1 2026:CGHC:16534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.267 of 2008 1 - Hitendra Sahu Aged About 45 Years, R/o Raghunandan Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Siriyadih, Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 10/04/2026 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.94/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with default stipulations. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the deceased Kiran in the year 1997 and out of their wedlock, two children namely Khushbu, aged about 6 years and Vikas, aged about 3 years, were born and they lived happily for 2 years but after sometime of the marriage, the appellant started torturing the deceased and he also used to consume liquor and thereafter beat her, as a result of which she committed suicide. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are missing, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Kashibai and others vs The State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149, Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs The Inspector of Police, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 834, Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh, 3 reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 and M. Mohan vs State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that the deceased Kiran Sahu was wife of appellant and she committed suicide on 26.09.2005 by consuming poison. 8. PW-1 father of deceased stated that deceased Kiran was his daughter who died on 26.09.2005. The marriage of Kiran and accused was solemnized in the year 1997 and they lived peacefully for 2-3 years but thereafter the accused started torturing his daughter and consumed liquor and beat her, as a 4 result of which his daughter committed suicide by consuming poison. In the cross-examination, he admitted that daughter of Kiran is aged about 6-7 years. He admitted that at the time of inquest memo, he was present but he did not make any complaint. He admitted his signatures on inquest memo (Ex-P/2) on A to A part of the same. He denied this suggestion that his daughter was stubborn in nature. In reply of the question asked by the the Court, he replied that daughter of deceased namely Varsha is aged about 6-7 years and her son Vikas is aged about 4 years and they both are presently with the appellant. 9. PW-2 Uma Bai Sahu, mother of deceased also stated that the accused used to assault her daughter and consumed liquor but as to why her daughter consumed poison she does not know. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted this suggestion of defence that the accused used to consume liquor and beat her daughter. In para 8, she admitted that the accused and her daughter lived happily for 3 years but thereafter the accused started consuming liquor and torturing his daughter. In para 13, she stated that her daughter used to say that she will live in village with them and not with appellant, as he consumes liquor and beats her. The learned Trial Court also asked question then she replied that the accused used to consume liquor from starting but his parents did not torture her daughter. 10. PW-8 Savitri Sahu and PW-10 Krishna Kumar, sister and brother 5 of the deceased, respectively also stated the same story that the accused firstly consumed liquor and thereafter beat/tortured their sister. 11. PW-9 Dr. R. S. Joshi conducted postmortem of deceased and opined that death was due to poisoning and the cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest and gave his report Ex-P/7. In FSL report, organic phosphorous compound pesticide was found so it is clear from postmortem report and statement of doctor that deceased Kiran died due to poisoning and deceased’s mother, father, brother and sister of deceased all stated that the accused was habitual drinker and used to commit maarpeet with deceased. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashi Bai (supra) held in paras 6, 7, 9, 10 & 14 as under:- “6. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provision contained in Section 306 IPC pertaining to Abetment of suicide. “306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 7. What is “Abetment of a thing” has been described in Section 107 which reads as under: - “107. 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. 6 Explanation 1. —A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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.” 9. In M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police1, this Court has elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, and after discussing various earlier decisions has observed as under: - “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] 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 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 wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's 1 (2011) 3 SCC 626 wife therein) may necessarily be drawn. 42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 :1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court 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 her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference 7 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. 43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 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.” 10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. 14. Though it is true that as per Section 113A of the Evidence Act, when the question arises as to whether commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband, and when it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her 8 husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court can presume, having regard to the other circumstances, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or such relative of her husband. However, mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno (supra) held in para 36 as under:- “36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.” 14. In light of the above, in the present case also, all the witnesses stated that the accused was habitual drinker and all the witnesses stated that the deceased committed suicide because of mental and physical harassment by the appellant, but essential ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are missing in the statement of all the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to adduce any clinching or admissible evidence to enable the Court to conclude that the appellant has abeted the deceased to commit suicide and in absence of any satisfactory evidence having been brought on record before this Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not clear that offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant so the finding recorded by the 9 learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of IPC. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala