[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mohd. Yasir Khan on 26 February, 2026

                                                       1


SUNITA
GOSWAMI



Digitally signed
by SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Date:
2026.02.26
18:48:51
+0530
                                                                            2026:CGHC:10134


                                                                                     NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                            ACQA No. 207 of 2021

                   State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur
                   Chhattisgarh. (Now District Gourela Pendra Marwahi).

                                                                                 ...Appellant

                                                    versus

                   1 - Mohd. Yasir Khan S/o Abdul Hamid Khan, Aged About 26 Years R/o Aazad
                   Chowk, Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

                   2 - Shalu @ Salman S/o Dilwar Khan, Aged About 25 Years R/o New Bus
                   Stand, Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

                   3 - Vikki @ Vikas Gupta S/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Aged About 29 Years
                   R/o Purani Basti, Ward No. 4, Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi
                   Chhattisgarh.

                                                                            ... Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy.A.G. For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 26.02.2026

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality

and propriety of the judgment dated 24.11.2020, passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (CG) in

Sessions Trial No.28/2019, whereby, the respondents have been

acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of

IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged on

17.07.2018 at 17.45 hours by the uncle of the deceased - Chhotu @

Sanket Keshari before the Police Station- Pendra, District Bilaspur,

stating therein, that his nephew has committed suicide by hanging

himself from an iron rod inside the well, based upon some unknown

reason. An enquiry was, thereupon, conducted and it was revealed that

the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500/- from Mohd. Yasir

Khan and Shalu @ Salman, while Rs.1,120/- from another accused,

namely, Vikki @ Vikas Gupta, who used to torture and harass him for

refund of the loan amount as advanced. It is alleged further that on 15 th

and 16th of July, 2018, they abused the deceased while using filthy

words and assaulted him, owing to which, he committed suicide and

based upon the alleged allegation, the respondents have been charge-

sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of

IPC.

3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the statement of brother of

the deceased, namely, Saket Keshari, was examined as PW-1 and

according to him, it appears that he was informed on the date of

incident by his deceased brother that the accused- Vikki has assaulted

him on account of the alleged loan transaction and has looted his

mobile and, it was deposed further that on account of the alleged loan

transaction, the accused persons have used to assault him and looted

his mobile as well. It, however, appears further from his cross-

examination, particularly para 5, as to why he was not aware that why

he has committed suicide.

4. According to the uncle of the deceased, namely, Sandip Keshari (PW-

2), it appears that his nephew was assaulted by the respondents on

account of the loan transaction and, it reveals further from para 7 of his

testimony that prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, his

deceased nephew has not informed anything and was not aware as to

what had happened with him.

5. Rajendra Keshari (PW-3) is the father of the deceased and according to

him, he was informed by his younger brother, namely, Sachin on

16.07.2018 that the respondent- Vikki has assaulted his son as also

looted his mobile and, was informed further that he obtained his said

mobile from him by giving him Rs.1,000/-.

6. Pranjul Keshari (PW-4) is the cousin of the deceased and it appears

from his testimony that he went to the house of Vikki along with the

deceased, where in front of his house, he looted the mobile of the

deceased and about to fighting with him on account of the alleged loan

transaction. Although, it was stated by him that prior to the occurrence

of the incident, the deceased was threatened by the respondents- Yasir

Khan and Shalu, but from his cross-examination at para 2, it appears

that he was not aware when he was assaulted by them.

7. Smt. Kumud Keshari (PW-6) is the mother of the deceased and it

appears from her testimony that she was informed by her brother-in-law

(Devar), namely, Sachin that her son was assaulted by the

respondents, and also looted his mobile. It was, however, stated by her

that she is not aware why her son has committed suicide and, was not

aware that because of the torture given by the respondents, he has

taken such an extreme step of committing suicide.

8. Sachin Keshari (PW-7) is the uncle of the deceased and it appears from

his testimony that the mobile of the deceased was looted by the

respondents- Yasir and Shalu, as the deceased was not refunding the

loan amount, which he borrowed from them. Further of his testimony,

particularly para 6, would reveal the fact that the deceased has not

committed suicide because of the quarrel, which was taken place

between him with the respondents- Yasir and Shalu and instead, it was

deposed by him that he committed suicide because a quarrel of him

was taken place near Bajrang Chowk with some other persons.

9. In view of the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is

difficult to hold that the deceased has committed suicide because of the

harassment or any kind of instigation given by them. No cogent and

reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold

that the deceased has committed suicide because of the abetment

given by them.

10. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v.

State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628, wherein, it was held

that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific

abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the

accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person

concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held

therein that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet

the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306

IPC.

11. Likewise is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter

of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707,

wherein, it has been held at para 12 as under :-

"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." (emphasis supplied)

12. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-

referred matters, it is, thus, evident that in order to bring a case within

the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in

the commission of the said offence, the person, who is said to have

abetted the commission of suicide, must have played an active role by

an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission

of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with

the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution

before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. However, in the

instant matter, as observed herein-above, no cogent and reliable

evidence has been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the

respondents have abetted or instigated the deceased for taking such an