Dismissed¶35

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Yadav @ Lala

Chhattisgarh HC12 Oct 2025ACQA/340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur, ACQA No. 340 of 2024 — State appeal against acquittal under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) preferred under Section 378(1) CrPC; death by aluminium phosphide poisoning (FSL Ex.P-19); sole abetment witness PW-2 (sister) absent at time of incident, statement inconclusive; earlier complaint withdrawn via compromise deed Ex.P-21 and application Ex.P-22; no cogent evidence of abetment; acquittal upheld, appeal dismissed (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J., 13.10.2025).

What did the court decide?

Diksha Markam's death was a result of suicide by consumption of poison, confirmed by the FSL report (Ex.P-19) to be Aluminium Phosphide; there is no evidence the poison was administered forcibly, and the trial court rightly held the death to be a suicide. ¶23

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Suresh Yadav @ Lala — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused, Suresh Yadav alias Lala, abetted Diksha Markam to commit suicide. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The statement of Himani Markam (PW-2) regarding abetment pertains to an earlier period — she was not present with the deceased at the time of the incident — and on its basis it cannot be conclusively determined that Diksha Markam committed suicide solely due to the accused's abetment.

¶30

Key takeaways

There is a lack of any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that Diksha committed suicide by consuming poison due to any abetment by the accused.ratio¶34
Considering the facts and evidence available on record, the trial court committed no illegality in acquitting the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime.ratio¶34
It is not appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal; the appeal is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA — State appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC against acquittal of the respondent under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide of Diksha Markam (Sessions Case No. 71/2018, judgment dated 05.08.2019, Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora). Held: the death was a suicide — consumption of Aluminium Phosphide confirmed by FSL report Ex.P-19, with no evidence of forcible administration. The key abetment witness, Himani Markam (PW-2), sister of the deceased, was in Ambikapur on the day of the incident and her account pertained to an earlier period; the deceased was distressed by her poor financial condition and had earlier withdrawn her complaint against the accused by application (Ex.P-22) and compromise deed (Ex.P-21). In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence of abetment, the trial court committed no illegality in acquitting the respondent. Impugned judgment of acquittal not interfered with; appeal dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; 13.10.2025)

¶1

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.10.15 14:11:08 +0530

2025:CGHC:50982

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 340 of 2024

¶6

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Suresh Yadav @ Lala S/o Bajrang Prasad Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Lakhanpur, Police Station -Katghora, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Stat/Appellant : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.G.A. For Respondent : None.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

(13.10.2025 )

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 05.08.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 71/2018, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

¶16

¶17

The prosecution story, in short, is that the deceased, Diksha Markam, lived in Katghora and worked at Kalpana Shoe Palace. She befriended the accused, Suresh, and they got married in a temple, but Suresh was already married and kept Diksha Markam in a rented house. Their relationship deteriorated, and Suresh started harassing Diksha Markam, despite a previous compromise. This harassment led Diksha to consume poison, and she died during treatment at CHC Hospital Katghora. The police registered a case (Merg No. 54/2018), investigated, and found that Suresh's harassment drove Diksha to suicide, leading to the registration of a case against Suresh under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide). Thereafter statements of prosecution witnesses have been recorded and material evidence have been collected and seized.

¶18

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal.

¶19

Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the present case, every witness was examined before the trial Court and they have supported the case of the prosecution and established

¶20

¶21

the case beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Dr. B.R. Ratre (PW-5) has stated that on 23.05.2018, at about 4:45 PM, when Diksha was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Katghora, after being brought via ambulance, she was found with froth in her mouth and there were initial symptoms of poisoning, upon which the Katghora Police Station was informed, and later she died. Dr. Kamlesh Porte (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem examination on 24.05.2018, and opined that Diksha's death was due to consumption of unknown poison, which was later confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-19) to be Aluminium Phosphide. There is no evidence to suggest that the poison was administered forcibly, and other witnesses also testified with regard to the consumption of poison. Thus, the trial court rightly held that Diksha's death was a result of suicide.

¶24

The question is whether the accused, Suresh Yadav alias Lala, abetted Diksha Markam to commit suicide? According to the statements of Diksha Markam's sister, Himani Markam (PW-2), and aunt, Tara Bai (PW-1), the deceased

¶25

¶26

worked at Kalpana Shoe Palace in Katghora, where the accused Suresh also worked, and they had a love affair. The accused kept Diksha Markam (deceased) in a rented house, where her 17-year-old sister, Himani Markam, also resided. Thus, Himani Markam is a key prosecution witness regarding the alleged abetment.

¶27

Himani Markam (PW-2) has stated in the court statement that the accused, Suresh, who was already married, had concealed this fact and married her sister Diksha Markam. However, he subsequently started beating Diksha, attempted to run an ambulance over her, and even pushed her from the roof. As a result of this torture, Diksha committed suicide by consuming poison.

¶28

It is noteworthy that Himani Markam (PW-2) herself did not lodge any complaint with the police regarding the alleged acts of the accused or the incident of suicide. In this case, after conducting an inquest on 29.06.2018 about one month and one week, the police registered the offence after the incident. According to Himani Markam and her aunt, Tara Bai, the financial condition of Diksha Markam was not good, which caused her to be worried/distressed. Himani stated that the accused, Suresh, used to visit Diksha in her rented house during the day but would leave at night, occasionally staying overnight. On the day of Diksha's death, Himani Markam (PW-2) was not even present with

¶29

¶30

her, as she was in Ambikapur. In such a situation, the statement given by Himani Markam regarding the accused's alleged abetment was not made immediately before the incident of consuming poison but rather pertains to an earlier period. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of Himani Markam (PW-2), it cannot be conclusively determined that Diksha Markam committed suicide by consuming poison solely due to the accused's abetment.

¶31

Himani Markam also admitted during cross-examination that her sister, Diksha Markam, was worried due to their poor financial condition. She further admitted that the accused's cousin brother, Satish Yadav, had taken pictures of her and her sister Diksha and was blackmailing them, and they had gone to the Katghora police station to file a report. It is evident from the prosecution's case and from the statements of other prosecution witnesses that Diksha Markam had previously lodged a complaint against Suresh behavior at the Katghora police station but later withdrew it by submitting an application (Ex.P-22) and executing a compromise deed (Ex.P-21) with the accused, stating that she did not want to pursue the matter further.

¶32

Thus, Himani Markam (PW-2), the key witness regarding abetment, was not present with Diksha in Katghora at the time of the incident of consuming poison, but was instead

¶33

¶34

in Ambikapur. The deceased, Diksha, was worried due to her poor financial condition. Himani Markam testified that the accused's cousin brother, Satish, had several photographs of Diksha and herself on his mobile phone. However, there is a lack of any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that Diksha committed suicide by consuming poison due to any abetment by the accused. In these circumstances, considering the facts and evidence available on record, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime.

¶35

Accordingly, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal, and the appeal is hereby

¶36

dismissed. Sd/-

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶38

Sourabh P

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Yadav @ Lala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Yadav @ Lala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aakash Jain Vs Rupesh Kumar Verma

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs Mr. Murli Laheja

Ramratan Vs Hemlal Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Satyaprakash Tripathi

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anil Agarwal

Rajesh Agrawal Vs Darshan Singh Thakur