Chhatrapal Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - Ishwar Dhritlahare S/o Anjordas Dhritlahare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Budhwara Dongripara, Police Station Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.- Accused

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Nishad, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Puriya, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

22/09/2025

¶16

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶17

2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 11.6.2019 (AnnexureA/1) passed by Upper Sessions judge, Pendra Road, Bilaspur in Session Case No.29/2018, whereby respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶18

3. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, deceased Usha Dahariya, aged about 25 years, and respondent No.2/accused are residents of same village. On 01.11.2017, they went to visit Amarkantak. They stayed there in

¶19

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:2025.09.24 16:53:01 +0530

¶20

2

¶21

the night at Shivram Rain Basera lodge and there they had a quarrel. On the next day, i.e. on 02.11.2017, at 7.00 am they went to visit Sonmuda, where also quarrel took place between them. Therefore, Usha jumped into gorge and committed suicide. Merg report was lodged on the basis of complaint made by Chhatrapal Dahariya, who was elder brother of the deceased. Spot map was prepared vide Ex-P/2. Inquest report (ExP/4) was prepared. Postmortem was also carried out by Dr. Abhimanyu Singh (PW-14), in which vide postmortem report Ex-P/11, he opined that cause of death of deceased was internal cerebral hemorrhage due to fracture of frontal and occipital bone. He also opined that nature of death is suicidal. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Based on merg inquiry, FIR (Ex-P/14) was lodged against the respondent/accused on 25.7.2018 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Vaginal slides of the deceased were collected vide Ex-P/1. Photocopy of Register of Rain Basera lodge was seized vide Ex-P/5. Mobile phone was seized from the respondent/accused vide seizure memo Ex-P/6. Motor cycle and its RC book were seized from the respondent vide seizure memo Ex-P/7. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet under 306 IPC was filed against the respondent/accused.

¶22

4. Learned Upper Session Judge, framed charges under Section 306 IPC and explained to the accused, who abjured the guilt and seeks for trial. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC recorded, in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, claiming himself to be innocent. He has not examined any witness in his defence.

¶23

5. Learned Upper Session Judge, after considering the evidence,

¶24

3

¶25

acquitted the respondent No.2/accused vide impugned judgment holding therein that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of the charges. Being aggrieved, the appellant/complainant, who is elder brother of the deceased, filed instant acquittal appeal.

¶26

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has been proved by the prosecution witnesses that on 01.11.2017 the deceased had gone to Amarkantak along with respondent No.2/accused, where they had a fight in the night as well as in the next day morning i.e. on 02.11.2017. He further submits that Radha Jain (PW-5) is Manager of Shivram Rain Basera lodge, who has proved that the respondent No.2/accused had stayed in the Rain Basera hotel in the night. Rameshwar Singh (PW-12) & Gopal Prasad Mehra (PW-13) have also stated that the deceased had jumped into gorge and at that point of time, respondent No.2/ accused was also there. Thus, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has been proved that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into gorge, because the respondent had a quarrel with her, thereby he has instigated her to commit suicide. But overlooking aforesaid evidence, the Court below acquitted the accused, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the accused may be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

¶27

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not preferred appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶28

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

¶29

9. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the I.P.C., which reads as under:-

¶30

4

¶31

“ S. 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.”

¶32

Abetement has been defined in Section 107 which reads as under :-

¶33

“S. 107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

¶34

First . - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶35

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 4 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.

¶36

Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

¶37

Punishment of abetment is provided under Section 109 of the IPC which

¶38

reads as under :-

¶39

“ S. 109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is

¶40

committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.”

¶41

10. As per the definition given in Section 107 of the IPC, an abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients:-

¶42

“(i) Instigating a person for doing of a thing, or

¶43

(ii) engaging in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or

¶44

(iii) intentionally aiding the doing of that thing.”

¶45

5

¶46

11. A person is said to 'instigate' another to an Act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.

¶47

12. As Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused, it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three ingredients as enumerated under Section 107 of the IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more persons in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶48

13. The Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.1 and held as under :-

¶49

“9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr.² , the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”

¶50

1 (2002) 5 SCC 371

¶51

2 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438

¶52

6

¶53

14. In the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3 , the Supreme Court, while considering the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate where she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter, she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court held as under :-

¶54

“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 differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced 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. ”

¶55

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)⁴ had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self - respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

¶56

3 2001 (9) SCC 618

¶57

4 (2009) 16 SCC 605

¶58

7

¶59

16. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab⁵ , the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29, being relevant, are extracted below :-

¶60

“21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.

¶61

28 . Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal⁶ that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused

¶62

6 (1994) 1 SCC 73

¶63

5 (2017) 1 SCC 433

¶64

8

¶65

charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B.⁷

¶66

That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan⁸ .”

¶67

17. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, if the facts of the instant case is examined, then it is found that it has been proved by Seema Francis (PW-4), Radha Jain (PW-5), who is Manager of Rain Basera lodge, Chhatrapal Dahariya (PW-9), who is elder brother of the deceased, Anita Dahariya (PW-10), Rameshwar Singh (PW-12) and Gopal Prasad Mehra (PW-13) that the deceased had gone to Amarkantak with the respondent No.2/ accused in motor cycle, where they stayed in the night in the aforesiad lodge, which also somehow get support from Ex-P/5, which is photo copy of register of the aforesaid Rain Basera lodge. Rameshwar Singh (PW-12) and Gopal Prasad Mehra (PW-13) have also deposed that there was quarrel between the deceased and respondent/accused in the morning of 02.11.2017. Rameshwar Singh (PW-12) has also deposed that he had seen the deceased jumping into gorge, which was immediately also heard by Gopal Prasad Mehra (PW-13).

¶68

18. Having considered aforesaid evidence, it is proved that the deceased had gone with the accused to visit Amarkantak in a motor cycle, where she committed suicide by jumping into gorge. So far as allegation with regard to abetment is concerned, the allegation against the respondent is that there had been quarrel between the deceased and respondent accused, but some sort of quarrel, cannot be termed as abetment by the 7 (2010) 1 SCC 707

¶69

8 (2010)12 SCC 190

¶70

9

¶71

respondent/accused to commit suicide by the deceased. In a catena of judgments, as has been referred hereinabove, the Ho’ble Apex Court has held that before holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced by it in order to find out whether the alleged act of quarrel or harassment meted to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative, but to put to an end to her life. It has further been settled that in cases of allegation of abetment to commit suicide, there must be a proof direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment of quarrel or uttering some foul language, 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, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

¶72

19. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that on the night of 01.11.2017 and morning of 02.11.2017, there was some quarrel between the deceased and respondent/accused, but it has not been proved by the prosecution that what was the nature of quarrel and whether it was upto the level to be held as abetment as has been held by the Apex Court and as provided under Section 107 IPC.

¶73

20. On due consideration of the evidence available on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court as has been mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the same is upheld.

¶74

21. Consequently, the acquittal appeal is dismissed.

¶75

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶76

Bini

Chhatrapal Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajulal Bandhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Imtiyaj Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meghuram Vs Chhatrapal

Anil Chandravanshi Common Attorney Smt. Jay Chandravanshi Vs Habibuddin @ Guddu