The necessity of proving mens rea for instigation in cases of abetment, as established in the legal position reiterated in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

Vimla Jain, J.

The appellant/State preferred this appeal u/s 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.5.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa, in Criminal Case No. 187/1994 whereby respondent/accused Narbada Prasad had been acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that respondent used to live at the house of Sukkhi along with his wife Kali. The deceased Kali was the first wife of respondent accused and deceased Sukkhi was the mother of Kali. He had kept another lady as his wife due to which he used to beat his first wife deceased Kali and mother-in-law Sukkhi. On 21.3.1993 at about 6 a.m. respondent accused had beaten deceased Kali and Sukkhi and on hearing the noise Madho Prasad and Baijnath reached on the spot. The respondent saw them and went to the field. On being tortured by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide by consuming sulphas. At 10 a.m. respondent Narbada returned home and found that Kali and Sukkhi had died. He went to police station and informed about their death. Police reached the spot and prepared the Panchanama and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The police seized the 'viscera' received from the Hospital. The police also collected the blood stained earth and plane earth from the spot. It was found that on account of torture by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide. Therefore, a crime was registered. The accused-respondent was arrested and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After appreciating the evidence, the Court below acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence u/s 306 of IPC.

2. The respondent/accused abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that he had been falsely implicated in the case.

3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and the respondent/accused examined two witnesses in his defence.

4. The Court below did not find the respondent/accused guilty u/s 306 of IPC and acquitted him from the charges levelled against him.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

6. Mr. Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution amply proved that the respondent/accused Narbada Prasad had tortured the deceased Kali and Sukkhi due to which they committed suicide. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He prayed that the respondent/accused should be punished.

7. On the contrary, Mr. G.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. Hence, no interference is called for.

8. The question for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Court below was justified in acquitting the respondent from the charge u/s 306 of IPC?

9. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of Gajadhar Singh Solanki, ASI, Police Chowki, Raghunathgunj, PW3, Ramwati, PW4, Ramdhari, Chowkidar, village Itha, PW7, and Baijnath, PW8, are relevant. It had not been disputed that the death of deceased Sukkhi and Kali occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Gajadhar Singh, PW3, the then A.S.I., Police Chowki Raghunathgunj, deposed that on 21.3.1993 getting information from Narbada Prasad that his (Narbada Prasad's) mother-in-law and wife had eaten sulphas and died, he went to the spot and prepared spot map, Ex. P/1, and he recorded the statements of Kalawati, Ramwati, Baijnath, Madhav Prasad, Ramdhari, Ramanuj and Ramsiya. He furt