Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No. 491 of 2016 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:33:34 +0530 2025:CGHC:38474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 491 of 2016 1 - Ramsuphal Manjhi S/o Shri Ram Kumar Manjhi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ankdih, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Biraspati Bai W/o Ramsuphal Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ankdih, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 04/08/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 CRA No. 491 of 2016 28/03/2016 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 128/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 306/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- against each of the appellant, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Ramsiya (PW1), father of Asha Bai (since ‘the Deceased) has alleged that prior to 14-15 years ago, he left his parental place i.e. Rewa (MP) and started residing in village Akdih with his family. He is labourer by profession. He has four daughters and two sons. All are married. His elder daughter Asha Bai (deceased) was married with Ramsuphal (henceforth ‘the Appellant’) in the year 1988. However, out of the conjugal relations of them no issue was born even after a considerable long married life. For this reason ultimately the appellant performed a second marriage with one Biraspati Bai some 7 years ago and from their relationship they were blessed with two issues. After the second marriage, the appellants used to ask the Deceased to get out of the house being a barren lady and for this reason they used to pick up quarrels with her. It was alleged that his daughter used to tell all these things to him and in pursuance of that he tried to make his son-in-law understand many times. On 11-06-2015 his daughter visited his house and told him that the appellants are torturing her. He make her understand and sent her back to her matrimonial home. In the evening at about 7/8:00 PM, the appellants again raised quarrel with the deceased and for that reason, the Deceased poured kerosene oil 3 CRA No. 491 of 2016 upon her and set herself ablaze. After burning, his daughter told him that she took this step being fed up with the sufferings caused to her by the appellants i.e. her husband and her Sauten (Second wife of husband). After the burning incident, the Deceased was brought to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur for treatment. However on 12-06-2015 she was got admitted in a private hospital namely Burn & Trauma Research Center Bilaspur. At that time she was having about 46% burn over her body. On
Legal Reasoning
that very day Dr. Pranay Shriwastav recorded dying declaration of the Deceased. Information regarding her admission in that hospital was sent to Police of PS Tarbahar. On 08-07-2015 during the treatment, the Deceased could not survive and ultimately she died at 11.50 AM of that day. Information regarding her death was also sent to the police and only thereafter, police swung into action. Subsequently, Lady Head Constable Vimla Manhar recorded Marg intimation at "0" Number. ASI Asha Rani Mishra of PS Tarbahar reached Burn & Trauma Center Bilaspur and conducted Panchnama Karwahi on the dead body of the Deceased. She also sent information in this regard to SDM and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Head Constable- Ajay Daan numbered the Merg Intimation as "81/15" of PS Masturi. ASI- T.R.Joshi went to the spot on 18-08-2015 in connection with inquiry of Marg Intimation 81/15 and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. On 22-08-2015 this very witness recorded FIR of the present case as FIR No. 247/15. After that, matter was investigated by Inspector N.L.Dhritlahare. Statements of relevant witnesses u/s 161 4 CRA No. 491 of 2016 CrPC were recorded. He also effected the arrest of the accused in the present case and conducted other formalities of the investigation. Finally on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 173 CrPC was filed against the accused before the concerned Court. After framing the charges, the charges were read over to the appellants, which they denied and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 in its support. Statements of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28/03//2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment by the appellants. Even, no suicide note was found and the deceased died during the treatment. The dying declaration lacks corroboration and is legally insufficient. Key witnesses including PW-1 (father) and PW-2 (mother) have either turned hostile or do not support the prosecution’s case fully. Learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW1, PW2 & PW3 is not such clinching which is required for holding any 5 CRA No. 491 of 2016 person guilty of the offence. Even, for recording the dying declaration, there is no certificate regarding fitness of the deceased to make such statement. He would further submit that the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled, as there appears to be no provocation or instigative act in close temporal proximity to the incident. The language employed in the dying declaration does not reflect any direct inducement that left the deceased with no other recourse but to take such an extreme step. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 5 SCC 371. Therefore, the convictions awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 6. Per contra, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Dy. AG appearing for the State/ respondent, would opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that looking to the dying declaration as well as oral evidence of the witnesses, which pointed toward continuous mental cruelty of the Deceased, the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6 CRA No. 491 of 2016 8. (i) Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants abetted the suicide of the Deceased? And (ii) Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC is sustainable? 9. PW1- Father of the Deceased has stated that the Deceased got married with accused Ramsuphal some 25 years ago. No issue was born from the conjugal relations of the appellant and the Deceased even after a considerable long married life, that's why the appellant performed his 2nd marriage with Biraspati Bai (appellant No.2). Previously there was no dispute in between the appellant No.1 and the Deceased. But after his 2nd marriage, there remains disputes in the family life of the Deceased. Subsequently, this witness has been declared hostile. In cross-examination by defense this witness shows his ignorance to the fact as to how the occurrence took place, however he said that at the time of occurrence the appellant and Biraspati Bai were present there. 10. PW-2 is Smt. Gulab Kali who is mother of the deceased. She deposed that since no issue was born out of wedlock of the Deceased and the appellant No.1 for a long period that’s why, he performed second marriage with Biraspati. This, witness has categorically admitted that her daughter (Deceased) committed suicide by setting herself ablaze on fire. 11. PW-3 Raj Kumar Manjhi is sister of the Deceased. This witness deposed that the appellant No.1 and the Deceased got married about 25 years ago. 7 CRA No. 491 of 2016 Biraspati Bai is second wife of the appellant No.1. The second marriage was performed about 6 years ago. This witness also deposed that since, the Deceased was not blessed with any issue from her married life and she set herself ablazed in June 2015 and she died in July 2015. 12. PW-8 Dr. Shashikant of Burn & Trauma Research Center Bilaspur, while making his deposition has stated that on 12/06/2015, the Deceased was admitted in their hospital at about 12:30 PM. It was a case of multiple burns about 46% all over the body. Prior to admission in their hospital, she was admitted patient in CIMS, Bilaspur but she left that hospital against medical advise. This witness further deposed that on the same day Dr. Pranay Shriwastav recorded Dying Declaration of the Deceased. Further deposition of Dr. Kant is that on 30-06-2015 patient Asha Bai was discharged on personal request from their hospital and a memo Ex.P-14 was sent to Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur in this regard. On 02-07-2015 the Deceased again admitted in their hospital and a memo Ex.P-15 was sent to Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur in this regard. On the same day police moved application Ex.P-16 before him for the purpose of medical examination of the Deceased. On police request he issued MLC Ex.P-17, mentioning the injuries and condition of the patient. On 08/07/2015, during the treatment at their hospital, the Deceased could not survive despite their best efforts and she died at 11:50 AM. PW7- Dr. V.K. Mishra conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the Deceased. 8 CRA No. 491 of 2016 13. Ex.P/13 is dying declaration of the Deceased. In the said dying declaration the deceased deposed that she had a quarrel with husband and Sautan, and as such, she ablaze herself. She also stated that she was rescued by her husband. 14. Bare perusal of the above evidence would show that PW-1, the father of the deceased, though initially supported the story of harassment, was declared hostile. He admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. PW-2 (mother) and PW-3 (sister) confirmed the strained relationship but also stated unequivocally that the deceased committed suicide by self-immolation, and did not directly implicate the appellants in any specific or proximate act of abetment. 15. The dying declaration (Ex. P/13), which forms the bedrock of the prosecution’s case, while referring to a quarrel, does not impute any act of incitement or provocation amounting to abetment, nor does it reflect a situation where the Deceased was left with "no other choice" but to end her life. Indeed, her own words make it crystal clear that she took the extreme step in a fit of frustration, and not under active provocation. In fact, the declaration states that her husband tried to save her, which speaks volumes and cuts the ground from under the feet of the prosecution. 16. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The 9 CRA No. 491 of 2016 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 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." 17. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellants having abetted the Deceased into committing suicide. The prosecution has relied on Section 113A of Evidence Act which reads as under :- “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” 18. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or instigation’ and held as under:- 10 CRA No. 491 of 2016 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.” 19. In the instant case, all of the above witnesses have stated in their statements that the marriage between the appellant and the Deceased was solemnized 25 years ago and they had no child. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence that 25 years of marriage has passed and no any previous report was lodged regarding any harassment or instigation by the Deceased. Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide that the suicide has been committed within 7 years from the date of her marriage was not proved. 20. It is a well-settled principle of law, as laid down in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) that mere quarrels or domestic discord, in the absence of a direct or proximate act of instigation, cannot be construed as abetment of 11 CRA No. 491 of 2016 suicide. The language of the dying declaration does not meet the threshold of "mens rea" required to hold the appellants guilty under Section 306 IPC. 21. In the instant case, the entire chain of evidence is full of loose ends, and the prosecution has failed to connect the dots between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide. The evidence falls short of proving any “goading” or “instigation”, which are sine qua non for an offence under Section 306 IPC. 22. To punish someone in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence would be akin to shooting in the dark. In a criminal trial, the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused, and this is not just a rule of prudence but a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. 23. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court appears to have been swayed by emotions rather than legal proof. 24.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, I find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 12 CRA No. 491 of 2016 25. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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. 26. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Both the accused are acquitted of the charges for which they were tried. They are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 27. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri