Allowed¶20

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2025CRA/298/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur CRA 298/2016 Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu abetment of suicide Section 306 r/w 114 IPC instigation Section 107 IPC Section 354 IPC acquittal set aside dehati FIR railway bridge Kelo River Raigarh 2025:CGHC:34199 Bibhu Datta Guru 18.07.2025 Kumar @ Shiva Kumar 2024 INSC 156 Ramesh Kumar (2001) 9 SCC 618 Prakash SLP (Crl.) 1073/2023 Section 481 BNSS bail bonds six months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges; surety and personal bonds to remain operative for six months under Section 481 BNSS. ¶20

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's conduct (demand of marriage, catching hold of the deceased, threats to kill her parents and the alleged utterance permitting suicide) constituted instigation/abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 114 IPC. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

On the statements of the witnesses and the dehati FIR, the deceased jumped from the railway bridge on her own; the appellant had demanded marriage and threatened to kill her parents, and when she said she would commit suicide he told her she could do so.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Nothing in the depositions of PW-3 and PW-4 shows that the appellant forced the deceased to commit suicide; no previous complaint of harassment or instigation was lodged, and the eyewitnesses admitted they did not raise any alarm; the ingredients of abetment of suicide were therefore not proved.

¶13

Key takeaways

None of the legal ingredients required to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC is even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or borne out from the material on record.ratio¶18
The utterance attributed to the appellant, even assuming it to be true, was not of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to end her life, and hence did not amount to instigation.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL (CRA No. 298 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bibhu Datta Guru, J., 18.07.2025) — Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence dated 24-02-2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.23/2012 under Section 354 IPC and Section 306 r/w Section 114 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted. Held: the deceased jumped from the Railway Kelo River Bridge on her own; the allegation was only that the appellant caught her hands, demanded marriage and threatened to kill her parents, and when she spoke of suicide he said she could do so; assuming the utterance to be true, it did not satisfy the requirement of instigation under Section 107 IPC nor leave the deceased with no other option except suicide; no previous report of harassment existed and PW-3/PW-4 admitted raising no alarm; ingredients of abetment of suicide not proved; Section 354 IPC offence likewise not established beyond reasonable doubt. Precedents relied on: Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023 (decided 20/12/2024). Bail/surety bonds directed to remain operative for six months in view of Section 481 BNSS.

CRA No.298/2016

2025:CGHC:34199

NAFR

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.22 17:07:51 +0530

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

CRA No. 298 of 2016

¶9

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu S/o Late Maheshram Thethwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Kewdabadi, Bus Stand Naipara, P.S. - Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶19

18.07.2025

¶20

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-02-2016 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.23/2012 whereby learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

¶21

¶22

CRA No.298/2016

¶23

Conviction	Sentence
Section 354 of IPC	R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default, R.I. for one month
Section 306 r/w Section 114 of IPC	R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/- in default, R.I. for three months

¶24

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.10.2011 morning at about 4 p.m. the deceased went to the house of her maternal uncle namely Vijay Sahu at Telipara, Raigarh to attend the Durga Festival from her village Padigaon. It is alleged that when she was walking with her younger sisters i.e. PW-3 & PW-4, then the present appellant teased and passed comments against her. On being objected by deceased, the appellant caught hold of her hands and told her that he willing to make sexual relation with her and also willing to marry her. When the deceased stated that she is not interested to marry with the appellant, then the appellant threatened her for dire consequences. Being tired of threat and harassment, deceased told the appellant that she will commit suicide, then, the appellant told her that if she wanted to commit suicide, she could do so, thereafter, the deceased went towards the Railway Kelo River Bridge, Chakradharnagar and jumped from the Railway River Bridge, because of which, she received injuries. Subsequently, she was taken to K.G. , Raigarh by ambulance, where dehati first information was registered, on

¶25

¶26

CRA No.298/2016

¶27

the basis of which, FIR Ex.P-9 was registered against the appellant. During the treatment, the deceased died. Spot map Ex.P-11 was prepared. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/18), Dr. Shivnarayan Manhi (PW-13) opined that the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory failure as a results of multiple injuries of the body. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared.

¶28

In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication.

¶29

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellantaccused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is absolutely no any evidence against the appellant conclusively connecting him with the commission

¶31

¶32

CRA No.298/2016

¶33

of crime. She submits that the allegation whatsoever leveled against the appellant does not constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, even from the evidence of the witnesses offence under Section 354 of IPC is also not established beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. She placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Another (SLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023 decided on 20/12/2024.

