Judgment reserved on 23.01.2025 Judgment delivered on 08.04.2025 ABC Nil v. 1. Domendra Sahu S/o Chaitram Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Satbahaniya Mandir
Case Details
1 / 17 2025:CGHC:16438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 927 of 2024 Judgment reserved on 23.01.2025 Judgment delivered on 08.04.2025 ABC Nil ... Appellant (s) versus 1. Domendra Sahu S/o Chaitram Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Ward No. 10, Kawardha, Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Abhishek Chandravanshi W/o Sukhram Chandravanshi, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Kumhi, P.S. Pandatarai, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Kotwali, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant
Legal Reasoning
He would further submit that even otherwise, it is well settled legal position of law that if one view which is favourable to the accused then that finding should not be normally disturbed unless so perverse which conscious the mind of the Court. In the present case, no such situation is available on record, thus he would pray for dismissal of the acquittal appeal. 8. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether 6 / 17 the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the respondents is legal, justified or not. 10. To appreciate the point this Court has to consider the evidence of sister of the deceased (PW-1) and mother of the deceased (PW-2) who have admitted in the cross examination that prior to the death of her sister, both have not made any complaint against the respondents. PW-1 has admitted that police has not seized her mobile phone and also admitted that in the suicide note her sister has not put any signature. She has also admitted that she has given suicide note to the police on 18.05.2023. PW-1 in her statement under Section 161 Ex.D-1 has also not narrated any event which can establish that the accused has instigated the deceased by threatening her regarding viral of some photographs. She has admitted that in Ex.D-1 she has not made about description of photographs. The mother of deceased (PW-2) has also admitted in the cross examination that in her statement recorded under Section 161 she has not mentioned about any instigation by Abhishek. The father of the brother of deceased has also admitted in the cross- exination that on the date of incident the mobile phone manufactured by real me company has been seized and no suicidal note or photographs have been seen by him. He has voluntary stated that he was not aware of the password. 11. From the evidence discussed above it is quite vivid that none of the witnesses who can be the best evidence to prove the case of the prosecution has stated in the evidence regarding instigation done by the accused/respondents to commit suicide. From the prosecution 7 / 17 evidence it is clear that original suicidal note has not been seized by the prosecution and in the photocopy there was no signature of the deceased. Even the prosecution has not collected any material to verify the handwriting from other documents of the deceased to verify the truthiness or genuineness of the suicide note. Thus it is quite vivid that the prosecution is unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also unable to prove that the accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide which are paramount requirement to prove the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Thus, the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC is suicidal death and abatement thereof. 12. The law with regard to proving of offence under Section 306 of the IPC has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the offence under Section 306 IPC in the case of Nipun Aneja and other vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 INSC 767 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- In the decision of this Court in case of Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659, an employee of a company was transferred from one place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance against stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. The same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint, against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the IPC. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, this Court while quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under: 8 / 17 “5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the ofÏce at 160 B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306. IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing : or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to. Section 107 says that any willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material-fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any-act or incidence where by the appellant herein is alleged to have, committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.” 16. This Court, thereafter at para 7, inter alia, observed that: “7. ……..The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein.” 17. This Court in Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:- 9 / 17 “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same..... 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co- relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:- “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 18 This Court in M. Arjunan vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC in detail, observed as under “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 10 / 17 19. This Court in Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not sufÏce unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which 11 / 17 eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruna & another vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12th October, 2022, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 of the IPC observed as under:- “44. …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 of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 13. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr in SLP(Crl.) No. 13246 of 2023 decided on 10th July, 2024 has held as under:- 13. In S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reported 2010(12) SCC 190, this court explained the concept of abetment along with necessary ingredient for offence under Sectioon 306 of IPC as under: “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the (2010) 12 SCC 190 accused to instigate or aid in committing 12 / 17 suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 10. In Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B. reproted in 2010 (1) SCC 707 this court explained the parameters of Section 306 in following words: “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence 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 the 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 there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the (2010) 1 SCC 707 accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 11. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001(9) SCC 618 while explaining the meaning of ‘Instigation’, this court stated that: “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 13 / 17 suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued (2001) 9 SCC 618. 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.” 14. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu vs. the State Rep. By the Inspector of Police and another in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022 decided on 30th January, 2024 has reiterated the same legal positionbasis ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC is suicidal death and abatement thereof. 15. Since the prosecution is unable to prove the basis ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC and the trial Court on the basis of evidence, material on record has recorded the finding of acquittal which normally does not warrant interference unless so perverse or contrary to the provisions of law, despite having power conferred upon an appellate Court to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is passed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in various judgments few are as under:- 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka 2007(4) SCC 415, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 14 / 17 From the above decisions, in our considered view, 42. the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufÏcient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reafÏrmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 43. Applying the above principles to the case on hand, we are of the considered view that the learned counsel for the accused is right in submitting that the High Court ought not to have disturbed an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. For acquitting the accused and extending them the benefit of doubt, the trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to examine certain persons who could have unfolded the genesis of the prosecution case. The trial Court indicated that the 15 / 17 root cause of the quarrel was refusal to exchange copper vessel (Kolaga) to Nagraj, winner of the draw, but he was not examined. Likewise, Krishnaiah, son of Oblaiah, who accompanied injured (deceased) Anjaniappa to the hospital, was not brought before the Court. Though it is in evidence that Accused No. 1 Chandrappa was injured and was also taken to the hospital alongwith Anjaninappa, some witnesses had denied the fact as to injuries sustained by the Accused No. 1. The High Court did not give much weight to the said circumstance observing that Accused No. 1 was neither examined by a doctor nor a cross-complaint was filed by him against the prosecuting party. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is well founded that it is not material whether Accused No. 1 had or had not filed a complaint or he was or was not examined by a doctor, but the fact that even though it was the case of prosecution that Accused No. 1 was injured during the course of incident, prosecution witnesses tried to suppress that fact which would throw doubt as to the correctness of the case or the manner in which the incident had happened. The trial Court had also stated that it was unnatural that the prosecution witnesses and deceased Anjaninappa could have gone to Hanumanthapura Bypass at about 9.30 p.m. when a shorter route was available for going to their destination. The trial Court observed that there was inconsistency in prosecution evidence as to availability of electric light at the time of incident. The Court also noted that the knife produced before the Court as mudamal article was not the same which was used by Accused No. 8 for inflicting injury on the deceased. There was also no consistency in evidence as to injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses. 17. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shyam Babu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 (8) SCC 651, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- It is true that it would not be possible for the appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court without rendering specific finding, namely, that the decision of the trial Court is perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the appellate Court while entertaining an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that in doing so, the appellate Court should consider every material on record and the reasons given 16 / 17 by the trial Court in support of its order of acquittal and should interfere only on being satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice. We also reiterate that if two views are possible on a set of evidence, then the appellate Court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial Court which has recorded an order of acquittal. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Shyam Bihari and Others 2023 (8) SCC 197, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record. 19. Considering the material available on record as well as the judgment impugned passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the respondents, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, as such this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment acquitting the accused/respondents of the offence under Sections 306, 354 D of the IPC and 12 of the POCSO Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 17 / 17 20. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh
Arguments
: Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent No.1 : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Judgment 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 where the appellant seeks grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.06.2024 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO) District Kabirdham (CG) by which the SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.11 17:17:03 +0530 2 / 17 respondents No. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 306, 354 D of the IPC and 12 of the POCSO Act. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that merg intimation (Ex.P-17) under Section 174 CrPC was registered against the respondents at the instance of Sub Inspector of Police Station Kabirdham stating that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on the fan at about 11. 30 AM at maternal uncle’s residence. On the basis of merg intimation offence under Section 306,34 IPC and 11 of the POCSO 2012 was registered against the accused Domendra Sahu and Abhishek Chandravanshi bearing crime No. 307 dated 17.05.2023 by Police Station Kabirdham. It is case of the prosecution that the accused Domendra Sahu was blackmailing, torturing and harassing the victim on the pretext of viral her photographs with Abhishek Chandravanshi and victim. It is also case of the prosecution that he was harassing the victim on the count of love affairs between deceased and Abhishek Chandravanshi and because of mental harassment the deceased has committed suicide on 30.12.2021 by handing herself on fan in the maternal uncle house. 3. The prosecution after investigation submitted the charge sheet before Special Judge (POCSO) Act Kabirdham which is registered as Special Case No. 54 of 2023. The prosecution to prove its case has exhibited documents namely seizure memos (Ex.P-1, Ex.P-8, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-16, Ex.P-19, Talashi panchanama (Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3), memorandum Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, map (Ex.P-7), notice (Ex.P-9), map Ex.P-10, supurdnama Ex.P-11, map prepared by the police Ex.P-13, application for obtaiining dakhilkarij Register from School Ex.P-14, 3 / 17 copy of dakhilkharij Register Ex.P-14, information regarding merg Ex.P-17, application for postmortem Ex.P-18, report Ex.P-20, FIR Ex.P- 21, arrest memo of accused (Ex.P-22, 23), Notice under Section 160 (Ex.P-24, Ex.P-25), mobile’s examination report (Ex.P-260, receipt (Ex.P-27) and article 1 original mark sheet of class 10. 4. The prosecution to prove the case has examined witnesses i.e. sister of the deceased (PW-1), mother of the deceased (PW-2), brother of deceased (PW-3), principal (PW-4), Patwari (PW-5), Mahesh Kumar Verma, ASI (PW- 6), Dr. Prabhakar Chandravanshi (PW-7), Inspector (PW-8), Sub Inspector (PW-9). The accused have not examined any witness but they have been examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they have taken plea of false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the material on record has acquitted the accused and recorded its finding that the prosecution has not examined the maternal sister of deceased who may be best witness to establish that the accused used to harass the victim on account of some photographs despite the evidence adduced by the sister of deceased PW-1 and mother PW-2 and accordingly it has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution case. The trial Court has also recorded its finding that the deceased sister has stated that on 01.01.2022 the accused has sent the suicidal note in her whatsapp and she has admitted that the suicidal note was given on 18.05.2023 to the police without any explanation for such delay in providing the suicidal note. Even the suicidal note has not been subjected to investigation. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that for attracting the offence under Section 306 IPC the 4 / 17 prosecution should have proved that the deceased has committed suicide on the instigation made by the accused, no such evidence has been brought on record and accordingly it has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved with order of the acquittal, the acquittal appeal has been preferred by the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent No. 1 and 2 were continuously harassing the deceased to defame her in the society as well as they tried to outrage her modesty, due to instigation she committed suicide. He would further submit that the trial court has not considered the statements of the family members and other witnesses also without appreciating the evidence wrongly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges. He would further submit that on the basis of memorandum of co-accused the police seized mobile phone by which they used to harass the deceased continuously but the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence and has passed the judgment casually. He would further submit that learned trial Court has committed gross error by not appreciating the material evidence on record and has also not appreciated the seizure of suicidal note and acquitted the respondent of the charges. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the witnesses of complaint and the circumstances which prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, there is no proper appraisal of the material on record and would pray for allowing the acquittal appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the prosecution has not collected any cogent evidence 5 / 17 to establish the involvement of the respondents in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the incident took place on 30.12.2021, whereas FIR was lodged on 17.05.2023 i.e. inordinate delay of more than one year and four months without any proper explanation to such inordinate delay. They also submit that necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC i.e. instigation by the respondents which has compelled the deceased to commit suicide is not available on record. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the deceased has already broken-up her relationship with the Domendra and made relationship with another boy. He would further submit that Abhishek and deceased were only friends and there was no physical relationship between them. The complainant's case is solely based on circumstantial evidence, while from the statements of complainant and his witnesses no circumstance against respondents has been proved which connect them for committing such offence.