1. Roman Lal S/o Topiram Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Umarpoti, PS Ranchirai v. State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.03.26 16:23:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:13730 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 170 of 2007 1. Roman Lal S/o Topiram Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Umarpoti, PS Ranchirai, District Durg (CG) 2. Pramod Kumar Yadav S/o Rikhiram Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o Umarpoti, PS Ranchirai, District Durg (CG) 3. Rikhiram S/o Kartik Ram Yadav, aged about 55 years, R/o Ranchirai, PS Ranchirai, District Durg (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2007 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 111/2005 2 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 4 months. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 27/04/2005, due to quarrel between deceased Naresh and appellant Rikhiram, his son appellant Pramod beat up Naresh, for which deceased Naresh first went to the Police Station to lodge a report but due to wrong information, his report was withdrawn. Thereafter, he called a meeting in village Umarpoti on the night of 28/04/2005, where the appellants did not allow the meeting to proceed and appellant Roman Lal said to Naresh that "there is no justice for a drunkard, he is a burden on the earth, it would have been better if he died”. On account of the instigation of the appellants, he went into a state of mental depression and committed suicide by consuming pesticide. The matter was reported at Police Station, Ranchirai, District Durg, based on which FIR was registered against the appellants. Article ‘A’ was seized as his suicide note. After completion of investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the appellants / accused were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been examined by the appellants in their defence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against 3 which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the trial Court has erred in believing the testimonies of Devprakash (PW-1), Anjor Das (PW-2), Janvi (PW-7) and Dhananjay (PW-8) as they are relatives of the deceased and interested witnesses. He submits that in the entire prosecution case, there is no evidence of abetment or instigation to suicide against the appellants. The trial Court, without appreciating the material available on record, has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC which is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel for appellants relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another (1995) Supp (3) SCC 438), Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh(2001) 9 SCC 618 and Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 306/34 I.P.C. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. In this case, on receiving information about the death of Naresh on 29/04/2005, Merg Ex. P-7 was conducted. The dead body of deceased Naresh was subjected to postmortem by Dr. A. R. Thakur (PW-10) who has opined in his report Ex.P-6 that the death was 4 due to suffocation but no definite opinion was given and his viscera was sent for examination. However, no FSL report has been produced which can make it clear that Naresh died due to consumption of pesticide and he committed suicide. It is also noteworthy that no pesticide has been seized. From the post- mortem it is also not proved with certainty that Naresh had consumed pesticide. Thus, the fact of suicide by Naresh has not been proved beyond doubt. 9. In the prosecution case, a letter Article-A has been produced as a suicidal note. The said letter is stated to have been seized vide Ex.P-3 from Anjor Das (PW-2)-brother of the deceased on 04/05/2005 i.e. about 05 days after the incident. According to Anjor Das, the said letter was given to him by Naresh himself, but no satisfactory reason has been given as to why Anjor Das gave the said letter to the Police with a delay of 05 days. Residents of that village Devprakash (PW-1), Anjor Das himself (PW-2) and the son of deceased, Dhananjay (PW-8) have stated that the handwriting of that letter is of deceased Naresh. But it is noteworthy that just as the letter was presented to the Police about 05 days after the incident, the letter Article-A is also suspicious in the same way. Not only are some words in the said letter crossed out/overwritten, it also does not bear anyone's signature or any date and it has not even been examined by any handwriting expert. No such handwriting of deceased Naresh has been presented by comparison of which it can be proved that the handwriting of the said letter is of deceased Naresh. The said letter is of only 15-16 words. In the above situation, when all the persons who identify the handwriting of the letter are relatives or interested parties of the deceased, then that letter cannot be considered reliable beyond doubt and it cannot be concluded that Naresh consumed poison due to abetment/instigation by the appellants. 10. In a somewhat similar matter in Patel Babubhai Manohardas & 5 Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288, while dealing with the alleged suicide note, delay in lodging the FIR and non- examination of the handwriting expert, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere harassment or blackmail, without direct incitement or proximate acts compelling suicide, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of IPC. The relevant paragraphs - 36 to 44 of the said judgment are as under: 36. That apart, there is nothing on record to show recovery of any jewellery (ornaments) by the police from the accused persons. No signed cheques of the deceased or cheque book or passbook of the deceased were recovered and exhibited in court. In such circumstances, the very sub-stratum of the prosecution case that the accused persons were making illegal gain by blackmailing the deceased falls flat. 37. Before we move on to the alleged suicide note, it would be appropriate to advert to the postmortem report. As per the said report, cause of death was due to consumption of Dichlorvos Organophosphorus Non-thio poison. The doctor who carried out the postmortem examination, Dr. Prakash Laxmandas, deposed as PW-1. He stated that in the course of postmortem examination, 400 cc of coffee coloured foul smelling liquid was found in the small intestine and as per postmortem note, the same was Dichlorvos Organophosphorus Non- thio poison. He stated that if anybody drinks such poisonous substance then this type of death can happen. 38. However, there is no recovery of any trace of the poison consumed by the deceased at the place of occurrence. No bottle/container of such poison was recovered from the residence of the deceased. Moreover, the prosecution could not place before the court any material as to wherefrom the deceased had procured the poison. 39. In Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156, this Court opined 6 that in a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison is crucial. This Court held thus: 46. …….As a general principle, it can be said that in a case of death by poisoning, be it homicidal or suicidal and which is based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of the trace of poison consumed by or administered to the deceased is of critical importance. It forms a part of the chain; rather it would complete the chain to prove homicide or suicide. Parmar Karsanbhai 40. This takes us to the suicide note (Ex. 33). We have already noted the delayed and controversial circumstances under which the suicide note surfaced which makes it highly suspect. Nonetheless, since it was exhibited, let us deal with the same. Sum and substance of the suicide note allegedly written by (the Dashrathbhai deceased) with the date given as 24.04.2009 is that appellant No. 3 had joined his office following the illness of the existing cleaner. She used to come to the office daily for cleaning purposes. Slowly they developed intimacy. It is alleged that appellant No. 3 had performed ‘black art’ on the deceased so much so that, he fell in love with her. Taking advantage of the situation, she took photographs and video of them in compromising position. All the accused persons were shameless persons. As they started blackmailing him, he initially paid Rs. 80,000.00 to them and thereafter started giving them ornaments. He also gave them his passbook and cheque books after signing on the cheques. Because of such blackmailing, he had to misappropriate money from his office for which he was suspended. It is stated that he was totally ruined and, therefore, he had committed suicide as he had no other alternative. 41. The suicide note was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. The Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert of FSL, Gandhinagar opined that the handwriting was of the deceased. However, the prosecution did not examine the Deputy Chief Handwriting Expert as 7 an expert witness. The records also do not indicate that the accused had admitted genuineness of the report of the handwriting expert. 42. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee versus Subodh Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), AIR 1964 SC 529, this Court observed that expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion is evidence, corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. is necessary to see it if it 43. In the case of Murari Lal versus State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, this Court opined that having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. 44. This Court dealt with the effect of placing reliance on the opinion of handwriting expert without examining him in court in Keshav Dutt versus State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 286. One of the questions which fell for consideration in that case was whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert. In this connection, this Court took the view that when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. In that case, it was found that there was nothing on record to show that the accused persons had admitted to the report of the handwriting expert. 11. Among the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, Anjor Das (PW-2) who is the brother of the deceased along with deceased Naresh's wife Janvi (PW-7) and son Dhananjay (PW-8) 8 have stated that in the meeting held on 28/04/2005, the appellant Roman Lal had said that "there is no justice for a drunkard, he is a burden on the earth, it would have been better if he died". Taking the said remark as instigation, the appellants has been convicted. 12. The provisions of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:- 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 life. 13. The provisions of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:- Section 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 places 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 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 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.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC in the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas (supra) and given the expression for abetment of suicide in paragraphs - 16, to 18 as under:- “16. Therefore, the crucial word in Section 306 IPC is ‘abets’. ‘Abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or if he encourages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission doing of that thing. There are two explanations to Section 107. As per Explanation 1, even if a person by way of wilful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact which he is otherwise 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 clarifies that whoever does anything in order to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid the doing of that act. 17. Section 114 IPC is an explanation or clarification of Section 107 IPC. What Section 114 IPC says is that whenever any person is absent but was present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such an act or offence and would be liable to be punished as an abettor. 18. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court held that to ‘instigate’ means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of ‘instigation’, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct 10 creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then ‘instigation’ may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be ‘instigation’.” intending 15. 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:- “…..Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of 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…” 16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is vivid from the evidence that the death of Naresh was due to suicide has not been proved beyond doubt. It has also not been proved beyond doubt that his death was caused by consuming pesticide. It has also not been proved that the handwriting of the alleged letter Article-A is of deceased Naresh or it is his dying declaration. From the evidence it is also evident that no pesticides have been seized. There is no clear opinion of the doctor that the death was suicidal. Handwriting expert has also not been examined. 17. According to the post-mortem report given by Dr. A. R. Thakur (PW- 10), an injury was found on the deceased Naresh, which as per the statements of prosecution witnesses is appeared to have been caused by the assault made by the appellant party. But that voluntary injury cannot be considered as abetment of suicide. 18. In the light of legal provisions and the said judgments, it cannot be 11 said that what appellant Roman Lal said to Naresh in the meeting dated 28/04/2005 that "there is no justice for a drunkard, he is a burden on this earth, it would have been better if he died" instigated Naresh to commit suicide. Apart from that remark made by appellant Roman Lal, there was no act of abetment or instigation on the part of the appellants which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence of abetment to commit suicide is made out against the appellants. 19. On the basis of the above discussion, this Court finds that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not clear, sufficient and reliable in nature, therefore, on that basis the conviction of the appellants for abetment of suicide is not found to be valid. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.01.2007 is hereby set aside/quashed and the appellants are acquitted of the said charge. 21. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender in this case. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai