1 CRA No. 927 of 2011 CGHC010009002011 2026:CGHC:42567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 927 of 2011 Judgment reserved on : 16.09.2026 Judgment delivered on :30.09.2026  Smt. Manki Bai, W/o Saroj Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Ganiya, Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh, Trough: the Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg,Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State :- Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar C A V Judgment 1. The present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by the appellant-accused challenging legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 13/2011 by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as under:- ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 CRA No. 927 of 2011 Conviction Sentence Under Section 306 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Under Section 498(A) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution Case:- 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant herein along with other co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, on 20.12.2010 and prior to that day, in their house, at village Ganiya, Police Station Nawagarh, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, assaulted Panchobai (deceased) and demanded dowry and also abetted her to commit suicide, as a result of which Panchobai after pouring kerosene oil on her set herself ablaze and thereby appellant committed the aforesaid offences. 3. As per the prosecution case, deceased was the daugher-in-law of the appellant herein and they used to live under the same roof along with other co-accused/family members and they used to torture the deceased mentally and physically. On the date of incident i.e. 20.12.2010, the appellant and co-accused ousted the 3 CRA No. 927 of 2011 deceased from the house and denied her entry in the house. On account of the said act of the appellant and other co-accused, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her body. After getting information, Jhamman Sahu (PW- 9) father of the deceased, and other villagers reached at the spot. Thereafter, co-accused Saroj Sahu reported the aforesaid incident at Thana Nawagarh vide Ex.P/13 pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/15. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/5 and the dead body of the deceased sent for postmortem. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) proved by Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjjhi (PW-15), cause of death is asphyxia as a result of burn. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/22) on Article A (burnt clothes of the deceased along with her skin) particles of kerosene oil has been found. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant along with other co-accused persons were arrested. 4. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured her guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas, defence, in support of her case, has not examined any witness 4 CRA No. 927 of 2011 however, exhibited 3 documents. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. However, the trial Court has acquitted the other co-accused persons of the charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 and Section 306 of the IPC. Submission of the Parties:- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court without any cogent evidence. He would also submit that the evidence that has come on record before the trial Court, is not sufficient to convict the appellant. He would further submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the evidence with regard to abetment against the appellant and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 CRA No. 927 of 2011 8. Learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences in question and the impugned judgment is just and proper and does not warrant any interference and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records minutely. Discussion & Analysis:- 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by burn and the nature of death was suicidal. Abetment and Cruelty 11. Prosecution witness Radhe Sahu (PW-4) has stated that on the date of incident Pancho Bai (deceased) met him in front of Mahavir Temple and told him that her in-laws were not giving anything to eat and drink, then he (PW-4) advised her to go to her matrimonial home and stay there, however, at that time, appellant reached there and stated that in order to live separately, deceased left the house in night carrying Pisaan (flour). It has further been stated by PW-4 that, at that time, the appellant had also stated 6 CRA No. 927 of 2011 that she would not allow the deceased to enter her house. However, from the evidence of PW-4, it has come to the fore that the allegation regarding denial of food to the deceased has not been mentioned in the Police statement and the same appears to be improvement. As such, from the testimony of PW-4, the only circumstance emerges that the appellant did not allow the deceased to enter into the house. 12.Ram Kumar Sahu (PW-8) in his statement before the Court has stated that on the date of incident at about 8:00 am, when he was going to agricultural field, he saw the deceased sitting outside her matrimonial house and the appellant was sitting inside the house and when he returned from the field at about 12.:30 pm, deceased was still sitting outside the house. He (PW-8) has further stated that in the evening at about 4:00 pm when he was going to the agricultural field, he again saw the deceased sitting there, however he did not ask and make any inquiry from the deceased as to why she was sitting outside her matrimonial house. As such, from the evidence of PW-8, it only appears that the deceased was sitting outside the house and her mother-in-law / appellant herein was sitting inside the house. 13.Jhamman Sahu (PW-9), father of the deceased, in his statement before the Court has only stated that his wife Piliya Bai (PW-11) had informed him that, on the date of incident, his daughter 7 CRA No. 927 of 2011 (deceased) was sitting outside the house and the appellant was sitting near the door of the house. Except the above, nothing has been stated by PW-9 with regard to harassment of the deceased by the appellant. 14.Piliya Bai (PW-11), mother of the deceased, in her statement before the Court has stated that on the date of incident at about 2:00 pm when she was coming back from the agriculture field, she had seen her daughter (deceased) sitting outside the house and appellant was sitting opposite her with a stick in her hand. However, the said statement of PW-11 regarding having seen the deceased sitting outside the house is not mentioned in her Police statement and the same appears to be improvement over her Police statement. 15.As such, it is established from the evidence of PW-4, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11 that on the date of incident, the deceased Pancho Bai was sitting outside the house while her mother-in-law / appellant was sitting inside the house and also the established that the appellant did not allow the deceased to enter the house. Apart from the aforesaid evidence from statements PW-4, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11, none of the other prosecution witnesses has made any statement with regard to the deceased having been subjected to harassment or cruelty by the appellant. 8 CRA No. 927 of 2011 16.Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide? 17.To decide the aforesaid question, it is imperative to deal with Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’. 18. Sections 306 & 107 of the IPC are reproduced below:- “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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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. 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.” 9 CRA No. 927 of 2011 19.When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide, along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. 20. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has was observed in para 12 as under:- “12. …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.” 21.In Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. 2 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at para 43, thus:- “43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.” 1(2010) 1 SCC 707 2 (2017) 7 SCC 780 10 CRA No. 927 of 2011 22. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has further been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana 3 , as follows:- “14.1……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 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.” 23. In Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra 4 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed in thus:- “25. …even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel's back’; that final event, in a series, that 3 (2019) 17 SCC 301 4(2026) 6 SCC 233 11 CRA No. 927 of 2011 occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. 26. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.” 12 CRA No. 927 of 2011 24. Recently in the matter of Prakash v. State of Maharashtra 5 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further interpreted the offence as below:- “18. Section 306 of the IPC 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 IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 IPC has to be satisfied. 19. Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. 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.” 25. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that there is no evidence that the victim was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the appellant. In the present case, from the statements of Radhe Sahu (PW-4), Ram Kumar Sahu (PW-8), Jhamman Sahu (PW-9) and Piliya Bai (PW-11) it appears that the appellant had not allowed the deceased to enter her house. Considering the above evidence coupled with the fact that the appellant was sitting inside the house and the deceased was sitting outside the house, this Court is of the view that the said facts do 5 (2026) 6 SCC 251 13 CRA No. 927 of 2011 not constitute sufficient evidence to establish the offence of abetment to commit suicide. Further from the evidence available on record, It appears that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC as the necessary ingredients to constitute the said offence are missing in the present case. As such, prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 306 and 498(A) of the IPC against the appellant herein beyond reasonable doubt. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis and upon comprehensive appreciation of the evidence and the entire material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court is not founded upon cogent and reliable evidence. Consequently, the conviction as well as sentence under Sections 306 and 498(A) of the IPC imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Conclusion :- 27. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2011 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sections 306 and 498(A) of the IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 306 and 498(A) of the IPC. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, she need not surrender. However, 14 CRA No. 927 of 2011 her bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC/Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 28. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Ankit