1
2026:CGHC:14138
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1597 of 2016
Golu Sahu @ Manoj Sahu S/o Shri Kalyan Sahu Aged About 26
Years R/o Pandri Tarai, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Of Police Station
Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 281 of 2017
1. Ravi Yadav @ Khiladi S/o Shri Hemaram Yadav, Aged About 28
Years R/o Pandri, Tarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
2. Chini @ Manoj Yadav, S/o Nohar Lal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years
R/o Nehru Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Date:
2026.03.25
15:34:14
+0530
Chhattisgarh
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Devendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 117 of 2017
Keshav Baghel S/o Manohar Baghel, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Pandri, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
---Appellant(s)
2
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Devendra Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 1621 of 2016
Sanjay @ Sanju Bangali S/o Late Sarad Gain, Aged About 42
Years R/o Pandri Tarai, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Devendra Nagar,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 1620 of 2016
Nand Kumar @ Bandhu Janghel S/o Late Jituram Janghel, Aged
About 45 Years R/o Near Pandri Tarai Mandi Gate, Janghel Plaza,
Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
---Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate
In CRA Nos. 1620/2016 & 117/2017
For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, along with M.L. Saket
Ms. Kaushaki Kumari, Mr. K.N. Singh
and Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advs.
In CRA Nos. 1621/2016 & 281/2017
For Appellant : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate
For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
24.03.2026
1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2016,
passed in Session Trial No. 60/2016 by which the learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Convicted under Sentenced to
Sections
147/149 of IPC to each Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of
appellants payment of which, additional
S.I. for three months
323/149 of IPC to each Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of
appellants payment of which, additional
S.I. for three months
341 of IPC to each appellants Fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
payment of which, additional
S.I. for one months
306 of IPC to each appellants R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.
1000/- in default of payment
of which, additional S.I. for 3
months
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the information furnished
by the complainant, Parikshit Singh, on 04.11.2015 at about 06:00
PM, the deceased, Dharanidhar Pratap Singh @ Rohit, was
returning to his house on a motorcycle along with his landlord,
Dharamveer Nayak, after purchasing distemper. On the way, their
motorcycle accidentally struck against a scooter parked by Ravi
Yadav, which gave rise to a dispute. On account of the said
incident, the accused Bandhu Janghel, along with his associates, in
furtherance of their common object, intercepted the motorcycle in
front of the house of the landlord and started abusing the deceased
and his brother in filthy language and assaulted them by fists and
blows. The accused persons also extended threats to kill them.
Thereafter, the landlord intervened and rescued them and took
them inside the house. It is further the case of the prosecution that
the deceased, being frightened due to the assault and out of fear
and mental distress, went inside his room and committed suicide by
hanging himself from the ceiling fan. On the basis of the report
lodged by the complainant, Police Station Devendra Nagar
registered an offence against the accused persons under Sections
294, 506-B, 323, 147, 149, 341 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code
and took up the matter for investigation. Upon completion of the
investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the accused
persons, and accordingly, a charge-sheet was prepared and filed by
Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Raipur before the Court of
Shri Ashwani Kumar Chaturvedi, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Raipur.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 10 witnesses.
Statements of appellants (accused) were also recorded under
Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence
appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication.
However, no defence witnesses has been examined in his defence.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence
available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated
16.12.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the
manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court is contrary to law and facts available on record and is liable to
be set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face
value, does not make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
There is no material on record to establish that the appellants had
instigated, provoked or intentionally aided the deceased to commit
suicide. The essential ingredients of "abetment", as required under
Section 107 of the IPC, are completely absent in the present case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that the alleged
incident arose out of a trivial dispute relating to accidental collision
of a motorcycle with a parked scooter, and at the most, there was a
minor altercation and scuffle between the parties. The alleged act of
assault by fists and kicks, without any grave injury, cannot be said
to be of such a nature which would drive a reasonable person to
commit suicide. It is also argued that there is no proximate or direct
nexus between the alleged act of the appellants and the suicide
committed by the deceased. The prosecution has failed to establish
that the conduct of the appellants was of such intensity or continuity
which left the deceased with no option except to end his life. The
evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material
contradictions and omissions, and the same has not been properly
appreciated by the trial Court. Independent witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case in its entirety, and there is no
reliable evidence to prove unlawful assembly with a common object
to commit such offence. It is further contended that the trial Court
has erred in invoking Section 149 of the IPC in absence of any
cogent evidence to prove the existence of a common object to
commit the alleged offences, particularly the offence under Section
306 IPC. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is argued
that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, the offence, if
any, would not travel beyond Sections 323 and 341 IPC, for which
the appellants have already undergone sufficient hardship and
deserve leniency. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for
the appellants pray that the appeals be allowed, the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellants be set aside, and they be
acquitted of all the charges.
8. In support of of their contentions, learned counsel for the appellants
placed their reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matters of Geeta Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
2025LawSuit (SC) 1228, Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in Criminal Appeal No. 2177-
2185 of 2024.
9. Learned State Counsel submits that the prosecution has
successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt by
leading cogent, reliable and consistent evidence. It is contended
that the testimonies of material witnesses, namely PW-1 Jayanti
Nayak, PW-2 Dharamveer Nayak and PW-4 Parikshit Singh,
clearly prove that the accused persons, in furtherance of their
common object, formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the
deceased and his brother.
10. It is further submitted by the State Counsel that the incident was not
a solitary act but a series of acts, wherein the accused persons not
only assaulted and humiliated the deceased but also created an
atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The repeated acts of assault,
abuse and threat, coupled with the pressure exerted upon the
deceased, had a direct bearing on his mental condition, which
ultimately led him to commit suicide. Learned State Counsel further
argues that the recovery of the suicide note from the spot, duly
proved in accordance with law, and the report of the handwriting
expert conclusively establish that the deceased himself attributed
responsibility for his death to accused Bandhu Janghel and his
associates. This piece of evidence lends strong corroboration to the
oral testimony of prosecution witnesses.
11. It is also contended by the State Counsel that the medical evidence
clearly establishes that the death was suicidal in nature, and there is
no dispute regarding the cause of death. The chain of
circumstances, starting from the assault and humiliation to the
commission of suicide, is complete and points unerringly towards the
guilt of the accused persons.
12. Learned State Counsel further submits that minor discrepancies or
omissions in the statements of witnesses are natural and do not go to
the root of the matter. The core of the prosecution case remains
intact and trustworthy. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to hold the accused persons guilty for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 and 306 of
the Indian Penal Code and convict them in accordance with law.
13. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
recorded placed on record.
14. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the incident in question
had arisen out of a sudden quarrel on account of a minor issue
relating to collision with a parked scooter, and there was no
premeditation on the part of the appellants. The evidence available
on record, particularly the testimonies of PW-1 Jayanti Nayak, PW-2
Dharamveer Nayak and PW-4 Parikshit Singh, clearly establishes
that the appellants had assembled at the spot and were involved in
assaulting the deceased and his brother, thereby constituting
offences under Sections 147/149, 323/149 and 341 of the Indian
Penal Code.
15. The testimonies of PW-1 Jayanti Nayak, PW-2 Dharamveer Nayak
and PW-4 Parikshit Singh consistently establish that on the date of
incident, the appellants had assembled together and, on account of
the dispute arising from the collision with the parked scooter,
intercepted the deceased and his brother and assaulted them by
fists and blows. The evidence of these witnesses clearly
demonstrates the presence of the appellants at the spot and their
active participation in the incident. The version of PW-4 Parikshit
Singh, being an injured witness and brother of the deceased, carries
great evidentiary value and stands duly corroborated by PW-1
Jayanti Nayak. Even PW-2 Dharamveer Nayak, though partly
hostile, has admitted the material aspects of assault and abuse after
the parties returned from the police station.
16. It is further evident from the record that the appellants restrained the
deceased and his brother and subjected them to physical assault,
thereby attracting the ingredients of Sections 147, 149, 323 and 341
of the Indian Penal Code. The defence has failed to elicit any
material contradiction or improbability which could discredit the core
of the prosecution case. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial
Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has correctly
recorded the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147/149,
323/149 and 341 IPC, which calls for no interference by this Hon'ble
Court.
17. Insofar as the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC is
concerned, it is a settled principle of law that to bring home an
offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a
clear case of "abetment" within the meaning of Section 107 IPC,
which necessarily requires proof of instigation, conspiracy or
intentional aid. There must be a proximate and live link between the
acts of the accused and the decision of the deceased to commit
suicide. Mere harassment, quarrel or assault, in the absence of any
positive act of instigation or mens rea to drive the deceased to
commit suicide, is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section
306 IPC.
18. In order to hold a person guilty under Section 306 of the IPC, it is
necessary that the action of accused should fall within the ambit of
Section 107 of the IPC, which should comprise :-
(i) instigating a person to commit an offence.
(ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence;
(iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence
19. Section 306 of the I.P.C. makes abetment to commit suicide
punishable, therefore, prima faice the evidence must show a person
who has been roped in as an accused has abetted the commission
of suicide and the act of the accused must fall within the purview of
the three factors which have been stated herein above under Section
107 of the I.P.C. and it is necessary to prima facie establish that the
accused has instigated the person to commit suicide.
20. The prosecution has relied upon the suicide note; however, it is
submitted that mere naming of the accused in the suicide note,
without any specific attribution of acts amounting to instigation or
intentional aid, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section
306 IPC. The contents of the suicide note do not disclose any
positive act on the part of the appellants which could be construed
as abetment in terms of Section 107 IPC.
21. PW-1 Jayanti Nayak has deposed that the deceased Dharanidhar
@ Rohit was residing as a tenant in her house. On the date of the
incident, after a dispute arising from the collision of the motorcycle
with a parked scooter, the accused persons came near her house,
abused the deceased and his brother, and assaulted them. She
further stated that the quarrel continued intermittently and later in the
night, the deceased was found hanging in his room. She has
supported the prosecution case regarding the assault and
subsequent events leading to the death.
22. PW-2 Dharamveer Nayak, the landlord of the deceased, has partly
supported the prosecution case. Though he initially showed lack of
knowledge regarding the quarrel, upon being declared hostile, he
admitted that after returning from the police station, the accused
persons abused and assaulted the deceased and that his wife
intervened and separated them. He also stated that later in the night,
the deceased committed suicide.
23. PW-3 Raju Sinha has stated that he was residing in the same
premises and came to know that the deceased had committed
suicide. He further deposed that he had heard about a quarrel
between the deceased and some persons prior to the incident.
However, he did not fully support the prosecution case regarding the
role of the accused and was declared hostile.
24. PW-4 Parikshit Singh, the brother of the deceased and an important
witness, has deposed that there was a dispute between his brother
and the accused persons, who assaulted them. He specifically
stated that accused Bandhu Janghel slapped him and abused them,
and thereafter, a crowd gathered and they were beaten. He further
stated that later, when he returned to the room, he found the door
closed from inside and upon looking through a hole, saw his brother
hanging from the ceiling fan. He broke open the door, brought the
body down, and informed the police.
25. PW-5 Loknath Sahu has deposed that he came to know about the
suicide from PW-1 Jayanti Nayak and thereafter saw the deceased
hanging. He did not support the prosecution case regarding the
assault and was declared hostile.
26. PW-6 Gangeshwar Lal Sahu, the Investigating Officer, has deposed
regarding the registration of the FIR, preparation of the spot map,
seizure of articles including the notebook and other materials, and
arrest of the accused persons. He has also stated that the suicide
note and other documents were sent for handwriting examination.
27. PW-7 Shashi Paikra, another Investigating Officer, has deposed
regarding preparation of the inquest, seizure of the suicide note from
the spot, and other procedural aspects of the investigation.
28. PW-8 Rajesh Kumar Elma, the handwriting expert, has deposed
that upon examination, the handwriting in the suicide note matched
with the admitted handwriting of the deceased, thereby confirming
that the suicide note was written by the deceased himself.
29. PW-10 Dr. M. Nirala, the autopsy surgeon, has opined that the
death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging,
and that the nature of death was suicidal.
30. Further, the evidence of PW-4 Parikshit Singh itself indicates that
after the incident, the matter had been taken to the police station and
was compromised between the parties. This intervening
circumstance clearly breaks the chain of causation and weakens the
theory of continuous provocation. The deceased had sufficient time
to reflect, and the act of suicide cannot be said to be the direct or
inevitable consequence of the alleged incident.
31. The aforesaid statement of the witnesses if are translated into the
principles laid down to consider the case under Section 306 I.P.C.it
would be relevant to quote the law laid down in case of Rajendra
Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2013 (2) CGLJ in
which it has been held in paras 7, 8 & 11 thus :
"7. For the offence u/s 306, the
offence by the appellants by instigation
depends upon the intention of a person
who abets and not upon the act which is
done by the person who is abetted. The
abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid as provided
under Section 107 IPC. However, the
words uttered in a fit of anger or omission
without any intention cannot be termed as
instigation. Instigation has to be gathered
from circumstances of a particular case.
In a particular case, there may not be
direct offence in regard to instigation
which may have direct nexus to suicide.
Therefore, in such case, an inference has
to be drawn from the circumstances and
it has to be determined whether
circumstances had been such which in
fact had created the situation that a
person felt totally frustrated and
committed suicide.
8. In Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court while
interpreting Section 306 IPC held that
"Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding
a person in doing of a thing and without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
there cannot be any conviction. It was
further held that to attract section 306
IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence."
11. In Mohan Vs. State represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR
2011 SC 1238 Hon'ble the Supreme
Court observed thus:
"..............While interpreting section
306 IPC held that abetment involves a
mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing and without a positive act on the
part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, there cannot be any
conviction. It was further held that to
attract Section 306 IPC, there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It is
further stated that the present case is
squarely covered by the above decision
as even if the case of the prosecution is
taken to be true and the finding of the
High Court that there are no elements of
cruelty or dowry related harassment and
that the witnesses have improved upon
their earlier statements is ignored then
also section 306 IPC, is not attracted in
the facts of the present case."
32. Therefore, to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.,
the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide
and the suicide was abetted by the accused. In the present case,
though the prosecution has proved that a quarrel and assault had
taken place, there is no evidence on record to show that the
appellants had, at any point of time, instigated or intentionally
provoked the deceased to commit suicide. None of the prosecution
witnesses have deposed that the appellants exhorted or compelled
the deceased to take the extreme step. The alleged threats, even if
taken at their face value, are general in nature and do not constitute
instigation in the eye of law.
33. Though the suicide note has been proved to be in the handwriting of
the deceased, mere attribution of blame, without any specific
allegation of instigation or intentional aid, is not sufficient to fasten
criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The contents of the suicide
note do not disclose any positive or direct act on the part of the
appellants compelling the deceased to take the extreme step.
34. In view of the settled legal position and the evidence available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential
ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC
are not made out against the appellants. The learned trial Court has
erred in law in recording conviction under Section 306 IPC without
there being sufficient evidence of abetment.
35. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under
Section 306 of the IPC are hereby set aside. However, the conviction
and sentence imposed upon the appellants under Sections 147/149,
323/149 and 341 of the IPC are affirmed. The appellants are on bail.
36. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now
Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the
appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms
of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum
of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along
with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the
aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
37. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly
allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
38. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to
the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
