Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ajay Sharma on 12 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:7939
Digitally signed
ALOK
by ALOK
SHARMA
NAFR
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.09
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
11:00:28 +0530
ACQA No. 424 of 2024
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotraroad, Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Ajay Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o
Kharakkela District Bhivani, Haryana.
2 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o
Kharakkela District Bhivani, Haryana.
3 - Smt. Santoshi Devi W/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o
Kharakkela District Bhivani, Haryana.
4 - Omprakash Sharma S/o Surajman Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o
Kharakkela District Bhivani, Haryana.
5 - Amit Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o
Kharakkela, District Bhivani, Haryana.
6 - Praveen Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 26 Years R/o
Kharakkela District Bhivani, Haryana.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant/State : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. U. K. Singh Chandel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board 12/02/2026 2
1. The present is an acquittal appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Appellant/State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.05.2019 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 108/2015, whereby the respondent/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2015 at about 8:45 AM, a report was lodged at Police Station Kotraroad, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. It was reported that the accused persons had quarreled with the deceased Alka and harassed her by making allegations regarding her character. Being distressed by such harassment, she locked herself inside the bedroom at night and slept with her two children. In the morning, when her health deteriorated, she was admitted to the hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. The deceased's brother, Pawan Sharma, and Ram Mehar stated that Alka was being beaten and harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brothers-in- law in connection with dowry demands. Suspicion was specifically expressed against her husband Ajay Sharma and her brother-in-law Shalu alias Rajesh Sharma for assaulting her and causing her death. On the basis of the complainant's report, an offence was registered and taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 232/15 was filed against the accused persons under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The learned trial court has framed the charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306/149 of IPC and they denied the charge and claimed trial.
3
3. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/ accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appear against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. One defence witness has been examined by the accused persons.
4. After appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent/ accused persons from the alleged offence holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are sufficient evidence with respect to the abetment to commit suicide or instigation. Hence this acquittal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are overwhelming evidence against the respondent/ accused persons that they instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there are ample evidence to abatement to commit suicide. He would also submit that from the evidence of PW-11 Usha Rani, PW-12 Jitendra Kumar, PW-13 Ram Mehar, PW-14 Sudesh Pal, PW-15 Pawan Kumar Sharma, PW- 19 Yogesh Mudgil, PW-21 Tekchand, PW-24 Pushpendra who are the close relatives of the deceased have duly established the demand made by the deceased and harassment to her by the accused persons. The deceased was married with respondent No.1 Ajay Sharma in the year 2004 and within a short span of their matrimonial life they started harassing her by demanding more dowry. Due to her matrimonial knot she had not made any complaint to anyone to the same cannot be 4 considered for a ground of acquittal. The minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are but natural as they acted and considered the harassment to the deceased on their own way. There was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide and except the harassment of the accused persons. The act of the respondent accused persons itself demonstrated their continuous course of conduct which are very well defines the abetment to commit suicide of the deceased, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the accused persons may be convicted for the alleged offence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent accused persons supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and would submit that after adverting the entire evidence available as well as the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent accused persons which is does not required to be any interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.
8. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered that except the Usha Rani PW- 11, all the other witnesses have admitted in their evidence that the deceased have not made any complaint to them and there was material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses with that of their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
9. The learned trial Court has also considered that the witnesses were interested to the deceased as they were close and in view of the secure conviction of the accused persons they made their evidence. The learned trial Court considered that the deceased was married with 5 the accused Ajay Sharma in the year 2004 and till 2015 there was no allegation against the accused persons with respect to the alleged harassment. There is no allegation that in the close proximity of the incident there was any incident there was any incident of harassment or abetment to commit suicide to the deceased. PW-9 Sushma Sharma is the neighbour of the deceased ans she too have supported the prosecution case.
10. The learned trial Court has further considered that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison and as per her post-mortem report the cause of death was suspected poisoning. There was no ante-mortem injuries were found on her body which clearly demonstrate that there was no cruelty committed with her brother her death. In para-26 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court has clearly observed that the aforesaid witnesses have not raised any allegation for abetment to commit suicide or cruelty with the deceased and thus by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of either cruelty or abetment to commit suicide, acquitted the respondent accused persons from the alleged offence.
11. From the evidence of PW-11 Smt. Usha Rani who is the mother of the deceased, it transpires that she alleged the harassment by in-laws of the deceased and it was the general and omnibus allegation and there is no specific allegation of harassment in the close proximity of the incident. Even after her lengthy cross-examination the prosecution witnesses could not stand on the allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in the close proximity for which she committed suicide.
12. PW-12, Jitendra Kumar, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased. 6
13. PW-13 Ram Mehar, who is the brother of the deceased. PW-14, Sudesh Pal, is the brother in law of the deceased. PW-15 Pawan Sharma, is the brother of the deceased. PW-19, Yogesh Mugdil, is the cousin brother of the deceased have made general and omnibus allegation of harassment.
14. The learned trial Court further considered that in all these affairs and sequence of the events, there was no any ingredients of abatement to commit suicide or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
15. 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 7 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 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 8 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 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 9 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."
16. 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 10 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 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 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.
17. 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 his act, created the circumstances which left the deceased with no other option, except to commit suicide.
12
18. 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
19. Recently, 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" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:-
"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."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, 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 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 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
21. After considering the material available on record as well as the well- reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much 13 conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (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. I therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok