Chattisgarh High Court
The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shivlal Jaiswal on 12 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:7940
NAFR
Digitally signed by
INDRAJEET INDRAJEET SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SAHU Date: 2026.02.23
10:47:50 +0530
ACQA No. 403 of 2024
1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Shivlal Jaiswal S/o Late Mahadev Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years
R/o House No.4, Vivekanand Nagar Kisan Rice Mill Marg Ambikapur, Police
Station- Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Govt. Advocate and Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment on Board
12.02.2026
1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section378(3) CrPC has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.03.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Case No.36/2020 where by the respondent accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the intervening night of 29- 30.12.2018 the deceased Manoj Singh committed suicide in his house by hanging himself. The merg was reported to the police. During merg enquiry, the dead body was sent for its postmortem and statement of witnesses were recorded. After the statement, an FIR Ex.P/24 was registered against the respondent accused for the offence under 2 Section 306 IPC. During investigation, a suicidal note was recovered from the purse of the deceased which was kept in back pocket of his pant. The said suicidal note was written in back side of a cheque of his bank account. The said suicidal note was sent for its examination to Handwriting Expert at State Examiner of Questioned Document, Police Headquarter, Raipur and a report was obtained.
3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused person before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, from where the case was committed for its trial to Sessions Court and the same was transferred to the trial court. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the respondent accused. The accused denied the allegations and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish the allegation against the respondent, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of accused person under Section 313 CrPC have also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and have submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.
5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court acquitted the respondent accused persons from all the offence vide judgment dated 14.03.2022 which is under challenge in the present Acquittal Appeal by the State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are completely reliable which have been supported by the suicidal note written by the 3 deceased. In suicidal note he clearly pointed towards the harassment met by the respondent accused by which he committed suicide. In the eve of alleged incident, the deceased shared his condition to his mother PW-3 Satni Devi who duly proved the harassment given by the respondent to the deceased. The deceased was indebted from various persons and respondent was pressurizing him for refund of his amount despite having paid the excess amount towards interest and principal. From the evidence of witnesses PW-2 & PW-4, the prosecution has proved that in close proximity of time the deceased was harassed by the respondent and he was having no option except to commit suicide. The suicidal note has wrongly been disbelieved by the trial court and the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse in view of evidence available on record. From Call Detail Report and WhatsApp chatting report obtained by the police from the Cyber Cell which was extracted from the mobile phone of accused as well as the witnesses, it clearly transpires that day before incident he made chatting with his friend which clearly shows the depression of deceased by the act of respondent accused. Therefore, there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence available on record against respondent accused, yet he has been acquitted by mis-appreciating the evidence available on record and therefore the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent accused opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the State and would submit that ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is missing and there is no instigation or abetment by the respondent to commit suicide by the 4 deceased. The deceased was indebted by various persons. There is no specific date and time as to when the respondent harassed him for demand of his money back. There is no abetment to commit suicide. The telephonic call and chatting is with respect to some other persons and transaction which he made with another witness. Even if it is presumed that respondent demanded his money back, that itself cannot be a ground to implicate him in the offence of abetment of suicide as the deceased was having various other modes to convince himself against harassment of accused person, if any. The suicidal note allegedly recovered from the pocket of the deceased is not clear about any harassment and the trial court the rightly disbelieved the suicidal note for commission of offence of abetment to suicide. Further, there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of his mother PW-3 Satni Devi. She made exaggerated statement with that of her police statement. The consideration of trial court while acquitting the respondent is one of the plausible view under the evidence available on record and therefore there is no perversity or illegality in the acquittal of the respondent accused and the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court.
9. The suicidal death of the deceased Manoj Singh is not in dispute. He died in his own house by hanging and as per the evidence of PW-6, Dr. B.C. Paikra, the death is suicidal in nature. It is alleged against the respondent accused in the case that deceased was indebted by 5 various persons and the respondent harassed him for return of his money back despite entire borrowed amount along with interest were already repaid to him. In the suicidal note the deceased have alleged that the present respondent is the person who is responsible for his death because he harassed him for demand of his money back. Perusal of the suicidal note, allegedly written by the deceased in the back side of cheque of his bank account which is annexed at page No.436 of the present Acquittal Appeal, it transpires that there is no specific date mentioned in the suicidal note as to on which date the deceased was being harassed by the respondent accused.
10. From perusal of impugned judgment it further reveals that the investigating officer has sent the said suicidal note for its examination from State Examiner of Questioned Document after about 3 and ½ months and the specimen of writing of the deceased was quite old and firstly it was returned back by the examiner to send it again along with recent specimen handwriting of the deceased, but it was again sent to State Examiner for its examination as it is. The investigating officer, PW-7, R.P. Sahu, have also admitted that from the report obtained from Cyber Cell with respect to mobile phone of the deceased and the accused, it was found that there was no conversation between them at the relevant point of time and there is no evidence available that deceased was being harassed by the respondent accused for demand of money.
11. From evidence of PW-3, Satni Devi, the mother of deceased, it also transpires that in her chief examination she stated that a day before the date of incident her son informed about the harassment by present 6 respondent accused and her son was in very scaring condition, however, in cross examination she states that she disclosed in her police statement that her son has informed about harassment of respondent regarding borrowed amount and repayment of same along with interest and if it is not there in her police statement she could not know the reason. She further states that she also disclosed in police statement that a day before the incident her son disclosed about harassment of the accused, however if it is also not there in her police statement, she could not tell the reason.
12. PW-2, Alok Singh, have stated in his evidence that a month before the date of incident the respondent accused came to his house and asked about the deceased and informed that the deceased has taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/-and he demanded his money back along with interest. After about 7-10 days of that incident he again demanded his money back when they met at Ambedkar Chowk and threatened the deceased. Thereafter on 30.12.2018 he was being called by his mother that the deceased has committed suicide. From the evidence of this witness it also transpires that deceased was indebted for Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent accused and respondent demanded his money back along with interest, however, that incident of demand was made a month's prior to date of incident.
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 7 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.
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.
23. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" to have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section 498A IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as well. "113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed 8 suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
24. In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A of the Code also demand extraction.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
25. This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the husband of a woman or the relative of his, punishable thereby with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The explanation thereto defining "cruelty" enfolds: any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman, where it is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her, to meet such demand.
26. Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.
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 9 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 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.
30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised."
10
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 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 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 36843 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.
11
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 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 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:
36843 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.
20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar."
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 12 respondent accused, by his 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 his 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 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."13
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 accused/respondents 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 inder