Appeal dismissed. Court upheld conviction for abetment of suicide (S. 306) and abduction for marriage (S. 366), but converted kidnapping charge (S. 363) to wrongfully confinement (S. 365) due to victim's age being over 18.
Appeal dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellants directed to surrender. Sentences maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 04/07 /2023
Judgment Passed on 27/07/2023
CRA No. 678 of 200 3
1. Duda Ram S/o Konha Uraon aged about 48 years, R/o Village Chhapara (Khadiyadamar) Police Station Balrampur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Deleted vide order dated 05.12.2013).
2. Sant Lal @ Santoo S/o Duda Ram aged about 20 years, R/o Village Chhapara (Khadiyadamar) Police Station Balrampur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
3. Dil Bharan Ram @ Dubey S/o Duda Ram aged about 22 years, R/o Village Chhapara (Khadiyadamar) Police Station Balrampur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Balrampur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh Verma, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
CAV Judgment
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 363 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| U/s 366 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 |
2
| months. | |
|---|---|
| U/s 306 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of |
payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months. |
2. Due to death of the appellant No.1 Duda Ram, his case has abated.
3
her to their house and she was confined in a room, in the Panchayat appellant No. 2 Santoo was chastised by the members of the said panchayat. On the next day i.e. 28.08.1999, Mona Uraon went to village Badhora to call his brother-in-law, and from there on 29.08.1999 when he was returning to his village, in the way he came to know that his daughter Prabha Kumari had committed suicide by hanging herself. Thereafter, on the basis of merg intimation given by him, vide merg No. 20/99 was registered and on the report of Mona Uraon, FIR (Ex.-P-7) was registered at the police station – Balrampur. After the completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the court and charges were framed against the appellants.
4
convened, in which Bhim Sen (PW-1), Sarpanch of the village and other villagers were present, they all have denied the fact of the convening the village panchayat and any narration by the deceased Kumari Prabha about the said incident. He next submits that the learned trial court acted illegally by accepting the testimony of complainant Mona Uraon (PW-6) and Sushila Devi (PW-7), without corroboration of their testimony by independent witnesses. The learned trial court ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
5
Prabha was tied with a white scarf, which was present above thelacarterus on the neck and knot was on the left side. After removing the scarf, width of hanging mark was ¾ inch, which was present around the neck. Apart from this, there were 0.5 X 2 inch scratch on left leg and ¾ x 0.5 inch scratch on right leg of deceased. On internal examination, while cutting the ligature mark, it was found dry white, glistening and hard. Internal viscera was congested, right side of heart was filled with blood while left side was empty. The genitals were fully developed and urine bag was empty. The doctor has opined that she died due to asphyxia (suffocation) caused by hanging and death was occurred 24 to 36 hours prior to the examination. On that basis, it was opined that the death could be a suicidal death. The said postmortem report has not been challenged by the defence.
6
noise. When he came out, appellant Dudaram (died) asked him to drag his daughter Prabha outside from the house. At the very same time, appellant Dilbharan Ram abused him in filthy language and all three appellants together forcibly dragged his daughter Prabha and took her to their house and kept her there for whole night. In the morning, he went to the house of appellant along with his wife Sushila Bai, then appellant was not allowing Santlal alias Santu and his mother, daughter Prabha to enter there. He told Santlal alias Santu that he also come along with them and he will ask Prabha in front of his family members. When they asked, Prabha said that she will not live with Santlal alias Santu. Thereafter, he went to his in-laws village Batora. When he was returning back with his brother-in-law in the next morning, he met two people on the way of the village, who told that they were going to call him. They told that his daughter Prabha has committed suicide by hanging herself. He went and saw that Prabha hanged herself with a Mahua tree. He further stated that appellants had forcibly taken away her daughter Prabha and kept her in their house for whole night and on account of this, her daughter Prabha hanged herself. Mona Oraon (PW-6) has lodged the report to the Police Station, upon which, police has registered merg intimation vide Ex.P/8 as well as First Information Report vide Ex.P/7. Said report was lodged by Sub Inspector J.P. Gupta (PW-23). The statement of father of deceased Mona Oraon (PW-6) is corroborated by merg intimation as well as First Information Report, which is named report, according to which, on 26/08/1999, at 08.00 pm, appellants dragged his daughter Prabha and took her to their house. Panchayat was convened on the second day, in which, Panchayat got up after scolding the appellant Santlal alias Santu. Thereafter, on third day, i.e., on 28/08/1999, Mona Oraon (PW-6) had gone to village Batora to call his brother-in-law and when he came back on 29/08/1999, his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. On the very
7
same day, Mona Oraon (PW-6) has lodged the report.
8
(Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 observed as
follows :
“11. Section 306 IPC reads as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an
9
"abetment" for the commission of the crime.
"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 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.
Explanation 1.-A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
10
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide
11
while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”
12
note has been marked as ‘Article-F’ during the statement of father Mona Oraon (PW-6), but being a photocopy, the same is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the alleged suicide note could not be proved.
13
incident. In such a situation, when appellants have not taken any defence and explanation to this effect even in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then statement of defence witnesses is not found proved that appellants Santlal alias Santu and Dilbharan Ram alias Dubey were not present in the village on the date of alleged incident. Prabha committed suicide due to harassment by her parents is also not found to be proved.
14
It was further clear that the appellant Santalal alias Santu wanted to marry Prabha, for which, she was not prepared. On the second day, the protest was created protest in the village and it was publicized in the village that Prabha was dragged by Santalal alias Santu and brought to his house, due to which, Prabha felt humiliated and as a result of which, she committed suicide.
15
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge
H.L. Sahu/Yogesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 363 (kidnapping) is sustainable given the victim's age.
Whether the evidence on record supports conviction under Sections 365 (abduction) and 366 (abduction for marriage) IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. StateReferred¶48
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶64
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Sant Lal @ Santoo
Dil Bharan Ram @ Dubey
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
