The court reinforced that to convict for abetment of suicide, clear mens rea and direct acts of instigation must be evidenced, mere disputes are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2007 passed by Digitally signed the learned 2^nd Upper Session Judge (FTC), Janjgir (C.G.) in ST by No.77/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of the deceased Tikaitin Bai was solemnized with the accused/appellant prior to 4 years of the incident. Owing to dashgatra in the family of the appellant due to demise of his grandmother, the mother of the deceased had left her to her matrimonial house and after 9 days therefrom, she committed suicide by consuming liquor. The appellant tried to hospitalize her but she could not be hospitalized and died. Thereafter a case was registered against the appellant by the family of the deceased. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There were only tiny issues between the appellant and the deceased but the appellant never tortured or harassed her and she himself committed suicide by consuming poison. The ingredients of Sections 107 & 306 of IPC are not attracted and there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the deceased committed suicide either on the instigation or any short of abetment caused by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others vs State of Gujarat , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 116 , Mohit Singhal and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others , reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Ramkumar and others vs State of Chhattisgarh , passed in CRA No.730/2003, decided on 04.09.2024

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. PW-1 Dr. Umesh Kumar Markam conducted postmortem of deceased and opined that mode of death is asphyxia and cause of death is unknown and gave his report (Ex-P/1). He admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that asphyxia can be caused due to vomiting and diarrhea. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that death of the deceased was suicidal in nature.

8. PW-2 Budharu Ram, father of the deceased, stated that the deceased Tikaitin Bai married to appellant prior to 4 to 5 years of the incident and thereafter the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased and subsequently there was compromise between them vide Ex-P/4. The appellant did not do any work and used to doubt on her character.

9. PW-3 Kheekh Bai, mother of deceased stated that the appellant used to torture and harass her daughter and panchayat was also convened in this regard and thereafter compromise was done between them but even then the appellant used to torture her daughter. She further stated tha