The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on the part of the accused to establish the offence of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 17.02.2014 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.97/2010, whereby, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting her daughter-in-law (deceased – Pratibha Singh Thakur) to commit suicide.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with son of the respondent on 23.06.2007. It is admitted position that the respondent is a teacher and deceased was an educated woman. On 03.01.2009, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself by using Chunari in her matrimonial house. After the incident, father-in-law of the deceased namely, Ashwini Kumar Thakur has lodged Merg intimation at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg vide Ex.P-1. Thereafter, spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-2. After issuing the notice vide Ex.P-3, death inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4. The deceased has also left the suicide note which was written in the diary seized as Article-A. One mobile, one dot pen and broken bolt of the door were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide PM report (Ex.P-16), cause of death was opined to be “asphyxia due to hanging”. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and FIR was registered against the accused on 06.01.2009 vide Ex.P-10.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she took the plea that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas, the respondent/accused in her defence examined herself.

5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against her by the judgment impugned. Against the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.

6. Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and looking to the circumstances in which the suicide has been committed, the respondent/accused deserves to be convicted. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set-aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the necessary ingredients to establish the abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC are missing and there is want of basic element of Section 107 of the IPC. He further submits that there was no instigation on the part of the respondent to abet her to commit suicide in any manner. The deceased herself was hypersensitive lady and only a suggestion was put by the respondent to the deceased not to put her garments in an open place. On such trivial issue, the deceased took such extreme step. Therefore, act of the deceased does not constitute the offence of abetment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the judgments of this Court in the matter of Surendra Kumar Vs. State of CG, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4193 and Sandeep Mishra Vs. State of CG through Secretary and Ors., 2020 SCC OnlIne Chh 1486 : (2020) 3 CGLJ 7. He also submits that law is well established with regard to scope of acquittal and whenever two views are possible, no interference is required by the Appellate Court and he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of State of CG through District Magistrate Vs. Tribhuwan Paswan and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4249. He lastly submits that the judgment passed by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

9. In the matter of Surendra Kumar (Supra), this Court, while dealing with an issue relating to Section 306 of th