Bhodilal Sahu, S/o Shatrughan Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.01.22 16:12:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:3476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 730 of 2006 Bhodilal Sahu, S/o Shatrughan Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (20.01.2025) 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in 2 Session Case No. 248/2006 whereby, the learned Judge, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 year 2. Under the impugned judgment, co-accused father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased namely Shatrughan Sahu and
Facts
Kumari Maheshwari have been acquitted by the trial court of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant husband Bhodi Lal Sahu has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section-306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased, Sevati Bai, was married to accused/appellant, Bhodi Lal, three to four years prior to the incident. Since the marriage, the accused used to physically assault and harass the deceased, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry and that the quality of the items given was not satisfactory. The deceased would inform her family about the harassment. During the Teej festival, the deceased was brought to her parental home, where she refused to return to her matrimonial home. However, when the co-accused Shatrughan came to take her back, her parents persuaded and sent her to 3 her in-laws’ house. On October 21, 2005, information was received that the deceased had died by being struck by a train. A report was registered at Mandir Hasaud Police Station under Marg No. 72/2005 (Exhibit P-6). At the scene of the incident, a notice (Exhibit P-1) was issued in the presence of witnesses, and a panchnama (Exhibit P-2) of the body was prepared. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-4) conducted a postmortem examination of the deceased’s body and submitted the report (Exhibit P-3), stating that the deceased had died due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries to her head. During the inquiry into the Marg, it was found that the appellant along with co-accused persons had harassed the deceased for dowry, and as a result of this harassment, the deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. Subsequently, a First Information Report was registered vide Exhibit P-8. During the investigation, the scene of the incident was inspected, and a site map (Exhibit P-7) was prepared. Witness statements were recorded. Finding evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the crime, he was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him. Pleaded innocence and 4 false implication in the case. However, two defence witnesses were examined by him in his defence. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2006, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6.
Legal Reasoning
of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh4. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that 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 (2001) 9 8 SCC 618 capable of being spelt out. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 15. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 16. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating 9 contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self. 13. In light of the above judgment, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the suicide of the deceased was a clear result of the instigation by the appellant. In this regard, looking at the facts put forth in evidence, on one hand the father of the deceased, Ramji Sahu (PW-1), mother Mrs. Krishna Sahu (PW-2) and Souhdra Bai (PW-3) of the maternal side have stated that Sevati Bai used to tell them that the appellant harassed her, abused her and beat her, but no date, month or year has been mentioned in relation to the above. On the other hand, father Ramji (PW-1) has also admitted in cross-examination that Sevati Bai had started being disturbed since the time, her "child" was lost due to premature delivery. In such a situation, the prosecution has failed to prove that the suicide of Sevati Bai was a clear result of any instigation by the appellant husband Bhodi Lal Sahu. 14. On the basis of the above evidence, this court finds that the conviction of the appellant is not based on clear, sufficient and credible evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond doubt. In such a situation,
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment against the appellant. He would further submit that the statements of prosecution witnesses are not reliable, there are material contradictions and omissions occurred in their statements. There was no report made by the maternal side of the deceased against the appellant before or after death of the deceased. He further submits that there is no material available on record to show that the deceased Sevati Bai in any way was instigated by the appellant to commit suicide. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the present appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9. In paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, the trial court 5 has held that the deceased Sevati Bai died due to grievous head injury and bone fracture. The body of the deceased was found on the railway line. On the basis of the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-3) certified by Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-4) and other evidence presented, the trial court has determined that her death occurred within 07 years of marriage under circumstances other than normal, which is not contradictory or contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. 10. The trial court not found the demand for dowry and harassment with the deceased by the appellant and convicted the appellant under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code instead of section 304 “B” of the Indian Penal Code. Under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the deceased Sevati Bai was instigated to commit suicide before her death. 11. In relation to the above, the main witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are the deceased's father Ramji Sahu (PW-1), mother Smt. Krishna Sahu (PW-2) and Souhadra Bai (PW-3) from the maternal side. The statement of all of them before the trial Court is to the effect that when Sevati Bai used to come to her maternal home after marriage, she used to say that she was harassed, beaten and abused by the appellant husband Bhodi Lal Sahu and it is also said that the goods given in the marriage were not proper. But, it is noteworthy that before the incident of death, Sevati Bai or her maternal family members 6 had never lodged any complaint in this regard against the appellant. These witnesses have also stated that Sevati Bai did not like her husband Bhodi Lal, so she did not want to go to her in-laws' house. She went to her in-laws' house again on the insistence of her father Ramji Sahu (PW-1). But, when she came to her maternal home again, she did not want to go to her in- laws' house. There is no clear date, month or year mentioned in the statements of witnesses as to when the deceased made the statements about abuse, assault or complaint about dowry items by the appellant. Further, A marg was registered on the death of Sevati Bai, after inquiry of which the police registered a First Information Report against the appellant, completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet, it is noteworthy that no report was lodged by Sevati Bai's maternal family against the appellant after her death. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, defined the abatement as below : “11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under: “306. Abatement 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.” From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission of the 7 crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows: "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." 12. As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 13. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigations, would attract any one of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC? 14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning
Decision
the impugned judgment is not found to be sustainable. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge 10 levelled against him, giving him the benefit of doubt. 16. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 17. Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Shubham Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE