Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No.114/2019 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.04 16:26:09 +0530 2025:CGHC:44376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 114 of 2019 1 - Ram Shabad Sharma S/o Late Ram Awadh Sharma Aged About 70 Years R/o Khursipar Zone 2, Ward 33,shriram Chowk ,bapu Nagar Bhilai ,district Durg ,chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajijuddin @ Aziz S/o Late Nashiruddin Aged About 64 Years R/o Sngram Chwok ,camp 1, Near Nizami Manzil Bhilai ,district Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh versus ...Appellants State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhawni District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Siddharth Pandey and Mr. Ujjwal Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 01.09.2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-01-2019 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, in Sessions Trial No.192/2016 2 CRA No.114/2019 whereby learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 306 of IPC Section 506/34 of IPC R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, R.I. for one month each. R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- in default, R.I. for fifteen days each. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Umesh Shah (deceased) used to organise BC play (Business Correspondent). It is alleged that the deceased Umesh Shah was allegedly being harassed by the accused, who repeatedly visited his shop and residence, and also issued threats over the phone regarding financial matters. It is alleged that due to continuous harassment and threats, the deceased took an extreme step on 25.12.2015 and hanged himself by a fan at his shop, Umesh Kirana Stores. On receiving information, Inquest Intimation (Ex.P.-01) was registered. An inquest and site map (Ex.P.-07) were prepared. Panchayatnama (Ex.P.-06) was drawn, and the body was sent to District Hospital, Durg, where the postmortem report (Ex.P.-16) was obtained. A search panchnama (Ex.P.-02) of the incident spot was also prepared. Suicide notes (Articles E, F, G) and other documents, including diaries and registers, were recovered and seized under various seizure memos (Ex.P.-03, Ex.P.-09, Ex.P.-10, 3 CRA No.114/2019 Ex.P.-13). A certificate of handwriting identification (Ex.P.-11) and handwriting examination reports (Ex.P.-30, Ex.P.-31) were obtained. Call detail records (CDR) of the accused and the deceased were collected, and a CD of the same was prepared. Prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused were arrested as per arrest sheets (Ex.P.-21, Ex.P.-22). After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Charges under Sections 306 and 506/34 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the allegations and claimed trial. 2. In order to bring home the offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses in its support. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. The accused person examined two defence witnesses: Abdul Rasheed (DW1) and Ramchandra (DW2) 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict
Facts
the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. (a)
Legal Reasoning
32. Having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt that the Deceased committed suicide owing to abetment made by the accused persons. In fact, in the case in hand, the said elements are absent. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20 CRA No.114/2019 11/01/2019 are hereby set aside. 33.
Arguments
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to establish 4 CRA No.114/2019 the guilt of the appellants or to conclusively connect them with the commission of the alleged crime. It is urged that neither was any report or complaint regarding threats ever lodged at the concerned police station, nor did the deceased disclose to any family member, friend, or independent witness that he was being subjected to such threats by the appellants. Learned counsel would further contend that the very recovery of the so-called suicide note is shrouded in serious doubt. It is pointed out that when the dead body of the deceased was initially brought, no suicide note was found or mentioned in the records. However, surprisingly, at the time of the postmortem, conducted only on the following day, the suicide note is stated to have been recovered. Such circumstances, according to counsel, create grave suspicion regarding the genuineness and admissibility of the alleged suicide note. He would submit that in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that the allegation whatsoever leveled against the appellants does not constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, even from the evidence of the witnesses, offence under Section 506 of IPC is also not established beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. 5 CRA No.114/2019 Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. V The Inspector of Police (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834) and Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. V State of Gujarat (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288) 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. PW-1 M. Apanna, who used to work in the hotel of the deceased, deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 7:00 a.m., he saw the deceased hanging from a ceiling fan and that he had died. He further stated that he used to work in the hotel of the deceased on daily wages basis. This witness has categorically deposed that he has no knowledge about BC and transactions of the appellants and the Deceased. He stated that his duty was only to cook food and nothing more he knows. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that after finding the Deceased hanging by a ceiling fan, 6 CRA No.114/2019 he intimated the same to the nearby vicinity. 8. PW-2 Vaidhnath Shah, brother of the deceased, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was running a grocery shop as well as a hotel in Indra Market, Bhilai Power House. He further deposed that although he did not frequently visit the deceased’s house, about 15 days prior to the incident, the deceased told him that he had a debt of about Rs. 2.5 lakhs, in respect of which this witness had offered to help him with about Rs. 1.3 lakhs. He also deposed that the deceased had told him that he was running a B.C., and that he was the guarantor for one member who had absconded, due to which he had to pay that member’s share of the B.C. He stated that the appellants and the deceased all used to play B.C., but he had no knowledge as to who specifically was liable to pay the outstanding B.C. amount. This witness has deposed that just before one day of the incident, the Deceased met him while the last rites of one of their family relative, but he did not told him anything in this regard. He stated that although he had observed the deceased was in some trouble, he did not know the reason for which he committed suicide. 9. PW3 – Anita Shah, wife of the deceased, deposed that her husband, Umesh Shah, was running a ration shop and a rented hotel in Bhilai Power House. On 15 December 2015, the accused persons came to her house and threatened to kidnap her daughter with the help of the police and to have her husband killed. 7 CRA No.114/2019 Accused Ram Shabad frequently visited at night, intimidated her husband, and often used his phone, which left him distressed. Her husband repeatedly stated that the accused would not even spare their children. Out of fear, on the day of the incident, he left home at 6:00 a.m. but did not go to his shop, and later hanged himself. She further stated that accused Ramshabd forcibly prepared documents of a plot in her name, obtained her signatures under pressure, and kept the registry papers with himself. In cross-examination, she stated that her husband had been running a rented grocery shop since 1997 and a hotel since around 2011–12, both located opposite each other, with two male workers at the hotel. He also used a mobile phone, though she did not know the number. She did not know why the accused threatened to kill her husband and kidnap their daughter, but her husband told her that the police were siding with the accused, for which no complaint was filed. She admitted that she never informed her brother-in-law Baidyanath or other relatives about these threats. Regarding the disputed land at Ahivara near a college, she stated that accused Ram Shabad forcibly took her signatures on documents without allowing her to read them in 2015 at Supela, in the presence of four people, and kept the papers with himself. She deposed that her parental home is in the State of Bihar, and she regularly spoke with her father and brothers over phone, especially one brother who works in the railways and another who runs a 8 CRA No.114/2019 shop. She told them about the threats, and they offered financial help and advised filing a police report, but her husband refused, saying that the police and accused were working together. She added that the grocery shop was in her in-laws’ name, while the hotel was rented. Due to shock at the time, she did not provide the shop documents to the police. She denied knowledge of whether her husband was also involved in “BC” money collection, but confirmed that he managed both the shop and the hotel and never shared his troubles with her. She further stated that she came to know about the accused demanding money from her husband only when discussions with regard to financial dealings arose. About 15 days before the incident, her husband had gone to Tatanagar, where her sister and brother-in-law reside, and there he informed them about the harassment by the accused. She denied that her husband was forced to report matters in Tatanagar. 10. PW4 – Himani Shah (daughter of the deceased) while corroborating the statement of her mother (PW3), deposed that the deceased was running both a grocery shop and a hotel. The appellants used to torture her father for money, and due to this harassment, he hanged himself. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that she overheard her father telling her mother that the appellants were torturing him. 11. PW5 – Himanshu Shah (son of the deceased) deposed that prior to 9 CRA No.114/2019 the incident, the deceased appeared worried, though he did not know the reason for his worry. He further stated that the appellants had threatened his father. However, he admitted that he had no knowledge as to why his father hanged himself. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that they did not inform anyone about the threats given by the appellants. 12. PW6- Keja Bai has stated that she knows accused Ram Shabad. She also knew Umesh Shah (the deceased) because she worked at his hotel, located near the railway station in Power House, Bhilai, close to the potato shop in Lal Maidan. She does not know the other accused. She worked at the hotel as an utensil washer, usually arriving at 7:30 a.m. and leaving around 5:00 p.m. Apart from her, one boy and another servant also worked there, and they used to open the shop in the morning. She further stated that before the incident, the Deceased used to sit in the shop quietly and did not talk much to anyone. On the day before his death, he gave them chickpeas and told them to soak them overnight, assuring that he would provide the rest of the items in the morning. The next day, when she and others came to the hotel at about 7:30 a.m., they lit the stove, and when Anna, another worker, opened the shutter of the grocery shop located opposite the hotel, they found the Deceased hanging from the ceiling fan. She stated that she does not know why the Deceased hanged himself. 10 CRA No.114/2019 In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that when she some time used to go to the house of the Deceased, the Deceased and his wife used to quarrel. 13. Dr. B.S. Dewangan (PW15) has deposed that the body of the deceased was brought for postmortem. He found the following conditions: i. Both eyes were open, pupils were dilated, and redness was present in the eyes. The mouth was open, and the tongue was protruding. There was bluish discoloration under the fingernails. Saliva stains were present at the left side of the mouth and on the chest. A ligature mark, ante-mortem in nature, was present on the neck above the thyroid cartilage. The mark was deep and oblique. Blood stains were present on the left side. Postmortem lividity was developed, fixed, and corresponded to the supine position. Rigor mortis was present in the hands and legs. Decomposition had not yet developed. ii. The body was of average build. No injuries suggesting assault or struggle were found. The brain was congested. The chest was healthy, but the larynx, trachea, and both lungs were congested. The heart was healthy; the left chamber was empty, and the right chamber was filled with blood. iii. The peritoneum, intestinal membranes, mouth, small and large intestines, bladder, and internal and external genitalia were all healthy. The liver, spleen, and kidneys were congested. The stomach was healthy and empty. iv. The ligature mark on the neck was ante-mortem in nature, about two hours prior to death, caused by a hard and rough 11 CRA No.114/2019 object used for strangulation/hanging. This witness deposed that while conducting the postmortem, three papers were found in the pocket of the Deceased. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that the papers which were found in the pocket of the Deceased while he was conducting the postmortem, he did not read the same. 14. PW19- Abhay Sharma (Head Constable) has deposed at para 4 that Constable Roop Narayan Bajpai (Belt No. 969) deposed that on 26/12/2015, in connection with Merg No. 79/15, after the postmortem of deceased, he was summoned by Constable Ashish Kumar (Belt No. 72) for seizure proceedings of two sealed packets, for which a duty certificate (Exhibit P-19) was issued bearing his signatures. On the same date, Constable Ashish Kumar handed over a sealed packet containing the trouser pocket of the deceased, which when opened in the presence of witnesses, was found to contain a diary page dated 21 May 2012, two pages written on 28 September 2012, and two pages dated 07 September 2012. This witness at para 12 admitted that when the dead body of the Deceased was being pulled down from the fan, they had searched the body, but at that time no suicide note was found in his pocket. 15. PW21- Md. Jallaludeen Investigating Officer (Sub-Inspector, Chhawni Police Station) deposed that from 2014 to February 2018, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector at Police Station Chhawni. 12 CRA No.114/2019 He received the case diary of Crime No. 35/16 for investigation. At para 20, this witness has deposed that For the purpose of examining the handwriting in the seized case diary, the witness stated that an application written by him along with the seized material was sent through the Superintendent of Police to the Government Handwriting Expert, Raipur, by a constable. He clarified that only the record clerk (malmunsi) would know which constable had carried the material. He admitted that whenever handwriting examination is conducted, the natural handwriting samples of the concerned person are required. He denied the suggestion that the natural handwriting of the deceased was not obtained in this case. He voluntarily added that although the deceased’s natural handwriting in Hindi was not obtained, his natural signatures in English were collected. 16. Articles E, F, and G are pages purported to be a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, wherein he mentioned that the appellants were threatening to kill him. 17. PW22- Manisha Dubey, who analyzed the handwriting of the Deceased, in her deposition has stated that she received the disputed documents of Crime No. 33/2016 of Police Station Chhawni, District Durg, through official correspondence from the Superintendent of Police, Durg, for examination. The questioned documents were marked Q1–Q9 (including Articles E, F, and G), and the admitted writings were marked N1–N21. After careful 13 CRA No.114/2019 and detailed examination, she opined that the same person who wrote the admitted writings N1–N21 also authored the questioned writings Q1–Q9. During cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot state the age of Article E or whether the ink used was old, since no ink examination was conducted. She did not verify the printed date/year on Article E. She cannot confirm whether the entire handwriting in Article E was written with the same pen. Handwriting opinion is always given by comparing questioned writings with natural/admitted handwriting. If admitted handwriting is not available, no opinion can be given. For deceased persons, comparison is made with their naturally available documents. Ink color may change over time depending on storage conditions, but handwriting characteristics remain unchanged. A person’s mental state does not alter the fundamental characteristics of handwriting, though general features like size or shape may vary. All case documents are received in sealed envelopes, which are opened and allocated by senior officers. 18. From perusal of the above statement of the witnesses, it comes out that the Deceased by hanging himself committed suicide. 19. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 14 CRA No.114/2019 107 of IPC which reads as under :- "107. Abetment of thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigate 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." 20. In the instant case, looking to the statements of PW-3 (wife) and PW-4 (daughter), though they alleged that the appellants used to harass the deceased for money, yet in their depositions no specific incident of instigation, provocation, or direct act has been narrated from which it can be inferred that the appellants compelled the deceased to commit suicide. PW-5 (son) has further admitted that he did not know the reason for which his father committed suicide, and that no information regarding threats was ever intimated to anyone. PW-6, an independent witness working at the hotel, has also categorically deposed that she does not know why the deceased hanged himself. Apart from that, no prior complaint or report was lodged by the deceased or his family members regarding any alleged harassment. Thus, the essential ingredients for drawing a presumption of abetment of suicide are not proved. 21. The Apex Court in the matter of Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. the Inspector of Police (2022) Live Law (SC) 834 has held at para 15 CRA No.114/2019 36 & 38 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. 38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their 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 16 CRA No.114/2019 of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 22. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or instigation’ and held as under:- 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. The testimony of PW-1 M. Apanna, who worked in the hotel of the deceased, only establishes that he found the deceased hanging from a ceiling fan. He specifically admitted that he had no knowledge of any BC transactions or money dealings between the deceased and the accused. His role was confined to cooking food at the hotel, and beyond that he knew nothing. His evidence does not suggest any abetment or intimidation by the accused. 24. The evidence of PW-2 Vaidhnath Shah, the brother of the deceased, reveals that the deceased was under financial stress due to debts of nearly Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and that he was also a guarantor in a BC scheme where one member had absconded. This shows 17 CRA No.114/2019 that the deceased had financial liabilities of his own. Importantly, this witness admitted that he did not know who was responsible to pay the BC amounts and that, even when he met the deceased one day prior to the incident, nothing was disclosed about threats or harassment. Thus, the testimony points only to financial stress, not to abetment or intimidation by the accused. 25. The prosecution relies heavily on PW-3 Anita Shah, the wife of the deceased, but her testimony is riddled with contradictions. Although she alleged that the accused threatened to kidnap her daughter and kill her husband, she admitted that she never informed her relatives, her brother-in-law, or the police, despite claiming that her husband was in grave danger. She further admitted that she did not know why the accused threatened her husband. Her allegations regarding forced signatures on land documents are vague, unsupported by any documentary evidence, and not corroborated by any independent witness. These omissions and inconsistencies seriously weaken her credibility, and her testimony, by itself, is insufficient to establish either abetment of suicide or the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. 26. PW-4 Himani Shah, the daughter of the deceased, merely repeated what her mother stated, admitting that her knowledge was based only on overhearing conversations. Such evidence is hearsay and cannot be treated as substantive proof. Similarly, PW-5 Himanshu 18 CRA No.114/2019 Shah, the son of the deceased, deposed only that his father appeared worried and that the accused had threatened him. However, he candidly admitted that he had no knowledge as to why his father committed suicide. He also admitted that no one was ever informed about these alleged threats. These testimonies fail to establish the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide or intimidation under Section 506 IPC. 27. The deposition of PW-6 Keja Bai, an independent worker at the hotel, is significant. She confirmed that she found the deceased hanging but categorically admitted that she had no knowledge of why he took this step. Being an independent witness who worked at the hotel daily, her neutrality further weakens the prosecution case, since she did not corroborate any allegations of harassment or intimidation. 28. The medical evidence of PW-15 Dr. Dewangan only confirms that the deceased died due to hanging. No external injuries or signs of struggle were found on the body. While three papers were recovered from the deceased’s pocket, the doctor admitted that he did not even read them. This renders their evidentiary value doubtful. 29. The investigation itself, as admitted by PW-21, the Investigating Officer, suffers from glaring lapses. The IO admitted that the deceased’s natural handwriting in Hindi was never obtained; only English signatures were collected. Without proper comparison, the 19 CRA No.114/2019 handwriting analysis becomes unreliable. 30. Taken together, the evidence clearly shows that the deceased was burdened with debts and BC liabilities. However, there is no reliable evidence that the accused instigated, provoked, intimidated, or aided the suicide. The testimonies of independent witnesses do not support the prosecution, while the family members’ statements are inconsistent, hearsay, and uncorroborated. Importantly, there is no suicide note, no immediate communication, and no proximate act linking the accused to the suicide. 31. In law, mere harassment or strained relations do not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC unless there is a clear, proximate act of instigation or intentional aid. Likewise, for conviction under Section 506 IPC, it must be proved that the accused, with intent to cause alarm, threatened the deceased with injury to his person or reputation. In the present case, the prosecution evidence falls short of proving these essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against them. The appellants are on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by them at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. 34. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul