deceased made a complaint to him that the accused was raising a regular dispute with respect to the golden ornaments. On 01.10.2023, when he received information about the incident, he went there, and then the deceased informed him that on the instance of the accused, he consumed phenyl. He also informed about a diary in which he wrote the entire incident. He immediately called Dr. Jay Lahare, and in front of the doctor, the deceased again disclosed about consuming pesticide. When the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was not in condition to speak. In cross- examination, he admitted that he has not made any complaint to any person in the community about the incident, nor has he advised the deceased to take Police help. This witness has also not stated anything about any recent quarrel or incident which dragged with the deceased to commit suicide. 13.PW/15 Daya Xalxo is the maid servant in the house of the deceased. She stated in her statement that a relation between the deceased and the accused was good, and she had not seen or heard about any quarrel between them. She declared herself hostile and has not supported the prosecution’s case. 14.PW/18 Krishna Kumar Rathore, is the friend of the deceased, who stated in his evidence that when he came to know about the incident, he met with the deceased at District Hospital, Korba, and then he informed that he was fed-up 7 by his wife. He also stated that 3-4 days before the date of the incident, the deceased informed him that he had taken a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs for marriage, and he had to pay a huge amount in instalments. He also informed that the entire amount of his salary is being taken by the accused. In cross- examination, he admitted that the accused is the second wife of the deceased. He further admitted that before the marriage, the deceased had taken a loan for a car. He also admitted that before the marriage, a complaint was made against the deceased at the State Women’s Commission. He further admitted that he had not disclosed in his Police statement what he disclosed today in court. He also admitted that during his treatment at Bilaspur, he had not met him. Except for the domestic quarrel, no other dispute has been disclosed to him by the deceased. 15.PW/19 Dhiraj Kumar Dubey is also a friend of the deceased. He too has not disclosed any specific incident in close proximity to the date of the incident, which led to the abatement to commit suicide. 16.From the document Ex-D/7, it transpires that a complaint was made against the deceased by one of the employees of the forest department, Korba, for vacating the allotted house, and since the deceased committed suicide, the complaint was closed on 14.03.2024. From the document D/8 to D/11, it also transpires that the deceased was having a dispute with the said employee of the forest department, for which a complaint was made to the State Women’s Commission, Raipur. 17.From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that there is a lack of cogent and clinching evidence with respect to the instigation or abetment to commit suicide of the deceased. There may be a routine domestic quarrel, but the same cannot be considered to be the abatement to commit suicide. There is no evidence that, in close proximity to the time, there was any incident except for the alleged oral dying declaration made by the 8 deceased, which the learned trial court has already disbelieved in view of the evidence of doctors who have treated the deceased at various hospitals. 18.To constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1)SCC 433, in which it was observed as under:- “20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus: "Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling. causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. 22. Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder: "107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1- A person, who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily 9 causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that doing. Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto. 27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder. "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether 10 cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707. 29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.” 19.Recently in Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025(4)SCC 801, the Supreme Court held as under:- 12. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- “3….. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events…...” 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court 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 11 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 to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. 15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held 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 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. 17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "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 12 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 the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn." 18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 20.From the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court and the evidence available on record, it would certainly not be held that the respondent accused, by his act, created the circumstances which left the deceased with no other option, except to commit suicide. 21.The trial court after adverting entire evidence considered that prosecution could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and comes to the conclusion that there is lack of evidence with respect to abetment to commit suicide or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The view taken by the trial court is one of the plausible view which cannot be said to be perverse or 13 illegal under the facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record 22.Recently, applying the law governing 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 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." 23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C. the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 24.After considering the material available on record as well as the well- reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings 14 of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 25.For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika