Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sachin Singh Rajput, J
Vikas Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ACQA No. 1096 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Aniruddh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Vedant Shadangi, PL, Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
An offence of abetment of suicide requires proof of a positive, proximate act of instigation or intentional aid. Mere harassment or matrimonial discord does not satisfy the statutory requirements unless accompanied by a clear mens rea to drive the victim to commit suicide.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Ingredients to establish offence - To succeed, prosecution must prove intentional aid or instigation by accused - Mere harassment or discord, without proximate and positive act, does not constitute abetment - Essential to show clear mens rea to force victim into a situation leaving no alternative but self-destruction. (Paras 23, 24, 30, 31, 36)
(B) Appeal - Against acquittal - Factors for interference - Appellate Court must exercise power with caution - Double presumption of innocence in favour of accused exists - Interference warranted only if findings of lower court are perverse, palpably wrong, or demonstrably unsustainable - Not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 37, 39, 40, 41)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a trial court order acquitting an individual of the charge of abetment of suicide. The deceased had died by consuming poison. The prosecution alleged that the accused had continuously threatened and harassed the deceased, creating mental distress. An application was filed at the appellate stage to admit additional documents as evidence, which had been available but were not produced during the trial.
Findings of Court:
The court rejected the application for additional evidence, noting it was an attempt to fill lacunae. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove any positive or proximate act of instigation. Telephonic conversations alone did not establish harassment, and the omnibus allegations were insufficient to meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under the statute.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused had committed acts constituting abetment of suicide and whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or warranted appellate interference.
Ratio Decidendi: To constitute abetment, there must be a positive act of incitement or an intentional aid that is proximate to the act of suicide. Discord alone does not suffice. As the findings of the trial court were reasoned and based on the evidence, there was no ground to disturb the acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for section 306 ipc abetment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. evidence regarding the cause of death and witness testimony. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. essential ingredients for abetment of suicide under section 306/107 ipc. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. appellate powers and principles regarding appeals against acquittal. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. final adjudication dismissing the appeal and affirming acquittal. (Para 44 , 45) |
1. The present acquittal appeal filed under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS, 2023”) has been preferred by the appellant who is the brother of the deceased challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment of acquittal dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 34/2023 whereby the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 was married to the deceased Amit Singhal in November, 2020 and the said marriage was dissolved after about 6–7 months. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 2017 deceased Amit Singhal had married with one Priyanka Agrawal. Thus, the marriage of the deceased Amit Singhal with the accused Jyoti Singhal was his second marriage. It is also admitted that the accused Jyoti Singhal had been married twice earlier and her marriage with the deceased was her third marriage. In July, 2021 respondent No. 2 went to her parental home but she continued to quarrel with the deceased over the telephone, as a result of which the deceased remained mentally disturbed and distressed. On 23.09.2021 at about 2:00 a.m. on account of continuous cruelty and instigation, the deceased allegedly committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide pesticide and thereby committed suicide. He was taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur where he died during the course of treatment. The death was reported to City Kotwali, Bilaspur where Crime No. 27/2021 (Ex. P/37) was registered and a merg inquiry was conducted. During the merg inquiry, statements of witnesses were recorded, the spot map was prepared, the suicide note was seized vide Ex. P/5, call detail records were obtained, the viscera report was seized and treatment-related documents were collected. Upon completion of the inquiry, a prima facie case under Section 306 of the IPC was found to be made out. Consequently, FIR Ex. P/29 under Section 306 of the IPC in Crime No. 337/2021 was registered at City Kotwali, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded, various articles were seized. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination and the FSL report was received. In the viscera of the deceased, aluminium phosphide pesticide was detected. The suicide note and other seized documents were sent for comparison to the handwriting expert, who submitted his report vide Ex. P/35. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against respondent No. 2 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who thereafter committed the case to the learned Sessions Court for trial, where it was assigned to the learned trial Court.
3. Respondent No. 2 was charged for the aforesaid offence. She denied the charges, pleaded innocence and claimed trial. In all, 37 prosecution documents were exhibited and 3 defence documents were marked. The statement of respondent No. 2 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in which she claimed false implication and pleaded innocence.
