State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kamlesh Kumar

... Respondents For Appellant : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

06.10.2025

¶18

This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State, arising out of the judgment dated 16.06.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Sessions Trial No. 89/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

¶19

2

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.10.2014, at about 13:05 hours, respondent No.1- Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, husband of the deceased, lodged a merg intimation (Ex.P-19) stating that his marriage with the deceased- Teja Sahu was solemnized according to the rites and rituals of their community in the year 2011 and that both of them were working as teachers ( Shiksha Karmi) in different schools. It is further stated that out of their wedlock, one child was born on 12.09.2014 and the deceased was on maternity leave for a period of six months and the naming ceremony of the newborn child was fixed on 17.10.2014. It is also stated that on 16.10.2014, he had gone to attend his duty at Primary School, Mangatola, while the deceased and her mother (respondent No.3) were present at home. At about 12:00 pm, he came to know that deceased- Teja Bai has poured kerosene oil over her body and committed suicide by setting herself ablaze in the house of PW-1- Shatrughan Lal, uncle of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the spot and reported the matter to Police Station Chilhati, District Rajnandgaon. After that, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-3 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. PW-12 Dr. R.R. Dhurve, conducted the postmortem examination and submitted his report vide Ex.P-15, opining that the cause of death of deceased was shock due to antemortem burn injuries and that the nature of death was suicidal. During investigation, on 30.10.2014, PW-5- Hari Ram Sahu, maternal grandfather of the deceased, lodged a written report (Ex.P-13), alleging that the accused persons used to physically assault the deceased, abuse her filthily, and also pressurize her to abort her pregnancy, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze, pursuant

¶21

3

¶22

to which, FIR was registered against accused persons vide Ex.P-18. After that, a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. From the accused/respondent No.1- Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, one diary and other documents were seized vide Ex.P-5. From the spot, plastic containers emitting the smell of kerosene, one matchbox, burnt clothes of the deceased, etc., were seized vide Ex.P-7. Vide Ex.P-14, the marriage card of the deceased and respondent No.1 and the deceased’s teacher diary were seized. Vide Ex.P-16, pieces of burnt body parts of the deceased were seized. The accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-8 to P-10 respectively.

¶23

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the competent trial Court under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons/respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial.

¶24

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charge leveled against them.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused persons/respondents used to harass and torture the deceased and being fed up with the persistent harassment made by the respondents, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze and the

¶26

4

¶27

same fact is also evident from the statements of PW-3 Krishni Sahu, maternal aunt of deceased; PW-4 Chinta Ram Sahu, father of the deceased and PW-5 Hari Ram Sahu, maternal grand-father of the deceased and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that the marriage between the deceased and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2011 with the consent of their respective family members and that both were employed as Shiksha Karmi in different schools. He further submits that the deceased was suffering from mental illness before the marriage and during her pregnancy, respondent No.1 took care of her and frequently took her for medical check-ups. During that period, neither the deceased nor her family members lodged any complaint regarding harassment by the accused persons/respondents. He also submits that, although on 23.10.2014, PW-4- father of the deceased, lodged a written report (Ex.P-11) stating that respondent No.1 used to pressurize the deceased and her family members regarding custody of the newborn child, but there was no allegation in that report regarding torture or harassment by the accused persons. He also submits that subsequently, as an afterthought, PW-5Hari Ram Sahu, maternal grand-father of the deceased, lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-13) against the accused persons, which is

¶29

5

¶30

baseless. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well-merited and requires no interference by this Court.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶33

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶34

The first question for consideration is whether the death of the deceased- Teja Sahu, was suicidal in nature.

¶35

Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased- Teja Sahu to be suicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. R.R. Dhurve (PW-12) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-15) in which cause of death of deceased was shock due to antemortem burn injuries and nature of death of deceased was suicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. R.R. Dhurve (PW-12) as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P-15), I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased- Teja Sahu to be suicidal in nature and I hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

¶36

Now, the next question for consideration is whether the accused

¶37

6

¶38

persons/respondents are the authors of the crime in question or not.

¶39

In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 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 IPC which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-

¶40

“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who- Firstly – 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 any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶41

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

¶42

PW-1- Shatrughan Lal, in whose house the deceased committed suicide, has stated that on the date of the incident, he and his children had gone to school and one Preetram Chandravanshi came to him and informed that deceased- Teja Bai has committed suicide by setting herself ablaze in his house. During cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness and due to her unstable mental condition, she had been admitted to the Mental Hospital, Devada, for necessary treatment. He further admitted that no one was present in his house at the time when the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after pouring kerosene over her body.

¶43

PW-3 Krishni Sahu, maternal aunt of the deceased, has stated that the deceased had informed her that respondent No.1 used to torture and physically assault her. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that prior to the death of the deceased, she had not disclosed to anyone about the harassment allegedly faced by the deceased. She further admitted that

¶44

7

¶45

after returning from the funeral, when her maternal relatives stayed at her house, she informed them about the harassment suffered by the deceased.

¶46

PW-4 Chinta Ram Sahu, father of the deceased, has stated that after marriage, his daughter (deceased) and respondent No.1 lived happily for three months. However, when the deceased became pregnant, respondent No.1 used to abuse her, physically assault her and also pressurize her to abort the child. As against above, in cross-examination, he admitted that respondent No.1- Kamlesh used to take the deceased to a nursing home for regular pregnancy check-ups. He also admitted that his statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Ex.D-2) on the date of the incident. However, a perusal of the said statement shows that he did not make any allegation that the deceased was subjected to harassment or torture by the accused persons. He also admitted that prior to and after marriage, he did not lodge any complaint with the police nor with the community against respondents regarding any harassment or torture meted out to the deceased.

¶47

PW-5 Hari Ram Sahu, maternal grand-father of the deceased, admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was undergoing treatment by Dr. Pramod Gupta, who is a psychiatrist. He further admitted that, prior to her marriage and during her delivery period, the deceased's parents used to take her to Dr. Pramod Gupta for treatment. He also admitted that during her delivery period, the deceased suffered from insomnia and on the advice of gynecologist, she was referred to a psychiatrist. He further admitted that when the deceased was pregnant and residing at her in-laws' house, respondent No.1 used to take her to the nursing home for pregnancy check-ups. He also admitted that during the lifetime of the

¶48

8

¶49

deceased, he neither lodged any complaint at the police station nor convened any social meeting.

¶50

PW-6 Ram Ratan Dubey, Nayab Tehsildar, also admitted in his crossexamination that he had recorded the statement (Ex.D-2) of PW-4 Chinta Ram Sahu, wherein no allegation was made regarding any harassment or torture by the accused persons.

¶51

PW-13 Ramu Gurde, Inspector, admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of the incident, the Executive Magistrate (PW-6) recorded the statements of the deceased's maternal family and in those statements, no complaint was made against the accused persons. He also admitted that during the lifetime of the deceased, her maternal family did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons.

¶52

In the matter of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. vs the Inspector of Police¹ , the Supreme Court has has held in para 25 which reads as under:

¶53

“25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan vs State , represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which are as under:-

¶54

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (1) “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 I.P.C.”

¶55

When the present case is examined in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, coupled with the evidence on record and the statutory provisions contained in Section 306 of the IPC, it becomes

¶56

1 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834

¶57

9

¶58

quite evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which are necessary for establishing the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the respondents/accused persons. Furthermore, the evidence on record clearly shows that there is no cogent, consistent, or reliable material on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to torture or harassment by the accused persons. On the contrary, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the deceased had been suffering from mental illness and was undergoing psychiatric treatment both prior to and after her marriage. PW-1 Shatrughan Lal and PW-5 Hari Ram Sahu have specifically admitted that the deceased was receiving treatment from psychiatrists. These admissions clearly establish that the deceased was mentally unstable for a considerable period. Moreover, the conduct of respondent No.1, as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, indicates that he regularly took the deceased to the nursing home for pregnancy check-ups, which demonstrates concern for her well-being and contradicts the allegation of cruelty or illtreatment. It is also pertinent to mention that none of the close relatives of the deceased, including her parents and maternal family members, made any complaint to the police or before any community forum alleging cruelty or harassment by the accused persons either before or after her marriage. The statement of the father of the deceased (PW-4), recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the date of the incident (Ex. D-2) is completely silent on any such allegation and does not corroborate with the written report (Ex.P-11) subsequently lodged by him (PW-4) on 23.10.2014. In addition, the written report (Ex.P-13) dated 30.10.2014 lodged by PW-5 Hari Ram Sahu, maternal grand-father of

¶59

10

¶60

the deceased, against the accused persons also appears to be an afterthought and is insufficient to support the prosecution's case. This absence of any prior complaint, coupled with the medical history of the deceased and the lack of any proximate act of cruelty or abetment by the accused persons before the death, significantly weakens the prosecution’s case. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused persons as is required under the law to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC.

¶61

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish that deceased was subjected to physical assault or torture by the accused persons and that accused persons abetted her to commit suicide and as such, acquitted them of the said charge.

¶62

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶63

Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed.

¶64

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶65

Akhilesh

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Kamlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunal Ghai

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Vishal Sehgal

Dharmendra Tamrakar Vs Sanjeet Kumar Vishwakarma

Bikul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Dulsai Nat

Parmanand Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh