Insufficient evidence of instigation led to the upholding of acquittal in abetment of suicide case, affirming that claims must be backed by credible corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1 This appeal is preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 31/2013 by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, in connection with Crime No. 226/2012 registered at Police Station – Kumhari, District – Durg (C.G.).

2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the accused, Rohit Baghel, was married to Jyoti Baghel in 2011. On April 21, 2012, Jyoti Baghel was found hanging in her in-laws' residence at Roop Nagar, Uriya Mohalla, Kumhari, Police Station-Kumhari, District-Durg (Chhattisgarh). Upon receiving information from her husband, Rohit Baghel, a Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-10) was lodged at Kumhari Police Station. Dead body panchnama (Exhibit P-2) was prepared, and the body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-13) conducted the postmortem examination and submitted a report (Exhibit P- 23), stating that Jyoti Baghel's death was caused by asphyxia due to hanging. During the examination, it was also found that the deceased was approximately 16-18 weeks pregnant. A handwritten note was found in the deceased's undergarments during the postmortem examination, which was marked as Exhibit P-21 and Exhibit P-22. The said handwritten note was examined by Additional State Document Examiner, Kumari Manisha Dubey (PW-12). She submitted her examination report (Exhibit P-20), stating that the sample handwriting of the deceased, Jyoti Baghel, and the letters found in Exhibit P- 21 and Exhibit P-22 were in the same handwriting. In the letter, it was mentioned that the accused, Rohit Baghel, used to abuse and quarrel with Jyoti after drinking alcohol, and also told her not to return if she went to her parents' house, and further claimed that the pregnancy was not his. After the merg inquiry, the police registered an FIR (Exhibit P-15), recorded the statements of the witnesses, and after completing the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3 To bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused denied the evidence against him, claiming that he has been falsely implicated and that he is innocent. However, the accused has not adduced any evidence in his defence. After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed the aforesaid impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal.

4 Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court found Exhibits P-21 and P-22, the suicide notes of the deceased Jyoti Baghel, to be genuine. In these notes, the deceased clearly accused the respondent of arguing with her after drinking alcohol, harassing her, and refusing to acknowledge her pregnancy as his own. He further submits that the character assassination and harassment inflicted by the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The trial Court erred in drawing its conclusions by disbelieving the evidence, and its findings are not sustainable in law. The prosecution's case against the accused has been proved. Therefore, the order of acquittal under question is liable to be set aside, the appeal may be allowed, and the accused may be convicted and sentenced as per law.

5 Learned counsel for the accused/respondent submits that there is no reliable evidence on record to suggest that the deceased, Jyoti Baghel, was subjected to harassment by the accused. The alleged letter does not mention any specific incident. A perusal of the letter does not indicate that the deceased committed suicide due to any instigation by the accused. He further submits that if a person says something in a fit of anger, it cannot be concluded solely on that basis that the suicide was instigated by that statement. In