1 CGHC010006122010 2026:CGHC:38575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 212 of 2010 1 - Om Prakash @ Jittu Soni S/o Arjun Soni, Aged about 22 years, R/o Vill.Lukupali,komakhan,ps Bagbahra, Mahasamund ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station: Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. Pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2026, the appellant is present before this Court. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.08 11:50:05 +0530 -2- and order of sentence dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) in Sessions Trial No.66/2009 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below- Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 306 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/- (in default of payment of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment.). 4. The prosecution case is that the appellant was married to the deceased, Mona Soni, in the month of July, 2008. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 18.05.2009, at around 1:00 p.m., the appellant herein scolded his wife as she was using Gudaku (a paste made of jaggery and tobacco) and also abused her. Thereafter, the deceased poured kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze on the same date. She was taken to the hospital and, during the course of treatment, died on 21.05.2009. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the learned Trial Court framed a charge against the appellant herein for commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant and exhibited 12 documents. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant herein. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the documentary and oral 3 evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no abetment at all and the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC. He would further submit that there was no nexus between the incident that had taken place on 18.05.2009 and the death of the deceased. He would contend that the prosecution should have proved the fact that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide, and an utterance made in a fit of anger or omission, without any intention, cannot be termed as instigation. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Praveen Pradhan V. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2012(9) SCALE 745. He would pray to allow this appeal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the appellant herein instigated the deceased to commit suicide, as, on the date of the incident, he scolded and beat her. He would further submit that there was a direct nexus between the incident which occurred on 18.05.2009 and the death of the deceased. He would contend that the witnesses, namely, Tejeshwar Prasad Soni (PW1), Shanti Soni (PW2) and Fekan Soni (PW3), who are near relatives of the deceased, have proved the harassment. He would further contend that the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. -4- 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. A morgue intimation (Ex.P/6) was lodged by Narayan Singh Rathiya on 10.07.2009 regarding the death of the deceased. Thereafter, an FIR was registered on 09.08.2009 on the basis of the said morgue intimation. In the FIR, there is an allegation against the appellant that, on the fateful day, he scolded and abused his wife as she was repeatedly using Gudaku. Except for this single instance, there is no other allegation against the appellant herein. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, and the doctor opined that the cause of death was the result of burns and their complications, as stated in Ex.P/9. 10.Tejeshwar Prasad Soni (PW1), who is the sister of the deceased, stated that after 4-5 months of marriage, the appellant herein started beating her sister, and this fact was narrated to her by the deceased herself. She further deposed that the appellant used to call her sister a patient. It is also stated that her sister did not disclose these facts to her parents. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that she opposed the marriage of the deceased with the appellant. In paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, she stated that after 2-3 months of marriage, her sister had lost the ability to speak. It was also admitted that the fact regarding the deceased's use of Gudaku was not narrated in the FIR. 11.Shanti Soni (PW-2), sister of the deceased, stated in her examination-in-chief that the appellant had kept her sister with him and she was often abused by the appellant herein. In cross- 5 examination, she admitted that when deceased herself had poured kerosene over her body, she along with Uma Bai and Bedbai tried to snatch the matchbox from her, but after some time, she set herself ablaze using a lighter. 12.Fekan Soni (PW3), father of the deceased, alleged that the appellant herein used to harass his daughter. However, there are only general allegations against the appellant. 13.Sevak Ram Dhruv (PW5), Assistant Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer, stated in paragraph 3 that the deceased herself had poured kerosene on her body and used a lighter to set herself ablaze. The relevant articles were seized from the place of the incident. In paragraph 12, this witness admitted that he had not recorded the statements of the neighbours. 14.Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW6), in paragraph 4, stated that the cause of death was the result of burns and their complications, as mentioned in Ex.P/9. 15.To prove a charge under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish specific ingredients beyond a reasonable doubt : (i) The prosecution has to prove that the deceased actually died by suicide; (ii) the accused played an active role by instigating, conspiring or intentionally aiding the act as defined under Section 107 of the IPC; (iii) There must be clear proof of guilty intention on the part of the -6- accused to drive or aid the victim into taking his or her own life; (iv) the actions of the accused must have a direct and proximate link to the suicide, leaving the victim with no other option; and (v) mere general harassment or ordinary domestic quarrels do not suffice. 16. In the evidence on record, there is no direct allegation with regard to harassment, except for the single incident on the date of occurrence, there is no evidence with regard to continuous harassment. Abetment, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, involves to goad, to urge, to provoke, to incite or encourage a person to do any act or cause any illegal omission. 17.In the present case, there is no direct evidence of instigation. A single incident wherein the appellant herein stopped his wife from using Gudaku and scolded her would not, by itself, amount to abetment. 18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Praveen Pradhan (supra), while discussing scope of abetment/instigation held as under : “11. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court re-examined this question, in a similar case, involving Sections 306/107 IPC, wherein the deceased left a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. The deceased in this case, was a driver in the Microwave Project Department. He had undergone a bypass surgery for his heart, just before the occurrence of such incident and his doctor had advised him against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer to the deceased. When the deceased failed to comply with the orders of the accused, the accused became very angry and threatened to suspend the deceased, rebuking him very harshly for not listening 7 to him. The accused also asked the deceased how he still found the will to live, despite being insulted so. The driver after all this, committed suicide. This Court found that such incident was a one time occurrence. For the purpose of bringing home any charge, vis-à-vis Section 306/107 IPC against the accused, this Court stated that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way, to commit suicide or had engaged with some other persons in a conspiracy to do so, or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to cause the said suicide. In the said case, this court, after assessing the material on record, found that the deceased was suffering from mental imbalance which caused depression. The accused had never intended for the deceased employed under him to commit suicide. This court observed that if the making of observations by a superior officer, regarding the work of his subordinate, is termed as abetment to suicide, it would become almost impossible, for superior officers to discharge their duties as senior employees. 12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446, this Court while dealing with the term ‘instigation’ held: “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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. Thus, to constitute ‘instigation’, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or ‘urging forward’. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction…..to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.” -8- 19.Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred matter and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed an error of law while convicting and sentencing the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2010 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha