High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.666/2017 2025:CGHC:49055 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 19:06:56 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 666 of 2017 1 - Smt. Doojbai Sahni W/o Mohanlal Sahni Aged About 50 Years R/o Dhobnipara, Ward No. 3, Kurud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Suman Sahni W/o Kiratlal Sahni Aged About 24 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Shubhash Chowk, Gariyaband, Police Station Gariyaband, District: Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., Gariyaband, District versus ... Appellants State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per 24.09.2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-04-2017 passed by the learned 2 CRA No.666/2017 Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, C.G. in Sessions Case No.10/2017 whereby learned Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation Section 294 of IPC R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.50/- each 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant - Mannulal Nagarchi PW-12, who is the uncle of Mamta (since deceased) informed at P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari that on 03/11/2016 at 12:30 p.m., Mamta, daughter of his elder brother committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself
Legal Reasoning
and setting her ablaze on fire. On the basis of information, merg was registered. Subseuqently, Nazri Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/7. During investigation, it was revealed that on 03/11/2016, the appellants abused the deceased in filthy language and saying her prostitute, due to which, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting her ablaze on fire. Thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-15. Appellants were arrested vide Ex.P-17 and P- 18. The dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. J.P. Diwan. After completing the investigation, final report was prepared and a charge-sheet 3 CRA No.666/2017 was submitted before the concerned Court. 2. 3. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses to bring home the charges. The appellants abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict 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.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that using filthy language or abusing someone and whatsoever leveled against the appellants, does not attract Section 306 of the IPC. He submits that there is no evidence of instigation or abatement in the case, which constitute the offence against the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that before the date of incident, any quarrel took place between the appellants and deceased. The learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that PW-2, Santosh, hotel owner and Tijiya Bai PW-1, neighbour stated that they have not listen any altercation took place and they 4 CRA No.666/2017 have turned hostile. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain and nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. He submits that before the incident, neither the deceased nor her parents lodged any report regarding the previous animosity or any altercations with the appellants. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matters of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107 and Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021) 19 SCC 144. 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 appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. PW-17 Dr. J.P. Diwan, who conducted the postmortem of 6. 7. 5 CRA No.666/2017 deceased and submitted the following report:- “External examination of the body: The body was cold and rigor mortis had set in. The deceased's eyes and mouth were slightly open, and her tongue was protruding out, bitten by her own teeth (tongue bite). Both hands were partially flexed. The deceased was 100% burnt. Her hair and eyebrows were also burnt. I have noted the death as suicidal in nature because there were no signs of any injury on the body. In cross-examination- It is stated that the death was suicidal in nature because there were no signs of any injuries on her body. Opinion - the death of deceased was due to asphyxia caused by burns. The nature of the death was found to be suicidal. 8. PW-2, Santosh stated in his evidence that he runs a hotel. On the date of incident when he was coming home, then he saw a crowd near the house of the appellants. The appellants were allegedly abusing and arguing with the Deceased. Later, he received information that the Deceased had committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he doesn't know on what basis, the altercation took place between the deceased and appellants. He also admits that he didn't listen who was abusing to whom during the altercation. Moreover, when he reached near the house of the 6 CRA No.666/2017 appellants, there was no argument going on. 9. PW-1, Tijiya Bai stated that she does not know about the incident. When the police questioned her she told them about her house but did not say anything about the incident. In cross-examination, she admitted that the regarding the incident, the police have not questioned her. 10. PW-13, Neera, sister of deceased stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, her mother had gone out to work at 9:30 AM. When her sister (deceased) was getting ready to go to school, at that time Suman’s son called her to appellant’s house and took her there. After some time, She went and saw that Dujabai was telling Mamta that her Dauka stolen the articles from her daughter’s house at her instance. Then, this witness told Dujabai to wait until my mother returned from work and then talk. The accused told her and her sister that both of them are prostitutes and earn money through prostitution. In cross-examination, she stated that she does not know what altercation took place between the appellants and deceased. She has no knowledge about the conversation between them. 11. PW-22, M.K. Hota, Sub-Inspector stated in his evidence that he came to know at the time of the incident that there was a romantic relationship between the deceased and Ajay. He stated that Ajay was working in the shop of the husband of 7 CRA No.666/2017 Suman, where he stolen something, due to which, he has sent to jail. He further admitted that the deceased went to the house of appellants to request to bring out Ajay from jail. It is correct to say that during the investigation, Sheela Bai, mother of the deceased, mentioned that before there had been no dispute between the appellants and the family members of deceased. According to this witness, both the sister and mother of deceased have not stated anything at the time of merg intimation about the use of filthy or abusive language and on account of instigation made by the accused the deceased committed suicide. 12. From perusal of the above statement of the witnesses and postmortem report, there is no evidence of instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting her ablaze on fire. 13. 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 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 8 CRA No.666/2017 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." 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 = AIR Online 2024 SC 111 has referred its earlier decision rendered in the matter of Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and held that a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending consequences can’t be said to be instigation for suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, 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. 15. 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 9 CRA No.666/2017 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.” 16. PW-19, Sheela, mother of deceased was not present at the time of incident. In cross-examination, she categorically stated that she has no knowledge regarding the altercation took place between the appellants and her daughter. She further stated that there was no dispute before the incident with the appellants. 17. In the instant case, looking to the statements of PW-2, Santosh, who runs a hotel stated that on the date of incident, he didn't listen who was abusing to whom during the altercation. Moreover, when he reached near the house of the appellants, there was no altercation going on. PW-1, Tijiya Bai stated that when the police questioned her she did not say anything about the incident. PW-13, Neera, sister of deceased, stated that she does not know what altercation took place between the appellants and deceased and she has no knowledge about the conversation between them. 10 CRA No.666/2017 From the statement of PW-22, M.K. Hota, Sub-Inspector, it is apparent that before the incident, there had been no dispute between the appellants and the family members of deceased. Further, there was a romantic relationship between the deceased and Ajay, who was working in the shop of the husband of Suman, where he stolen, due to which, he has sent to jail and for which, the deceased went to the house of appellants to request to bring out Ajay from jail. 18. It is to be notice that there was no dispute of animosity between the appellants and the deceased and before the said incident, no any complaint/FIR was lodged by deceased or her parents regarding against the appellants. The actual fact in the case is that the deceased was in love relationship with one Ajay, who was working in the shop of son-in-law of the Dujabai, where he committed theft. On the date of incident, the deceased went to the house of appellants to get released Ajay from jail. At that that, the appellants were at their home, the deceased herself went to the house of the appellants. There is no evidence or fact that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide was not proved. 19. In the recent decision, the Supreme Court in Shenbagavalli 11 CRA No.666/2017 & Ors Vs. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr reported in 2025 (3) C.G.L.J. 407 SC has reiterated that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, it is not sufficient to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment or humiliation. The prosecution must establish that there was a proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or conspiracy on the part of the accused which directly led to the suicide. The Court emphasized that the mental element of “mens rea” is indispensable and that mere quarrels, harsh words or strained matrimonial relations, without a direct and proximate link with the act of suicide, cannot constitute abetment. 20. In Mohit Singhal and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417, the Supreme Court held that to draw inferences under Section 306 IPC, the act of instigation must be of such intensity and proximity that the deceased had no real option but to commit suicide. The Court observed that abusive words or threats made well in advance without a proximate or continuing act cannot qualify as instigation. The mere fact of financial pressure or demands, if not tied up with a direct and immediate inducement, would not sustain an abetment charge. 21. From perusal of the record, the only allegation against the 12 CRA No.666/2017 appellants is that they used filthy language upon the deceased. 22. This Court finds none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 23. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set-aside. 24.
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. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 25. 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/- Gowri/Amardeep (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge