1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhawni, Distt. Durg, C.G v. 1 - Chhatrapal Yadav S/o
Case Details
1 HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.08.23 11:24:00 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 428 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhawni, Distt. Durg, C.G. … Appellant versus 1 - Chhatrapal Yadav S/o Shri Ramesh Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Paraskol, Police Station Anda, Distt. Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant / State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, PL. For Respondent : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 07/08/2025 This appeal under section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Court of First Additional Judge of First Additional Sessions Judge , Durg District- Durg (CG) (for short trial Court), Durg District- Durg CG in sessions trial No. 177/2018 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Panel Code,1860 (for short IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the The marriage of the deceased, Janvi @ Sunita, was solemnized with the accused about seven years prior to the incident. Thereafter, they resided at village Paraskol and had three children from 2 the wedlock. At the time of the incident, they were residing at Bhilai. It is alleged that the accused was habituated to consuming liquor and, under its influence, would often abuse and assault the deceased. On 22.09.2018, at night, the accused returned home in an inebriated condition and assaulted the deceased after hurling abuses at her. The deceased, thereafter, attempted to leave for her parental home, but the accused restrained her. After some time, the accused again quarreled with the deceased, casting aspersions on her character and exhorting her to die. Consequently, at about 01:30 A.M., the deceased poured kerosene upon herself and set herself ablaze. She was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Supela, and subsequently referred to District Hospital, Durg, and thereafter to Sector-9 Hospital. During the course of treatment, the police recorded her dying declaration. Despite medical attention, the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries on 28.10.2018. 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the respondent was put to face charges before the trial Court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all allegations, claimed innocence, and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 5. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, acquitted the respondent of all the charges which led to filing of this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent of the offences charged. The prosecution has led cogent and reliable evidence which clearly establishes the guilt of the respondent and the same ought to have been duly appreciated by the trial Court. He further submits that the deceased, in her dying declaration, 3 categorically stated that on the date of the incident, the accused, being in a drunken condition, quarreled with her and exhorted her to commit suicide, upon which she set herself ablaze. The said dying declaration, being consistent and trustworthy, fully supports the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent is unsustainable in law and on facts. The evidence on record unequivocally proves the charges levelled against the respondent, and therefore, the respondent ought to have been convicted. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside, and the respondent be convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced appropriately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, particularly instigation as contemplated under Section 107 IPC, have not been proved. Hence, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the respondent. He has further submitted that the Trial Court rightly disbelieved the alleged dying declaration on the ground that the deceased had sustained 100% burn injuries and was not in a position to affix her signatures, yet the document Ex. P/9 bears her purported signature, which renders the dying declaration doubtful and unreliable. Accordingly, he prays that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. Section 306 read with Section 107 of 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. 4 10. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court elucidated on the term ‘instigation’ and stated 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 capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 11. 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 of the 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 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 12. Law with regard to powers of appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is no longer res integra. 13. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has 5 failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 14. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 15. Learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the evidence available on record in respect of all the offences which has been charged against the respondent and after analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, in paragraph 68 & 69 gave following finding :- 6 “68. All the witnesses have accepted in cross-examination that the deceased and the accused lived together well before the incident. If there was any such harassment, it would certainly not have been accepted. Similarly, the statements of the deceased's relatives and neighbours prove that the deceased and the accused lived a normal life with their family and the fights that used to happen between them were normal family fights after which they used to unite again. There is no evidence in the entire case regarding harassment. The statements of the witnesses are not only contradictory among themselves but there is also a significant contradiction in their police statements and court statements. There is no statement in the police statements regarding doubt on character and previous beatings, whereas this has been stated by some witnesses in the court. There is significant omission and contradiction in the police statements and court statements of the witnesses for which there is no explanation. The statements given in the court seem to have been exaggerated due to the anger caused by the death of Sunita @ Janvi, which cannot be trusted. Similarly, the dying declaration has also not been proved beyond doubt. As far as the statement that one died due to a dispute is concerned, such statements are often made without any intention during a dispute and unless there is other supporting evidence, a person cannot be convicted on this basis alone. The conduct from the time of marriage till before the incident does not show the fact of harassment. Committing suicide at 1:30 am after a dispute at 9:00 pm is suspicious. 69. Thus, from the entirety of the evidence, it is clear that there is no material to establish that the deceased was subjected to such mental or physical cruelty by the accused as would have left her with no other alternative but to commit suicide. The testimony of witness Vishnu further indicates that the deceased was merely attempting to frighten the accused and, in fact, had no real intention of committing suicide. Her death occurred as a result of an accidental fire during such attempt, and the same cannot, in law, be construed as instigation or abetment of suicide on the part of the accused.” 16. After the solemnization of marriage between the deceased and the respondent in the year 2007, both of them lived as husband and wife for a period 7 of more than eleven years. From the perusal of the depositions of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it emerges that there existed certain domestic disputes within the matrimonial household. However, those dispute not the nature to suggest that the appellant has instigated the deceased to commit the suicide. 17. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in perspective the settled position of law governing the scope of interference by the appellate court with an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, as also taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference. 18. The appellate jurisdiction being circumscribed and limited in its ambit, unless the judgment of acquittal is shown to be manifestly erroneous, perverse, or based on misappreciation of evidence, the same ought not to be disturbed. No such compelling ground has been demonstrated in the present matter. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 19. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court stands affirmed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H.Ansari