State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Umendra Rana

Umendra Rana, S/o Tiharu Ram Rana, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Bhairadiha Awaspara, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant	:Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent	:Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

02.01.2026

¶16

This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State, arising out of the judgment dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.109/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of deceasedSaraswati Rana was solemnized with accused-respondent in May, 2013 according to their customs. After the marriage, deceasedSaraswati Rana joined the company of the accused-respondent and

¶18

2

¶19

started residing at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that accused/respondent was addicted to alcohol and under its influence, subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty. Being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment made by the accusedrespondent, deceased, in the intervening night of 8-9^th July, 2014, committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling of her house. Thereafter, merg intimation (Ex.P-8) was recorded and an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered against the accused/respondent. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. PW-7 Dr. D.K. Kashyap conducted the postmortem examination and submitted his report vide Ex.P-3, opining that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxi a as a result of hanging and that the nature of death was suicidal. During investigation, spot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused/respondent was taken into custody vide Ex.P-11.

¶20

After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the competent trial Court under Section 306 of IPC. The accused/respondent denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial.

¶21

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charge leveled against him.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the

¶23

3

¶24

evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused/respondent was addicted to alcohol and under its influence, used to harass and assault the deceased and on account of which, she committed suicide by hanging herself and the said fact is also evident from the statements of PW-1 Ashwini Gaanwar, father of the deceased, PW-2 Sabat Bai, mother of the deceased and PW-3 Abhimanyu, uncle of the deceased ( Bade Papa ) and despite such cogent and clinching evidence, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused/respondent, in any manner, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that during the merg inquiry and inquest proceedings, the father of the deceased (PW-1) and the uncle of the deceased (PW-3 – Bade Papa) were present; however, they did not lodge any complaint or make any allegation against the accused/respondent to the effect that, under the influence of liquor, he used to harass, pressurize, or assault the deceased, due to which, she allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself, which clearly demonstrates that the accused/respondent is not the author of the crime in question. He also submits that after the marriage, the deceased and the accused/respondent were living happily and she frequently used to visit her parental home along with the accused/respondent and that their relations were cordial.

¶26

4

¶27

Therefore, the learned trial Court, after duly appreciating and evaluating the entire evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well-merited and calls for no interference by this Court.

¶28

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

¶29

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶30

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶31

The first question for consideration is whether the death of the deceased- Saraswati Rana, was suicidal in nature.

¶32

Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased- Saraswati Rana to be suicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. D.K. Kashyap (PW-07) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-3) in which cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of hanging and that the nature of death was suicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. D.K. Kashyap (PW-07) as well as the postmortem report (Ex.P-3), I am of the

¶33

5

¶34

considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased- Saraswati Rana to be suicidal in nature and I hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

¶35

Now, the next question for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence?

¶36

In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 against the accused, the prosecution is first required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of IPC which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-

¶37

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

¶38

Firstly – 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 any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶39

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

¶40

In the light of the above enunciation of law, the facts of the present case are required to be examined minutely.

¶41

PW-1 Ashwini Gaanwar, father of the deceased, has stated that about 1½ years prior to the incident, marriage of her daughter/deceased was solemnized with accused/respondent and after 5-6 months of the marriage, his daughter/deceased had left the matrimonial home, came to his house and informed him that accused/respondent used to harass and assault her frequently under the influence of alcohol. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, he admitted that after the death of

¶42

6

¶43

deceased, when he, his family members and father of the accused/respondent went to Police Station Korar to lodge the report, neither he nor his family members informed the police that the accused/respondent had subjected the deceased to physical assault or cruelty. He further admitted that after the marriage of deceased and prior to her death, none of his family members lodged any report or complaint against the accused/respondent before any social forum, Police Station or any other Authority. He also admitted that when deceased and respondent came to construct the house, they stayed with him for about 8-10 days. He also admitted that whenever deceased and respondent visited his house at Mavlipara, they would stay for about 5-7 days and thereafter return. He also admitted that after the marriage of deceased and prior to her death, he had visited her matrimonial home at village Bhairadih on 4-5 occasions. He has also stated that the Police had issued a notice prior to the preparation of the Panchnama (Ex.P-1) and that, in his presence, the inquest proceedings (Ex.P-2) were conducted; however, at that time, no allegation was made by him against the accused/respondent that, under the influence of alcohol, he used to harass or assault the deceased, by which, she committed suicide by hanging.

¶44

PW-2 Sabat Bai, mother of the deceased, also admitted in her crossexamination that whenever the deceased visited her parental home, she did not complain of any assault or cruelty by the accused/respondent. She further admitted that after the marriage and prior to the death of the deceased, she never disclosed any incident of physical assault by the accused/respondent. According to this witness, the deceased only complained to her and other family members that the

¶45

7

¶46

accused/respondent was addicted to alcohol and except that allegation, the deceased made no other complaint against the accused/respondent during her lifetime, and that she does not know the reason as to why her daughter/deceased committed suicide. Likewise, PW-3 Abhimanyu, uncle of the deceased ( Bade Papa ) has also stated the same facts as stated by PW-2 mother of the deceased.

¶47

In the matter of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. vs the Inspector of Police¹ , the Supreme Court has has held in para 25 which reads as under:

¶48

“25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan vs State , represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which are as under:-

¶49

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

¶50

Similarly, in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh² , the Supreme Court has observed in para 20 which reads as under:-

¶51

“20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”

¶52

Likewise, in the matter of M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police³ , the Supreme Court, by the following observation, has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

¶53

1 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834

¶54

2 AIR 2010 SC 327

¶55

(2011) 3 SCC 626

¶56

8

¶57

Para 45 is relevant and reads as under:-

¶58

“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.”

¶59

When the present case is examined in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, coupled with the evidence on record and the statutory provisions contained in Section 306 of IPC, it becomes quite evident that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment, as defined under Section 107 of the IPC, which are necessary for establishing the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the accused/respondent. Furthermore, the evidence on record clearly shows that there is no cogent, consistent, or reliable material on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to torture, harassment or assault by the accused/respondent under the influence of liquor and that respondent, in any way, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On the contrary, PW-1 father of the deceased, PW-2 mother of the deceased and PW-3 uncle of the deceased have admitted in their respective testimonies that after the marriage and prior to her death, the deceased did not inform them that the accused/respondent, under the influence of alcohol, used to harass and assault her, nor did they lodge any report or complaint against the accused/respondent in that regard prior to the incident. It is pertinent to note that during the merg inquiry and the inquest proceedings, PW-1 father of the deceased and PW-3 uncle of the deceased, were present; however, they did not inform the police that the deceased had been

¶60

9

¶61

subjected to physical assault by the accused/respondent, leading her to commit suicide, nor did they lodge any report against him at that stage. The evidence further reveals that prior to the incident, the deceased herself had stayed at her parental home for about 2–3 months. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the presence of PW-1 father of the deceased, PW-2 mother of the deceased and PW-3 uncle of the deceased, inquest proceedings were conducted and at that time, no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. In addition, merg intimation (Ex.P-8) would show that the incident occurred on 08.07.2014, but FIR (Ex.P-10) was lodged on 11.08.2014, for which, no explanation has been offered by prosecution as to how such delay has occurred . The absence of any prior complaint and the lack of any proximate act of cruelty or abetment attributable to the accused/respondent before the death of the deceased substantially weaken the prosecution case. In the absence of legally acceptable evidence of cruelty, harassment or instigation, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out against the accused/respondent.

¶62

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that accused/respondent, under the influence of alcohol, used to assault or beat the deceased and that he, in any way, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and as such, acquitted him of the said charge leveled against him.

¶63

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court, I am of

¶64

10

¶65

considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶66

Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed.

¶67

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶68

Akhilesh

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Umendra Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Umendra Rana

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

Mathura Prasad Kashyap Vs Ajay Kumar Gupta

State of C.G. Vs K.R. Mishra

Gulab Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rambilas

Hulasram Vs Hira Prasad

Smt. Asha Soni Vs Durgesh Kumar Soni