Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Bhumika Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12191
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 447 of 2025
1 - Smt. Bhumika Sahu W/o Bhem Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Chhuikhadan, Post Karmtara, Thana Laalbagh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Appellant
Digitally signed by
versus
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.04.07
18:24:59 +0530
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station,
Pulgaon District- Durg (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Neetu Sahu W/o Late Tej Prakash Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Collector Office Road Diprapara, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board 13-03-2026
1. The present is an acquittal appeal under Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19-08-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Durg, in Sessions Case No.35/2022 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant is sister and respondent/accused is wife, of deceased Tej Prakash Sahu. Deceased Tej Prakash Sahu committed suicide on 31-05-2020 by hanging himself on neem tree adjacent to his residential house. Merg was informed to police and the 2 dead body was sent for its postmortem to District Hospital Durg where PW-15 Doctor Alok Kumar Ramteke conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and suicidal in nature and gave his report Ex.-P/20. After recording of the statement of the witnesses, FIR Ex.-P/18 was registered against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 306 and 506 of the IPC. After completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg from where the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Durg for its trial.
3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC which she denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which she denied the circumstances that appears against her, pleaded innocence and has submitted that due to sorrow after death of her husband, his family members have falsely implicated her in the offence only to keep her away from the property of the deceased.
5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is lack of evidence with respect to abetment to commit suicide or instigation and merely some incident between husband and wife does not amounted to abetment to commit suicide. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent/accused that she abetted the deceased to commit suicide. She would further submit that on 30-05-2020 the deceased Tej Prakash Sahu met with an accident when he 3 along with his mother were going in his car and the said car fell down in Kotani Anicut whereby the mother Tej Prakash had died and the deceased was survived in that accident. At the time of last rites of his mother the present respondent/accused came to the house of the deceased and she teased the deceased responsible for death of his mother and why did he alive and he should have died in that accident and immediately thereafter the deceased committed suicide which is the direct cause of the incident to commit suicide by the deceased Tej Prakash Sahu, in the close proximity of time the deceased was teased by the present respondent/accused in the condition of deep sorrow on account of death of his mother, which has been seen by the present complainant and therefore, the same should have been considered to be instigation and abetment to commit suicide. Instead of pacifying the deceased, the respondent/accused instigated him that he should have also died in the accident which dragged the deceased in deep sorrow and to unbearable mental pressure for which he committed suicide by hanging himself on neem tree adjacent to his house. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. She would further submit that the other evidences also supported the allegation against the respondent/accused that she instigated the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court.
8. PW-2 Bhumika Sahu is the complainant and appellant in the case. She stated in her evidence that the marriage between her brother and the accused was solemnized in the year 2014 and they begotten by their daughter in the year 2015. There was regular quarrel between them and after some time of marriage the respondent/accused left her brother and went to her parents 4 house. She used to reside in her parents house since 17-01-2017. The respondent/accused tortured her husband by one or other reason. Earlier also, the respondent/accused threatened her that she will commit suicide and rope her all the family members in a false case. In the year 2019 her brother has made a post in social media, Face Book, Instagram that if he would die, the respondent/accused is to be held liable. There was a divorce proceeding pending before the Family Court, Durg filed by her brother and due to Covid situation the proceeding could not be forwarded. In the month of May, 2020 there was an accident in which her mother has died and her brother was survived. At the time of her last rights on 31-05-2020 when they were preparing for other customs of last rites there was quarrel between her brother and respondent/accused and she instigated her brother that why he has been survived and he too had to be died. She intervened in the quarrel between them and asked to take dinner. In the next morning she could not find her brother there and thereafter found her dead body in hanging condition on a tree adjacent to their house.
In cross-examination she stated that she has married with Bhem Kumar Sahu in the year 2004 and she is residing at her matrimonial house since then. Her sister has also married and residing at her matrimonial house. The respondent/accused used to visit her matrimonial house and after quarreling with her husband she used to return back to her parents house, but she did not know as to when and on what date she came to her matrimonial house. She admitted that till the lifetime of her brother she has not made any complaint to police about quarrel between them. She admitted that due to death of her mother, her brother was in deep sorrow. She further admitted that she filed an application against the respondent/accused before the revenue court and in that revenue proceeding she filed a copy of will deed executed by her brother.
Considering the entire evidence of this witness it only transpires that a 5 day before the date of incident there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and it is alleged that due to said quarrel the deceased committed suicide which was the direct result of instigation and harassment made by her to the deceased.
9. PW-1 Bhem Kumar Sahu, is brother-in-law of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that he visited the house of the deceased on the occasion of death of his mother on 30-05-2020 and participated in the final rites of his mother-in-law. On 31-05-2020 when they were preparing for third day custom after death there was quarrel started between the respondent/accused and her husband. When he asked from his wife about the quarrel she disclosed that there was a dispute between them and the respondent/accused said that he too should have died along with his mother. The deceased Tej Prakash was in deep sorrow and was in deep mental stress. There was a divorce proceeding pending between them before Family Court, Durg. In the next morning they found the deceased committed suicide by hanging on a tree adjacent to their house.
Except the dispute between husband and wife there is nothing in his evidence that the deceased was abetted or instigated by the respondent/accused.
10. PW-3 Shain Kumar Sahu is the cousin brother of the deceased. He too has stated about the dispute between the husband and wife and also stated that he heard the quarrel between them and he came to know from his neighbour that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in a neem tree. Though in cross-examination he denied that he has not seen their quarrel, but that itself would not sufficient to hold that the deceased was being abetted to commit suicide particularly when the quarrel was with his wife and there is evidence that there was frequent quarrel between them.
11. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile.
6
12. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence produced by the prosecution and after considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Sanju @ Sanjay Vs. State of M.P, AIR 2002 SC 1998 that even if the deceased was asked to go and die, that itself is not sufficient to hold guilty the accused for the offence of abetment to commit suicide as the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC is missing and after considering the evidence and the settled proposition of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments the respondent/accused has been acquitted.
13. To constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1)SCC 433, in which it was observed as under:-
"20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
"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.
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.
22. Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:
"107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-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.7
Explanation 1- A person, who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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 doing.
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."
Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.
27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. 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."
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) 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 8 accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
29. 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 vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190."
14. Recently in Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025(4)SCC 801, the Supreme Court held as under:
12. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who 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 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3..... Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events......"
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:-
"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 9 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."
16. 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.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) "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 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."
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where from an inference of the appellant accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn."
18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
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 10 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
15. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court and the evidence available on record, it would certainly not be held that the respondent accused, by her act, created the circumstances which left the deceased with no other option, except to commit suicide.
16. The trial Court after adverting entire evidence considered that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and comes to the conclusion that there is lack of evidence with respect to abetment to commit suicide or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The view taken by the trial Court is one of the plausible view which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal under the facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record
17. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."
18. In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the 11 Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
19. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :-
"27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record."
20. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
21. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil