Dataram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2025CRR/165/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abetment of suicide; Section 306 IPC; Section 107 IPC ingredients of abetment; instigation; mens rea; quashing of charge at framing stage; discharge of accused; anticipatory bail; Section 481 BNSS 2023; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CRR No. 165 of 2019; Dataram Sahu; Hariram Sahu suicide; Gayatri Sahu mental disease; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; decided 19/11/2025.

What did the court decide?

Order framing charge under Section 306 IPC set aside/quashed; applicant discharged from the charge; bail bonds to remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023; records of the court below to be sent back with a copy of the order. ¶¶18

Dataram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether, on considering the entire available material to be correct, a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant.

¶¶31

Court's answer

There is no evidence of any instigation by the applicant, and the act and conduct of the applicant does not fall within the manner of instigation or abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

For an offence under Section 306 IPC there must be clear mens rea to commit the abetment and a direct or active act by the accused leading the deceased to commit suicide.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

From the record it cannot be inferred that the applicant instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide; there is also no evidence of physical or mental torture by the petitioner.ratio¶¶17
The order framing charge passed by the trial Court is set aside/quashed; the criminal revision is allowed and the applicant is discharged from the charge under Section 306 IPC.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR No. 165 of 2019) under Sections 397/401 CrPC against framing of charge under Section 306 IPC in Sessions Trial No.04/2019 (order dated 24.01.2019, Sessions Judge, Balodabazar). Prosecution alleged that disputes and threats connected with the mental condition of the applicant's wife Gayatri Sahu drove her father Hariram Sahu to suicide on 07/05/2018 (merg No. 52/2018; FIR Crime No. 161/2018). Held: postmortem showed suicidal death by asphyxia; there is no evidence of any instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding by the applicant; the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC are absent; offence under Section 306 IPC requires clear mens rea and a direct or active act, neither of which appears from the record; no physical or mental torture is evidenced. Charge-framing order set aside/quashed; applicant discharged; revision allowed; bail bonds remain operative for six months under Section 481 BNSS, 2023.

2025:CGHC:56280

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 165 of 2019

¶6

Dataram Sahu S/o Shri Vishal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chhechhar, P. S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate

¶12

For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶14

19/11/2025

¶15

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the charges. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.04/2019 framed the charged under Section 306 of IPC by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.).

¶16

¶17

Brief facts of this case are that on 07/05/2018, one Hariram Sahu, father-inlaw of the petitioner had committed suicide by hanging in the tree so the merg intimation was given by son of deceased Jeevan Kumar Sahu and the Police of Police Station, Kasdol has registered the merg No. 52/2018 and prepared the Panchnama thereafter send the body for postmortem and also recorded the merg statement of the witnesses in which they have stated that there is dispute between the applicant and her wife, therefore, deceased who is father-in-law has committed suicide. The postmortem was conducted by the Autopsy Surgeon and given the report that death is due to asphyxia due to hanging time of death is 12-14 hours and nature of death is suicidal. The incident was taken place on 07/05/2018 and the merg was registered on 08/05/2018 and after about one month of the incident on 08/06/2018 police of Police Station, Kasdol registered the FIR of Crime No. 161/2018 against the petitioner because the complainant and other witnesses have stated that on 05/05/2018 deceased Hariram Sahu came to the house of petitioner situated at village Chhechhar and on 07/05/2018 he was returning to his village and committed suicide, further they have leveled the allegation that the wife of the applicant Gayatri Sahu is suffering from mental disease and applicant and his family members have threatened them and due to the said reason petitioner left his wife therefore deceased has committed suicide.

¶18

After registration of FIR, petitioner came to know about the criminal case then he applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Session thereafter before this Hon'ble High Court and vide order dated 13/07/2018 this Court allowed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

¶20

The Police of Police Station, Kasdol has investigated the matter and recorded the statement of the witnesses and also asked query from the doctor who conducted the postmortem and doctor has given the report on 31/10/2018 mentioning that the marks whatsoever found in the body was not sufficient to cause death and these marks can be received in transporting the body. The witnesses have stated that there is dispute between the petitioner and his wife Smt. Gayatri and due to said dispute deceased has committed suicide as the petitioner threatened to left his wife looking to her mental condition.

¶21

The Police after completing the investigation without consider the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of IPC which is mentioned under Section 107 of IPC which relates to abatement file the charge-sheet mentioning that after the mental disease of Gayatri there is some dispute between the petitioner Dataram and deceased Hariram and petitioner has abuses him, therefore, Hariram has committed suicide.

¶22

If the material available in the charge-sheet which collected by the prosecution during the investigation is considered as it is no offence of abatement to commit suicide is not made out against the petitioner and the petitioner has raised the argument at the time of framing of charges but the learned trial court did not considered the same and fame the charges on 24.01.2019 and fixed the case for recording the evidence on 21.02.2019 to 23.02.2019.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the investigating agency has failed to see that if the material collected during investigation is considered as it is the ingredients of abatement as mentioned under Section 107 of IPC is not

¶24

¶25

made out, therefore the charges of offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. He further contended that the prosecution agency has not collected any material which shows abatement by the petitioner soon before his death. The witnesses have stated that due to mental disorder of Gayatri, some dispute has been taken place between the applicant and Hariram but they did not speak in which month or in which date the dispute was taken place. All the witnesses whose statement under Section 161 of CrPC were belongs to village Kharve. The case of the petitioner is covered with the series of judgment of this High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the principle has laid down regarding the construction of cases under Section 306 of IPC. The learned session judge has not considered the fact that the ingredients of the abatement as mentioned under section 107 of IPC are missing in the present case therefore the applicant is liable to be discharge. He further contended that the material evidence available in the record is not constitute the offence of abatement but the trial court did not consider the same and also not considered the argument advance in this regard and only relying upon the police report framed the charges under section 306 of IPC. It, is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and order impugned dated 24.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.04/2019 framing the charges u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code, may kindly be quashed and the petitioner may kindly be discharge.

¶26

Learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and argued that the material collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses, prima facie discloses circumstances giving rise to

¶27

¶28

a triable issue under Section 306 IPC. It was contended that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence but only to ascertain whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. The State counsel therefore submitted that the trial Court has rightly framed charges and that no case for discharge is made out.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of record, I have found that on 07/05/2018, one Hariram Sahu, father-in-law of the applicant had committed suicide by hanging in the tree. Further, it reveals that the wife of the applicant Gayatri Sahu is suffering from mental disease and petitioner and his family members have threatened them and due to the said reason petitioner left his wife therefore deceased has committed suicide.

¶31

The question in the present case is whether on considering the entire available material to be correct a prima facie case for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants or not?

¶32

At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which run thus:

¶33

¶34

“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.

¶35

07. Abetment of a thing .- A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

¶36

First.- Instigates any person to do that thing;

¶37

¶38

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;

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

Explanation 1.- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

¶42

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.”

¶43

¶44

As per the definition given in Chapter-V of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and abetment is constituted by any one of the following three ingredients:

¶45

I. it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the principal offence;

¶46

II. that the principal offence was in fact committed; and

¶47

III. that he had the intent to aid or encourage its commission.

¶48

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, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.

¶49

As Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, for making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 Indian Penal Code and, therefore, it is necessary to prove that said accused has instigated the person to

¶50

¶51

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 commission of the suicide by the deceased.

¶52

Further, considering the the facts of the case and on perusal of the post mortem report of the body of the deceased, it transpires that the death of the deceased was due to “asphyxia”. The nature of which was suicidal, therefore, there is no evidence to show that any type of instigation made by the applicant to the deceased. It is also transpires from the record that there is nothing to show that the applicant intentionally adduced, by any act or illegal omission of doing that thing, in considered view of this Court, this particular reason cannot be constituted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant for his guilt. The act and conduct of the applicant does not fall within the manner of instigation or abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.

¶53

Reverting the fact that in this case there is no evidence that the applicant had instigated the deceased. For offence under Section 306 of IPC there should be clear mens-rea to commit the abetment and there should be a direct or active act by the applicant which lead the deceased to commit suicide. Intentionally aiding a person to do a thing also includes in

¶54

¶55

abatement, but from the record it cannot be inferred that the applicant instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. It is alleged that wife of the applicant Gayatri Sahu was suffering from mental disease and applicant and his family members have threatened her and due to the said reason petitioner left his wife, therefore, deceased was committed suicide. Further, there is no evidence of physical or mental torture given by the petitioner to his wife.

¶56

For the foregoing reasons, order of framing of charge passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside/quashed. The instant criminal revision is allowed. The applicant is discharge from the charge under Section 306 of the IPC.

¶57

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed .

¶58

It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at that stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶59

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶62

Vasant

Dataram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dataram Sahu 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamradwaj Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sampatti Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Dhruw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation India (Sepco) Vs State of Chhattisgarh