1 CGHC010283052016 2026:CGHC:41563 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 901 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 23.07.2026 Judgment Delivered on 24.09.2026 Dr. Sanjay Prakash S/o A. Prakash Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rukmani Vihar, Kumhar Para, Talapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 88 of 2019 Ashish Nath S/o Late Shri Nathanial Nath Aged About 51 Years R/o- Opp- Rajendra Nagar, Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495001, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant/complainant (s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Dr. Sanjay Prakesh S/o A. Prakesh Aged About 40 Years R/o Rukhmani Vihar, Kumhar Para, Talapara, Bilaspur, At Present R/o W.J. Apartment, 1st Floor, Behind Galaxy Motors, Maharana Pratap Chowk, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin-495001., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.26 10:20:46 +0530 2 For Appellant (s) : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate in CRA No. 901 of 2026 and Respondent No.2 in ACQA No. 88 of 2019. For Appellant (s) : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate in ACQA No. 88 of 2019 and Respondent No.2 in CRA 901 of 2016 For State/ Respondent : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C A V Judgment 1. The appellant in CRA No. 901 /2026 has challenged his conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC and in ACQA No. 88 of 2019 Ashish Nath brother of the deceased has challenged the acquittal of Dr. Sanjay Prakash under Section 306 of the IPC which have been arisen from judgment dated 28.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST No. 37/2013, as such they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case in short are that merg intimation No. 137 of 2012 under Section 174 CrPC (Ex.P-8) at instance of brother of deceased namely Ashish Nath was registered on 15.12.2012 at Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur to the effect that his sister Rashmi Prakash committed suicide by hanging herself. It is stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized 14 years back with the appellant and out of the said wedlock two children were born. It is alleged that his brother-in-law Sanjay Prakash telephonically informed him that doors of house are closed from inside and deceased was not responding. On the said information, he 3 reached the house of his brother-in-law and found that the dead body of his sister was lying on the floor. On this information, investigation was conducted by the police and statements of the accused and the witnesses were recorded. From the statements of the witnesses it is revealed that the appellant has lost the money in share market and under intoxicated condition used to beat the victim, as the victim doubted on the character of the appellant, he used to torture and beat her many times, therefore, she committed suicide by hanging herself. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. V.K. Mishra on 16.12.2012 vide (Ex.P-1). According to the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. On the basis of merg intimation, FIR (EX.P-10) under Section 306 IPC was registered against the appellant on 17.12.2012. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur which was registered as Sessions Case No. 37 of 2013. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined 14 witnesses, Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW-1), Purushottam Shukla (PW-2), A. Sanjay Nath (PW-3), Dhirendra Singh (PW-4), Smt. Shanta Nath (PW- 5), Ashish Nath (PW-6), Jaibun Nisha (PW-7), Rohit Prakash (PW-8), Ku. Tanishka Prakash (PW-9), Nathaniyal Nath (PW-10), Anand Mashih (PW-11), D. R. Yadav (PW-12), Dr. S.N. Biswas (PW-13) and constable Dilip Tiwari (PW-14) and exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P16. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 4 CRPC in which he denied the allegation made against him, pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC has convicted the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. From the record, it is quite vivid that the appellant in CRA No. 901 of 2016 has remained incarceration from 18.12.2012 to 01.03.2014 i.e. about 1 year and 2 months and 14 days. Submission in CRA No. 901 of 2016 against conviction under Section 498-A IPC. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and committed error in holding that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty and made demand of dowry. He would further submit that if the statements of Shanta Nath (PW-5) and Ashish Nath (PW-6) are read together it is apparent that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements and they have falsely implicated the accused. He would further submit that the son Rohit Prakash (PW-8) and daughter Ku. Tanishka Prakash (PW- 9) of the deceased after death of their mother were residing with their maternal uncle’s house and both were under the influence of their maternal uncle, as such they are interested witnesses and they have 5 improved the case of the prosecution which is neither the case of the prosecution nor the charges were framed before the trial Court. 6. He would further submit that in paragraph-13 of her statement, mother of the deceased (PW-5) stated that in her community dispute between the spouse is resolved by the Church Community but she further admitted that they have never made any complaint against the appellant, as such the trial Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alauddin and others vs. State of Assam and another 2024(12) SCC 224, Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025(2) SCC 116 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1725. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment, insofar as it relates to conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 498-A of IPC, submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that the accused/appellant was treating the deceased with cruelty as such, the trial Court was fully justified in holding him guilty under Section 498A of IPC and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. Submission in ACQA No. 88 of 2019 against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 306 IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has erred in law while acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 306 of the IPC as from the statements of PW-8 and PW-9, it is clear that the appellant is the main author of the incident and he has to explain the 6 cause of death but the trial Court has ignored the statements of both the children. He would further submit that the FIR was lodged by P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur on the basis of Merg Intimation (Ex.P-8) wherein the deceased brother was told by his brother-in-law/ accused Dr. Sanjay Prakash on his mobile that deceased had committed suicide and learned trial court has not framed additional charges when clinching material came in the statements of the children. He would further submit that the whole dispute occurred between the deceased and appellant due to illicit relationship with one lady who was serving as nurse in the clinic of the accused which was seen by the deceased prior to one day of the incident. He would further submit that Dr. J.N. Vishwas (PW-13) who has examined scene of crime produced photographs in which two ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased which shows that the injuries appeared due to strangulation by the scarf and the deceased could not save herself because she was very week due to long sickness, this incident was confirmed by the children PW-8 and PW-9. He would further submit that Dr. Vishwas (PW-13) noticed several injuries on the body of the deceased which have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court and committed illegality in deciding the instant case. 9. He would further submit that Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW-1) has not explained the reason of death during his cross-examination whereas there was sufficient material on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed heinous offence whereas the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 498-A IPC which is lesser 7 punishment, therefore, he would pray for remitting the trial for afresh adjudication for framing charges under Section 302 IPC. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godabarish Misha vs. Kuntalal Mishra and Anr. Reported in SCR 1996 Supply (7), CBI vs. Karimullah Osan Khan reported 2014 (11) SCC 538, P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Shri Ganesh and Ors reported 2017 (3) SCC 347. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ accused would submit that there are material contradictions and omission in the statements of prosecutions witnesses, as such the trial Court has not relied upon these witnesses and was fully justified in acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 306 IPC and statements of the witnesses were recorded before the Court which are hearsay witnesses and has righlty been disbeleved by the trial Court. 11. He would further submit that there is no complaint about the harassment, beating or illicit relationship made against the accused and there were cordial relationship between them and they were enjoying their married life. It has also been contended that the respondent No.2 was proving all sorts of comforts to the deceased, therefore, there is no question of instigation made by the accused or there is no material/ evidence or there is illegality in framing the charges against the accused which warrants interference by this Court by remitting the matter for fresh adjudication. He would further submit that the respondent has never challenged non framing of charges under Section 302 of the IPC at the appropriate forum or before this Court, as such at this juncture he 8 cannot take plea of remitting the matter for framing of charges under Section 302 IPC, therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the appellant in the acquittal appeal for remitting the matter may kindly be rejected. 12. He would further submit that it is well settled legal position of law that if there is one view which is favourable to the accused then in acquittal appeal, finding of acquittal should not be normally disturbed by the Appellate Court while hearing appeal against the order of acquittal unless so perverse, which touches conscious of the Court. In the present case, no such situation is available on record and would pray for dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal. 13. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 14. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 15. For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be beneficial to reproduce the provisions contained in Section 498-A and 306 IPC as also Section 107 of the IPC. The said provisions read as under:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. —Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” 9 means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 306. 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. 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 wailful misrepresentation, or by wailful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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. 16. From the evidence of (PW-5) Smt. Shanta Nath- mother of the deceased, it is quite vivid, that the appellant has appointed two nurses in his clinic and with nurse B an illicit relationship was seen by the deceased and when she objected it the accused hit her with the bunch 10 of keys. It is also evident from her evidence that this went to the house of accused to pacify the dispute between them and because of this reason the appellate instigated the victim to commit suicide. From her evidence it also quite vivid that the accused used to drink liquor and assaulting the daughter of the deceased in intoxicated condition. 17. Further, from the evidence of Ashish Nath (PW-6) brother of the deceased, it is clear that there was an illicit relationship between the appellant and nurse- B and when the victim objected him then the accused pushed her away from the clinic and gave 20-25 sleeping pills and told her to go to home. Further from the evidence of PW-6, It is quite vivid that the appellant committed marpit with her on the next date and stated to the victim that he will gave divorce to her and will marry with nurse-B. From the evidence of PW-6, it is vivid that the accused informed him on telephone that the deceased closed the door from inside and on the said information he along with his wife reached to the house of accused where he found that his sister had died and she was lying on the floor and two marks were found on her neck. 18. From the evidence of Rohit Prakash (PW-8) son of the deceased, it is quite vivid, that the accused has assaulted the deceased by throwing bunch of key and nurse B was asked the accused to assault the deceased more and also establishes his father gave number of pills to his mother by dissolving into water, due to which condition of her mother became deteriorated, thereafter the deceased called Dr. Kuputkar who has seen the medicine and has informed that it is sleeping pill and advised for omitting. It is also evident that when the deceased called her 11 husband he told her that he is at Raipur and was unable to come. It is also evident from his statement that on 13.12.2012, the accused assaulted the victim and when PW-8 made an attempt to rescue her, the accused assaulted him also. In paragraph-7, this witness deposed that he saw that his mother was lying on the floor where he saw two marks on her neck, it seems that someone had strangulated her. Nothing was brought on record to dilute the evidence of this witness. 19. Further from the evidence of PW-9 daughter of the deceased, it is quite vivid that on 13th December a quarrel took place between her mother and father and for saving herself, her mother came in a room and bolted the door from inside thereafter they switched off the light and slept then her father removed thermocol sheet attached with AC and had thrown water from the window due to which her blanket became wet. She further deposed that on the next day, when they went to the clinic with her mother they saw that nurse-B sat in the side of her father. Her mother objected it then her father hit her mother with bunch of keys which gave mark on the face of her mother and nurse-B assaulted her mother in the clinic. Further from her evidence, it is quite vivid that appellant has given large number of sleeping pills to the deceased due to illicit relationship of her father with nurse-B. 20. From the evidence of Nathiyal Nath (PW-10), father of the deceased, it is quite vivid, that there was illicit relationship between the nurse-B and the accused and both of them have assaulted the deceased. Dr. S.N. Biswas (PW-13) who is an expert of crime in FSL has given his opinion (Ex.P-13) wherein he has stated that on inspection of place of incident 12 and inspection of dead body it may be case of hanging but actual reason can be found out from the postmortem report. This fact of hanging remains unrebuttal as in paragraph-15 of his evidence, he has affirmed his opinion. 21. Learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence and material produced by the prosecution has rightly recorded its finding that there were three injuries on the body of the deceased which were specifically within the knowledge of the accused and he was the only person who can tell how and when the deceased sustained the said injuries prior to her death and by relying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it has recorded its finding that the deceased was dealt with the cruelty and accordingly it has convicted the accused under Section 498-A of the IPC. This finding of cruelty is just and proper and does not suffer from perversity and illegality warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that conviction of the appellant on the evidence of interested witnesses deserves to be rejected as it is well settled legal position of law that it cannot be laid down in anveribal rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution and if on such scrutiny the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or probable it may be sufficient in the circumstance of particular case to base conviction thereon. In the present facts of the case, the witness daughter and son 13 and other witnesses like mother and father and brother of the deceased are related witnesses and they are natural witnesses, as such they cannot be regarded as interested witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2017(11) SCC 129 has held in paragraph- 30 and 31. 30. It is next contended by Mr. Giri, learned counsel for the appellants that all the eyewitnesses are related to the deceased Badan Pal and they being interested witnesses, their version requires scrutiny with care, caution and circumspection and when their evidence is scanned with the said parameters, it does not withstand the said test for which the case set forth by the prosecution gets corroded and the principle of beyond reasonable doubt gets shattered. The aforesaid submission, as we perceive, has no legs to stand upon, for PWs-1 to 3 have deposed in detail about the previous enmity between the parties, their presence at the spot, the weapons the accused persons carried, their proximity to the shed and establishment of the identity of all the four accused. They have also testified as regards the deceased lying in a pool of blood. There is no reason why they would implicate the appellants for the murder of their relation leaving behind the real culprit. That apart, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination for which their testimony can be discredited. 31. In this regard reference to a passage from Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1981(3) SCC 675 would be fruitful. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench has ruled that it cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. It is worthy to note that there is a distinction between a witness who is related and an interested witness. A relative is a natural witness. The Court in Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614 has opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason. 14 22. Thus the submission regarding illegality committed by the trial Court with regard to prove of offence of Section 498-A IPC against the appellant on the basis of interested witnesses deserves to be rejected and it is rejected, as such conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC is hereby affirmed. The conviction of the appellant for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC is in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aluri Venkata Ramana vs.Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 5473 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the provisons of Section 498-A of the IPC and has held that the cruelty as defined in Section does not confine to demand of dowry but it covers all sought of cruelty against the wife by her husband or relative of the husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 8 and 9 and has held as under:- 8. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year1983 with the primary objective of protecting married women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws. The section provides a broad and inclusive definition of "cruelty,"encompassing both physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security, including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty. 9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent to the “wilful conduct” described in clause (a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is significant to note that the inclusion of the word “or” at the end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related demand does not preclude the application of the section in cases where there is mental or physical harassment unrelated to dowry. 15 In interpreting the provision, it is crucial to consider the broader objective behind its introduction—to safeguard women from all forms of cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not. 23. Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC has recorded its findings that the prosecution is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has instigated the victim to commit suicide by hanging herself. This finding is perverse and contrary to evidence on record as learned trial Court while convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC has relied upon the statements of father, mother, brother, son and daughter of the deceased and while acquitting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC has ignored these evidences without examining the provisions and law. 24. For analyzing the finding with regard to Section 306 IPC, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence to record a finding whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients which are required for providing the offence under Section 306 IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 25. From perusal of Section 306 of the IPC, it is quite vivid, that it has two basic ingredients first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s), in order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, which must necessarily be proved by the prosecution and that the accused person has contributed to the suicide committed by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 16 26. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens-rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 27. The law on abetment has been crystallized by a plethora of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens-rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301 has held as under:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and 17 responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who commmit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. mitted suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of 18 suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 16.2 We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of eve- teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self- confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. 29. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayadeepsingh Pravinshih Chavda and others vs. State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 960, relying on S.S. Chheena (supra) held that the element of mens-rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, i.e. deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the 19 deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.” 19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment. Thus as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act” and 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, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 30. From the above stated legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for recording of conviction for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC this Court has to see whether prosecution is able to prove that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there is direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide has been committed by the accused more precisely since in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, this court has to look for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide, as such mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide is proved by the prosecution and there must be proximate to the time of occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the question of mens-rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment 20 or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Also considering the fact that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances, therefore, in light of settled legal position of law, now this Court is analyzing the conduct of the accused, evidence brought on record by the prosecution to record a finding whether the accused has instigated the deceased to commit suicide for attracting the offence under Section 306 IPC. 31. From the evidence of Smt. Shanta Nath and father of the deceased, it is quite vivid, that the accused had an illicit relationship with nurse-B which has been seen by the deceased and when she objected it, thus the accused hit her with the bunch of keys. From their evidence it quite vivid that the accused used to drink liquor and assaulting her. Further from the evidence of Ashish Nath (PW-6) brother of the deceased, It is clear that the appellant committed marpit with her and also threatened her for divorce and thereafter he will marry with nurse-B which is sufficient to instigated her to commit suicide. 32. Further from the evidence of (PW-8 and PW-9), it is quite vivid that the accused assaulted the deceased many times due to illicit relationship with nurse-B and gave large number of sleeping pills. Further when the deceased asked the accused to come and save her then he stated that 21 he is at Raipur and not was unable to come and assaulted the victim before their children which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Further from evidence of PW-9, it is quite vivid, that she has seen that his mother was lying on the floor where he saw two marks on her neck. 33. It is well established principle of law that when a person creates a situation before the deceased where he/she is left with no other option but to put an end to his/her life, it would amount to abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. In the present case, at the first instance, the deceased was maltreated and harassed as well as beaten by the appellant and gave large number of sleeping pills for headache only which coupled with the fact due to illicit relationship with nurse-B, despite attempts were made by the family members of the deceased tried to pacify the dispute arose between them as stated by the son of the appellant PW-8 who has categorically stated that his uncle came to clinic of his father and advised nurse-B not to work with the accused but there was no improvement in the behaviour of the appellant where the deceased lost all hopes of happy married life and when she got an impression that now she has no other option except to put an end to her life, then it can be safely said that the appellant had committed an offence for abetment of suicide. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC. 34. Thus learned trial Court has committed material illegality and illegality in not convicting the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. The trial Court failed to appreciate the cumulative effect of the 22 evidence and instead examined each circumstance in isolation. Such an approach resulted in miscarriage of justice whereas, the evidence on record clearly establishes a proximate nexus between the respondent's acts and the suicide committed by the deceased, as such the finding recorded by learned trial Court in paragraph-33 of its judgment that statement of all the independent witnesses are exaggerated and full of material contradiction is illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court. 35. Further finding of the learned trial Court with regard to testimony of son (PW-8) and daughter (PW-9) it has recorded its finding that in the statements recorded before the Police and before the Court are having contradictions, as such it is not safe to convict the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC is also illegal as, son (PW-8) in his statement before police under Section 161 CrPC has stated that nurse-B is working in the clinic of his father and because of her only, a dispute between his father and mother arose and his uncle has gone to pacify nurse-B on 13.12.2012 on this count the quarrel took place between them. He has also narrated thrown of key upon her mother which remained affirm in the court statement also as this witness in his deposition has reiterated the same evidence which has not been rebutted despite extensive cross-examination by the defence. 36. Further from the statement of daughter (PW-9), she has also reiterated the same facts regarding illicit relationship of her father with nurse-B and the manner in which deceased was assaulted by her father. Her statement before the Court remained affirm and there is no material 23 contradiction, omission which may give impression that the statement before the court is improved statement and the same can be ignored. 37. From the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is quite vivid, that the learned trial Court has not assigned any explanation and reason as to what contradictions are found in the statement made before the police as well as in the Court statement only balled averments have been made which the trial Court should avoid particularly in a offence against woman within the vicinity of the house. 38. Thus there is direct material brought on record by the prosecution regarding continuous harassment to the deceased by the appellant husband to instigate her to commit suicide, still it has been ignored by the trial Court so lightly in a casual manner, as such the impugned dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. 39. Further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that in case of acquittal, the power of interference of appellate Court is very limited as provided under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C./Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), is being considered by this Court. 40. It is well settled position of law that in a case of acquittal, the power of appellate Court is very limited and also that if two views are available then the view which is favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration by the appellate Court but if there is only one view for conviction then only the appellate court can interfere with the findings of the trial Court acquitting the accused and can reverse the same. Thus, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that if two 24 views can be taken then view which is more favourable to the accused should be considered by the Court and should not interfere in the finding of the acquittal deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka [2024 (8) SCC 149] has examined in which circumstances the findings can be reversed and observed in paragraphs 41 and 42 as under:- “41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 41. Thus, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. (Section 427 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can very well interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court and can reverse such finding by convicting the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. 42. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 28.06.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2013 for commission of offence under Section 306 is set aside and he is convicted for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. So far as conviction of the appellant in CRA No. 901 of 2016 for commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC is hereby affirmed. 25 43. Consequently, CRA No. 901 of 2016 is dismissed and Acquittal Appeal No. 88 of 2019 is allowed by setting of order of acquittal, therefore, in compliance of Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C./Section 254(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, this Court has to hear the accused or his counsel on the question of sentence. 44. Accordingly, Acquittal appeal be listed on 26th October, 2026 on that date, the accused or his counsel shall remain present before this Court for hearing on sentence. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh