To convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active act of instigation that leaves the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide; ordinary disputes or casual threats do not constitute abetment.

Order on Board

1. The present is acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09-09-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surguja place Ambikapur in Sessions Case No.25/2015 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted from the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02-12-2014 deceased Jasmatiyabai committed suicide by hanging herself by jackfruit tree in kitchen-garden of her house. In the next morning her dead body was seen by her son PW-3 Vinod and merg intimation was informed to police. The dead body was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Center Sitapur where Doctor N. Nikunj PW-1 conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.-P/1 in which he opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to hanging. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and the FIR was registered against the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 306, 34 of the IPC. After due investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Sitapur. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge Surguja place Ambikapur for its trial.

3. The learned trial Court has framed charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the charge against the respondents/accused persons the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appeared against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. It has also been submitted by the accused persons with respect to their ancestral land a civil litigation is pending at Sitapur Civil Court and a temporary injunction order has been passed in their favour. They have no nexus with the alleged incident of suicide of the deceased and there was no altercation with her on the date of incident.

5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused persons from the alleged offence holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no ingredients of abetment to commit suicide to the deceased or to instigate her to commit suicide, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradiction the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable to convict the respondents/accused persons for the offence in question. The son of the deceased Vinod PW-3, mother of the deceased Sukhanibai PW-5 have clearly deposed that on the date of incident itself there was a threat to the deceased by accused persons with respect to the land dispute. He would further submit that on 25-11-2014 the incident of altercation occurred between the deceased and the respondents/accused persons for which the deceased has lodged a report to police and since no action was taken by police, the deceased made a complaint to SDO(police). She was returning back from the office of SDO (Police) on the way the accused persons threatened her with dire consequences which culminated into her suicide which directly connects the accused