1 - Shankar Das Markande S/o Singh Markande Aged About 40 Years R/o Village v. 1 - Satyanarayan Bhardwaj S/o Ujitram Bhardwaj Aged About 33 Years R/o Shakin Mohtara
Case Details
PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.08.07 10:24:01 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:38625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 669 of 2019 1 - Shankar Das Markande S/o Singh Markande Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Nevai, P.S. Nevai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Satyanarayan Bhardwaj S/o Ujitram Bhardwaj Aged About 33 Years R/o Shakin Mohtara, Police Chowki Lavan, Police Station Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents CRMP No. 2188 of 2019 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Satyanarayan Bhardwaj S/o Ujitram Bhardwaj Aged About 31 Years R/o Mohatara, Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent 2 Appearance in ACQA No.669/2019:
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent/State: Mr. S.K. Puria, PL : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Appearance in CRMP No.2188/2019: For Petitioner/State : Mr. S.K. Puria, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 05/08/2025 1. ACQA No.669/2019 & CRMP No.2188/2019 have been preferred against the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No.86/2017, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. The uncle of the deceased filed an Acquittal Appeal under Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”) and the State has filed an application for grant of leave to Appeal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that love marriage of the deceased- Neelam Bhardwaj was solemnized with the respondent/accused in the year 2004 and out of their wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. After a few months of marriage, the respondent started doubting the character of his wife, frequently quarreled with her and also beat her. On 07.08.2016, in the morning, uncle of the deceased- Shankar Das Markande (PW-1), made a phone call to his niece- Neelam and the said call was answered by the respondent/accused, who informed him that 3 deceased was suffering from cough, cold and pneumonia for the past 3-4 days and was unable to speak. However, the uncle insisted on speaking with her, after which the call was handed over to the deceased, who only said ‘hello’ over the phone and it appeared that she was in an intoxicated state. Thereafter, the uncle of the deceased advised the respondent to take her to the hospital. Subsequently, the respondent/accused and his brother- Hariram Bhardwaj took the deceased to the hospital at Palari. From there, she was referred to the Higher Center and was then taken to the Mission Hospital at Tilda and finally admitted to Balaji Hospital, Raipur. During the course of treatment, the deceased died on 19.08.2016 at 10:12 am. Earlier, on 12.08.2016 at about 7:30 pm, Dr. R.K. Banarwal (PW-9) informed the Police Station Pandari Mova, District Raipur vide Ex-P/11, that the deceased was unconscious and had consumed an unknown poison. After death of the deceased, the staff of the Balaji Hospital namely Madhusudan Das Vaishnaw (PW-6), had given the medico-legal information (Ex-P/5); based on such information, zero merg was registered at Police Station Pandari (Ex-P/4). 4. After giving notices to the witnesses vide Ex-P/1, death inquest report was prepared vide Ex-P/2 by Vishnu Singh Thakur (PW-10), Nayab Tehsildar. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-7), who gave his report vide Ex-P/7 and opined that the death of the deceased caused by consuming an unknown poison and viscera was preserved and the same was sent to the FSL. In the FSL report (Ex-P/19), it was found that viscera contained Organophosphorus 4 insecticide Chlorpyrifos poison. After completion of the merg enquiry, an FIR was registered at Police Station Kasdol vide Ex-P/13 and numbered FIR No.0222/2017 was registered vide Ex-P/20. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/14. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 5. During the course of trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The respondent/accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, however, he did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused of the aforesaid charges. Hence this Appeal/Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal/Petition to meet the ends of the justice. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent had, for a long time, been doubting the character of his wife and due to this, he used to quarrel with her and also used to beat her and the deceased being unable to bear such continuous harassment and false accusations, ultimately took the extreme step of ending her life. Although the trial Court has 5 recorded this finding in Para-24 of the impugned judgment, however, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that such conduct did not amount to instigation to commit suicide and the said finding is perverse, therefore, learned counsel prays to grant leave to file an Acquittal Appeal. 9. Mr Patel, learned counsel for the appellant has also adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. 10.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11.It is well established that to attract the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court is obliged to see whether the harassment meted out by the accused persons to the deceased was of such a nature which tantamounts to abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC leaving the deceased with no other option except to put an end to his life by committing suicide. 12.In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused, the prosecution is first required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of the IPC which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:- “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 6 doing of that thing, if any 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.” 13.In Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [AIR 2010 SC 327] the following was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “20.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. 21. 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 14.In the matter of Shenbagavalli and ors. vs. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and anr., 2025 INSC 607, the following has been observed at paras 15 & 16:- “15.Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is 7 essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M Arjunan v. State represented by its inspector of police (2019) 3 SCC 315) 16.Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been observed in para 16 as follows: “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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation 8 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 suffice 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 the 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 9 the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which 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.” 15.Recently in the matter of Patel Babubhai Manohardas and others vs. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC OnLine SC 503], it was held that to attract the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, 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. 16.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the 10 marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the respondent/accused in the year 2007, about 9 to 10 years prior to the fateful incident which occurred on 07.08.2016. The respondent’s native Village is Mohtara which falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar and the respondent used to visit his grand-maternal uncle’s house at Village Narsala, Nagpur. The deceased- Neelam also resided nearby at the house of the maternal uncle of the respondent. Consequently, they became acquainted with each other and performed a love marriage. Krishna Ramji (PW-4) deposed that after the marriage, the couple resided for about 5 to 6 years at Village Narsala, where they were blessed with two children- a son and a daughter. The uncle of the deceased (PW-1) appellant herein stated that respondent/accused was a quack and had expressed his desire to shift his clinic elsewhere. Krishna Ramji (PW-4) further deposed that the respondent sold his property of Village Narsala and returned back to his native Village Mohtara, District Balodabazar. 17.Shankar Das Markande (PW-1) stated that about 7 to 8 months after the marriage, the respondent started suspecting the character of his wife and on that account, used to quarrel with her and beat her. Even once he had assaulted his wife with a Basula (an iron instrument for sharpening the wood). Thereafter, the present incident occurred on 07.08.2016, after which the respondent and his family members hospitalised the deceased. Initially, she was taken to the hospital at Palari, from where she was referred to Mission Hospital at Tilda and subsequently admitted to 11 Balaji Hosiptal, Raipur from 12.08.2016 to 19.08.2016 and she expired on 19.08.2016 at about 12:10 am. 18.It is an admitted fact that the deceased died due to consumption of poison. Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-7), who conducted the Postmortem vide Ex- P/7, also gave this opinion. Furthermore, the presence of poison in the viscera was confirmed by the FSL report vide Ex-P/19. 19.From the aforesaid evidence, it is explicit that as per the statement of the close relative of the deceased i.e. uncle Shankar Das Markande (PW-/1), after a few months of the marriage, the deceased raised a suspicion on the character of his wife and they did not have such a cordial relationship, but even thereafter, everything was normal for several years, and they lived together happily and were blessed with two children. Subsequently, both husband and wife shifted to Village Mohtra. 20. Even when the health of the wife was deteriorated, the husband used to take her to various hospitals for treatment to save her life. The aforementioned conduct rules out any instigation or intention on the part of the husband to abet his wife to commit suicide. 21.In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, a law has been reiterated that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; and that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible. 12 22.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 23.Resultantly, both the cases i.e. ACQA No.669/2019 & CRMP No.2188/2019 fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Judge (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka