Smt. Kunti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

2025:CGHC:49560

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶7

1 - Smt. Kunti Bai W/o Late Shri Kushal Jayswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Fokatpara, Mungeli,thana- City Kotwali, Mungeli, Civil And Revenue District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate- Mungeli, DistrictMungeli,(C.G.)

¶11

2 - Ravi @ Ravishankar S/o Shri Meluram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Fokatpara, Mungeli,thana- City Kotwali, Mungeli, Civil And Revenue DistrictMungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Smt. Shivkumari W/o Shri Meluram Aged About 20 Years R/o VillageFokatpara, Mungeli,thana- City Kotwali, Mungeli, Civil And Revenue District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State / : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL Respondent No.1

¶15

2

¶16

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Judgment on Board 06/10/2025

¶19

This appeal has been preferred by wife of deceased Smt. Kunti Bai/ appellant under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging judgment of acquittal dated 13.4.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions case No. 58/2017 whereby respondents No.2 and 3 (henceforth referred as ‘accused persons’) were acquitted of the charge under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C.

¶20

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that accused persons and deceased Kushal Jayswal were resident of village Fokatpara, Mungeli. There was some partition dispute between them, therefore, accused persons used to give threat to kill him along with his family members again and again and because of such threat made by accused persons, Kushal Jayswal committed suicide on 28.7.2017 between 4:00-6:00 A.M. by hanging himself in his own house. Merg report (Ex.P3) was lodged by Kamlesh Jayswal (PW2, son of deceased), Inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P8; Postmortem of deceased was conducted by Dr. Mayank Agre (PW10), who in PM report vide Ex.P17, has opined that cause of death of deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging and duration is between 12-24 hours prior to postmortem examination. PW10 preserved viscera of deceased for chemical examination and handed over the same to the concerned Constable, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P9). In merg inquiry, it was found that deceased Kushal Jayswal committed suicide because of harassment meted out to him and his family members by accused

¶21

3

¶22

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶23

persons. Based on merg inquiry, FIR (Ex.P11) was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Two suicidal notes, from the pocket of deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Hand written diary of deceased was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P5. Suicidal notes were sent for examination to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Raipur. Wheels of investigation started running and the accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons for the offence under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C.

¶24

Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons which was read and explained to them. Accused persons abjured their guilt and entered defense.

¶25

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused persons have examined two witnesses in their defense. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence acquitted the respondent/accused persons of the charge. Hence, this Appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/ mother of complainant submits that deceased died because of continuous harassment meted out to him and his family members by the accused persons which was mentioned by him in suicidal notes and those facts have

¶27

4

¶28

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶29

also been proved by prosecution witnesses. He further submits that though report of handwriting expert of State Examiner of Questioned Document, Raipur has not been filed, but, act of repeated harassment done by accused persons to deceased has been proved by oral evidence which has not been even controverted in the cross-examination. Despite that learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons, which is perverse to the evidence and against the law. Hence, he prays that appeal may be allowed and accused persons may be convicted for the charge leveled against them.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits that State has not filed appeal. She further prays that appropriate order may be passed in accordance with evidence and law applicable to the case.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶32

PW2 complainant - Kamlesh Jayswal has stated in his deposition that at the time of immersion of Lord Ganesh, prior to instant incident, accused Ravi has assaulted him by means of knife, therefore, they have made report. He has also stated that on the occasion of Hareli Festival, accused Ravi came to their house in drunken condition and entered forcefully into their Pooja room and also threatened them. As per his deposition, there is dispute between them with regard to partition. Smt. Kunti Bai (PW4) is wife of deceased Kushal Jayswal, she has also supported aforesaid statement of her son PW2. Teklal Jayswal (PW3) is younger brother of deceased, who has also supported the aforesaid fact. Hara Bai (PW5) is mother of deceased, who has deposed that accused Ravi used to harass deceased very much by showing him knife. She has

¶33

5

¶34

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶35

further stated that accused Shivkumari, who is mother of accused Ravi, has provoked her son for the same. She has next stated that accused Ravi had threatened deceased and his family members to kill as there was a dispute with regard to partition between them.

¶36

Perusal of deposition of aforesaid witnesses shows that there was partition dispute between family of deceased and family of accused persons as, as per deposition of Bahoran Lal Koshle (DW2), they are relative and because of such partition dispute, on various occasions quarrel had taken place between them. Though aforesaid prosecution witnesses have stated in their deposition that during immersion of Lord Ganesh and Hareli Festival, accused Ravi assaulted complainant and also entered into their house, but, they have not stated any fact that how many days prior to commission of suicide by deceased, accused Ravi has raised such dispute.

¶37

Section 306 of the I.P.C. provides punishment for abetment to commit suicide and abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the I.P.C. which provides that “ a person abets the doing of a thing, if he 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.”

¶38

In the case of Ramesh Kumar -v- State of CG1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the charge framed and the conviction for offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate, in which she

1 [2001(9) SCC 618]

6

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

(deceased) had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the date of occurrence, she had a quarrel with her husband and her husband said that she could go wherever she wanted to go, and thereafter she poured kerosene oil on her and had set herself at fire, acquitted the accused and Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that “ A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty .”

¶43

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) has held in para 20 as under :-

¶44

“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 suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which

¶45

7

¶46

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶47

case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

¶48

In the instant case, though it is found that there was partition

¶49

dispute between deceased and accused Ravi, because of which, on various occasions, quarrel took place between them, but, only because of such quarrel or alleged threat, it cannot be supposed that such act was done by accused persons with intention that deceased shall commit suicide. The alleged act of quarrel / threat caused by accused Ravi does not fall in the category of instigation to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act of committing suicide.

¶50

In the case of M.Mohan v. State represented by Deputy

¶51

Superintendent of Police2, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence, by observing as under:-

¶52

“45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are 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/she committed suicide.”

2 (2011) 3 SCC 626

8

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

15. In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West

¶57

Bengal3 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC, has held as under :-

¶58

“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 accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

¶59

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.”

¶60

Having applied aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶61

Court in aforecited judgments, if facts of the instant case are seen, it is 3 (2010) 1 SCC 707

¶62

9

¶63

ACQA No. 500 of 2019

¶64

found that though there was a dispute with regard to partition between deceased and accused persons because of which accused Ravi assaulted son of deceased and has also allegedly threatened, but, this act cannot be termed as abetment to deceased to commit suicide.

¶65

In the instant case, alleged two suicidal notes of deceased are stated to be seized vide seizure memo Ex.P6, but, neither those suicidal notes have been filed by prosecution nor report of handwriting expert of State Examiner has been filed. Even, otherwise contents of suicidal notes have been reduced in seizure memo vide Ex.P6, which shows similar facts as has been narrated by relatives of deceased in their deposition. Therefore, even if suicidal notes are taken into consideration, despite that contents of Section 107 IPC against respondent/ accused persons are not found to be proved.

¶66

On due consideration, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) acquitting both accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 herein, from the charge under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C.

¶67

In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶68

SD/-

¶69

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

¶70

JUDGE

¶71

Ayushi

¶72

Digitally signed by AYUSHI AYUSHI SINGH SINGH Date:2025.10.09 10:58:39 +0530

Smt. Kunti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kunti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Shankar Vs Sarihano

Abdul Kadir Khan Vs Tej Narayan @ Bablu

Bodhan Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premchand Bhansali Vs Manohar Lal Sinha

Haricharn Ramteke Vs Barsati Lal Dhruv

Satyanarayan Singh Thakur Vs Smt. Champa Ueke