¶34

Per-contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶36

¶37

CRA No.298/2016

¶38

PW-3, who is the sister of the deceased, stated in her evidence that on 5^th October, 2011, she had come to her maternal uncle house to see Durga Puja. Since there were many guests at her maternal uncle's house, they had gone to sleep at her maternal grandfather Balram Sahu's house. On 10^th October 2011, she along with her sister (deceased) and cousin (PW-4), daughter of her maternal uncle had gone out for a walk at around 5 a.m. in the morning. The appellant was standing near Bablu's paan cart with his bike. While they were walking, the appellant followed and threatened the deceased and asked her to marry with him, otherwise, he will kill her maternal uncle and father. The appellant was asking the deceased to come with him. When she refused, the appellant threatened us and dragged her sister away. Thereafter, they came home out of fear and after 5 minutes, they went for searching deceased. Thereafter, her father called and told that her sister jumped from the bridge. However, in para 8 of her crossexamination, she stated that when the appellant caught the hands of her sister/deceased, she did not shout for help.

¶39

PW-4 cousin of deceased, stated in her evidence that in the night of 9^th October, she along with her sisters PW-3 and the deceased had gone to her maternal grandfather's house to sleep. We had gone to Bablu Paan cart for a walk and were

¶40

¶41

CRA No.298/2016

¶42

returning from there. While walking, the appellant came and dragged the deceased ahead. Thereafter, she and PW-3 objected the incident, then the appellant threatened them to kill, therefore, both of them came inside the house and did not tell about the incident to anyone because of fear. After sometime, she came to know that her sister deceased had jumped from the bridge. However, in para of her crossexamination, she stated that when the appellant caught the hands of her sister/deceased, she did not shout or raise any alarm for help.

¶43

(PW-2) Sagar Sande, stated in his evidence that the incident happened during winter season. He had gone for a walk in the morning. My friend Vinod called me and told that there was a crowd under the bridge. Thereafter, he went and the people present there, told me to call 108 ambulance. A girl was lying down under the bridge. Blood was oozing out of her head. After a while, 108 ambulance came and picked the girl and took her to hospital.

¶44

In dehati first information report, the deceased admits that the appellant forced to marry her and when she refused, the appellant threatened her to kill her parents. Because of harassing by the appellant, she told the appellant that she will commit suicide, then appellant told her that if she wanted to commit suicide, she could do so, then she herself

¶45

¶46

CRA No.298/2016

¶47

jumped from the railway bridge and commit suicide.

¶48

From perusal of the above statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the Deceased jumped herself from the railway bridge. She has clearly stated that the appellant forced to marry her and on refusing the same, the appellant threatened to kill her parents.

¶49

Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :-

¶50

"107. Abetment of thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

¶51

First.- Instigate any person to do that thing, or

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

In the instant case, looking to the statements of PW-3 and PW-4, who are with the deceased when the appellant caught the hands of deceased and forced her to marry with him and threatened to kill them, but no statement has been given by PW-3 and PW-4 in their deposition, from which, it reflects that the appellant forced the deceased to commit suicide. Apart from that, no any previous report was lodged

¶55

¶56

CRA No.298/2016

¶57

by deceased regarding any harassment or instigation and when the incident happened, PW-3 and PW-4 in their crossexamination stated that they do not shout or raise any alarm for help. Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide was not proved.

¶58

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 = AIR Online 2024 SC 111 has referred its earlier decision rendered in the matter of Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and held that a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending consequences can’t be said to be instigation for suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, 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.

¶59

The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (Supra) delved into the meaning of the word ‘instigate’ or instigation’ and held as under:-

¶60

20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is

¶61

¶62

CRA No.298/2016

¶63

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 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.”

¶64

In the matter of Prakash (supra), the Supreme Court held that even if one accepts the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself did not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’

¶65

From perusal of the record, the only allegation against the appellant is that the appellant caught the hands of deceased and forced to marry her with him, due to which, she commit suicide .

¶66

I find none of the ingredients required in law to make out a case under Section 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record. The utterance attributed to the appellant assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. Even looking to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are the sister and cousin sister of the deceased,

¶67

¶68

CRA No.298/2016

¶69

respectively, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under section 354 of IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶70

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set-aside.

¶71

In the result, the appeal is Allowed . The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed.

¶72

The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/-

¶73

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶74

Gowri/Amardeep

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Thethwar @ Tillu 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

Vinay Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokesh Garg Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhojdas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh