Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devideen Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
1 CRA-214-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214 of 2020
DEVIDEEN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri C.S. Parmar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Rakesh Singh - Panel Lawyer for State.
Smt. Vineeta S. Patel - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated
10.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna (M.P.) in Sessions
Trial No.82 of 2018, whereby the respondents No.2 to 6/accused have been
acquitted of an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Arvind, son of
Devidin Yadav, was missing from his field since 07.07.2018. Thereafter, the
family members of the deceased made extensive search for him, but in vain.
Subsequently, on 08.07.2018, the present appellant lodged a missing person
report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Ajaygarh. On 10.07.2018, deceased Arvind
was found hanging from a tree of Chhewala in Kurtala Forest, upon which
the police registered a Marg Intimation No.36/2018 under Section 174 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
2 CRA-214-2020
Cr.P.C. and initiated inquiry. During the course of investigation, the
statements of the family members of the deceased as well as the appellant
were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In their statements, they
deposed that there existed a dispute between the family of the appellant and
respondents No.2 to 6 with regard to agricultural land and several cases in
this regard were pending before the revenue authorities. It was further stated
that on the date of disappearance i.e. 07.07.2018, a Panchayat had been
convened for settlement of the said land dispute between the appellant's
family and respondents No.2 to 6, wherein respondents No.2 to 6 allegedly
extended threats to the life of the deceased.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statements and the post-mortem report,
the police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. under Crime No.271/2018, and after completion
of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ajaygarh. The learned Magistrate, in turn, committed the case to the
Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No.82/2018. Charge under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was framed against
respondents No.2 to 6, to which they abjured their guilt and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution examined witnesses namely Kamal Kishore (P.W.1),
Kishorilal Dubey (P.W.2),Wakil Ahmed (P.W.3), Ashok Yadav (P.W.4),
Deepak Yadav (P.W.5), Ashish Kumar Yadav (P.W.6). Dr. K.P. Rajput
(P.W.7), Devidin Yadav (P.W.8), Smt. Bhuri Bai Yadav (P.W.9), Vinod
Yadav (P.W.10), D.S. Parmar (P.W.11), Ashutosh Tiwari (P.W.12), Suresh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
3 CRA-214-2020
Sen (P.W.13) and exhibited 24 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24) in support of
the prosecution case. On the defence side, respondent No.2 himself entered
into the witness box as D.W.1, and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7.
5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial
Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 6 from the
charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted
that complainant Devidin Yadav (P.W.8) is the father of the deceased Arvind
Yadav. It is further submitted that there exists ample evidence on record
against the respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons to establish that they
subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on account of a dispute
pertaining to agricultural land and as a result of such persistent harassment,
the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. In support of this contention,
learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the statements of
Devidin Yadav (P.W.8), father of the deceased; Smt. Bhuri Bai Yadav
(P.W.9), mother of the deceased; Vinod Yadav (P.W.10), brother of the
deceased and Shri D.S. Parmar (P.W.11), the Investigating Officer of the
present case. It is further submitted that the legs of the deceased were found
tied with a printed shirt, as is evident from the Naksha Panchayatnama, the
post-mortem report, statement of Dr. K.P. Rajput (P.W.7) and the statement
of Investigating Officer Shri D.S. Parmar (P.W.11). This also shows that the
suicide was not voluntary, but it was on the abetment and instigation exerted
by the respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons. Learned counsel has
contended that, upon due consideration of the entire evidence and statements
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
4 CRA-214-2020
on record, the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts in acquitting
the respondents No.2 to 6 of the charge under Section 306 read with Section
34 of the IPC. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the present appeal be
allowed, the judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the respondents No.2 to
6/accused persons be convicted and sentenced appropriately in accordance
with law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as
learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons have
submitted that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the
evidence available on record and due consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence has rightly acquitted the respondents No.2 to 6 of the
charges levelled against them. It is also submitted that on the basis of the
evidence available on record the essential ingredients of "abetment" as define
under Section 107 of the IPC punishable under Section 306 of the IPC have
not been established against the respondents. It is also submitted that there is
no abetment or instigation on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6/accused
persons which could have compelled the deceased to commit suicide. On the
contrary, accused Kandhi Yadav, who entered the witness box as a defence
witness, categorically deposed that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Ajaygarh, had granted a stay order against the deceased and his father in
respect of the disputed agricultural land. It is also stated that though a
Panchayat was convened to resolve the said land dispute, both before the
Revenue Authority and in the Panchayat, the orders were passed adversely
against the deceased and his father, which led the deceased, being over-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
5 CRA-214-2020
sensitive in nature, to commit suicide.
8. It is further contended that, from the statements of various prosecution
witnesses, it is apparent that the deceased was of a highly emotional and
sensitive temperament and there is no evidence of any instigation or active
participation on the part of the respondents No.2 to 6 in the commission of
suicide. Hence, considering the overall facts, the defence evidence, and the
prosecution testimony, no offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
the I.P.C. is made out against the respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons.
Therefore, there exists no ground for interference with the well-reasoned
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. To bring home the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the essential
ingredients constituting the offence of abetment, as defined under Section
107 of the IPC, which reads as under:-
"107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission,
the doing of that thing.
11. The said definition of abatement elucidates that there has to be
instigation by a person to do a thing, secondly the person must engage
himself with one or more than one person conspiring to do something and
thirdly, there should be an intentional aid by the said person or illegal
omission on the part of the said person for doing of that thing. If the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
6 CRA-214-2020
ingredients are established from the evidence available on record only in that
condition accused can be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC which
mandates that if any person commit suicide and whosoever abets the
commission of such suicide shall be punished under this section.
12. While examining the evidence available on record with
circumspection, it is revealed that apart from the parents and brother of the
deceased namely Devidin Yadav (P.W.8), Smt. Bhuri Bai Yadav (P.W.9)
and Vinod Yadav (P.W.10) three other witnesses namely Wakil Ahmed
(P.W.3), Ashok Yadav (P.W.4) and Deepak Yadav (P.W.5) have also been
examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Though the parents and
brother of the deceased have supported the prosecution version in their
examination-in-chief by stating that on account of a dispute relating to land,
respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons used to harass deceased Arvind and
that prior to convening of the Panchayat meeting they had assaulted him, yet
from the testimony of these witnesses it reveals that the Panchayat meeting
was convened three days prior to the recovery of the dead body of the
deceased. Had there been any physical assault upon the deceased,
corresponding injuries would have been reflected in the postmortem report;
however, Dr. K.P. Rajput (P.W.7), who conducted the postmortem
examination, has categorically deposed that except a ligature mark on the
neck of the deceased, no other injury was found. He further opined in his
cross-examination that the death was suicidal in nature and proved the
postmortem report, which was exhibited as Ex.P/9.
13. It is also stated by the parents and brother of the deceased that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
7 CRA-214-2020
respondents No.2 to 6/accused frequently harassed the deceased on account
of land dispute, but there is no previous FIR or complaint filed on behalf of
the deceased or their parents and brother before appropriate authority against
respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons which naturally would have been
lodged in normal course. The parents and brother of the deceased have
exaggerated their statements and stated that the accused persons have
committed the murder of the deceased and after killing the deceased they
hanged him with a tree. There are material contradictions, omissions and
variations in the statements of these witnesses vis-a-vis police statements
recorded during investigation. These witnesses also admit that the cases were
pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ajaygarh and in the
Courts regarding land disputes between them and respondents No.2 to
6/accused persons. Though, it is denied by them that before the date of
incident, an stay order has been passed against them. This fact has been
established by the statement of accused Kandhi Yadav (D.W.2), who has
filed the copy of such stay order which was passed just two days before the
date of incident i.e. on 05.07.2018 as Ex.D/5 by way of which, the stay order
was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ajaygarh against the
deceased and others. It is also stated by this witness that the complainant
Devidin Yadav (P.W.8) etc. has previous rivalry against him due to
land/house dispute. They convened the Panchayat and falsely implicated
him.
14. A suggestion has been given by the prosecution itself to Kandhi
Yadav (D.W.2) that " ये कहना सह है क मेरा अव रं द से कोई झगड़ा नह ं था" which by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
8 CRA-214-2020
itself indicates that no quarrel or physical altercation had taken place
between the accused persons and the deceased.
15. The independent witness Wakil Ahmed (P.W.3), in his examination-
in-chief, has categorically stated that he is unaware of the reason which led
the deceased Arvind to commit suicide, and that no quarrel or physical
altercation had taken place in his presence. Likewise, witness Ashok Yadav
(P.W.4) has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was a simple
and hypersensitive person. Similar is the statement of witness Deepak Yadav
(P.W.5), who has admitted that the deceased Arvind was a person of
sensitive disposition and that even a harsh word spoken to him would affect
him deeply. Witness Ashok Yadav (P.W.4) has further admitted in paragraph
6 of his cross-examination that Devidin Yadav (P.W.8) desired to acquire the
house and land of accused Kandhi Yadav, which led to the dispute between
them and ultimately became the underlying cause of death of deceased
Arvind. Deepak Yadav (P.W.5) has also admitted in his cross-examination
that since no decision was rendered by the Panchayat, Arvind felt distressed,
although he could not affirm that because of this reason Arvind has
committed suicide. It is pertinent to note that these three witnesses, namely
Wakil Ahmed (P.W.3), Ashok Yadav (P.W.4) and Deepak Yadav (P.W.5),
though their testimony to some extent runs contrary to the prosecution
version, were neither declared hostile nor cross-examined by the prosecution.
Consequently, their statements remain unchallenged and are binding upon
the prosecution.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunju Muhammed @ Khumani
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
9 CRA-214-2020
and others vs. State of Karela, (2003) 1 SCC 761, is relevant to refer here:-
"16. We are at pains to appreciate this reasoning of the High
Court. This witness has not been treated hostile by the prosecution,
and even then his evidence helps the defence. We think the benefit
of such evidence should go to the accused and not to the
prosecution. ......
17. In the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and others,
(2010) 12 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court
is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
which happen in our day to day life. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from the other. Different people behave
differently in the same situation."
18. In the case of M. Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238 , the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that :-
"45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
under section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit
the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act, which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide."
19. Again, the ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC was
interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
10 CRA-214-2020
State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 and the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:-
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established.
To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement
of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or
incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission
of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she
would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular
thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of
abetment would require the positive act of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without
such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent
from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section
cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or
indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased
with no other option but to commit suicide."
20. This Court in the case of Mohsin son of Jafruddin Vs State of M.P.,
2017 (11) Manisa 139 (M.P) , while following the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"12. In the case of Abdul Hanif Vs State of M.P. 2002 (11)
MPWN 12,it has been reiterated that mere threatening or beating
by the accused persons to the deceased does not constitute any
instigation "for commission of suicide."
21. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and upon
due consideration of the evidence discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or
perversity in acquitting respondents No.2 to 6/accused persons. The
prosecution has failed to establish, by cogent, reliable and trustworthy
evidence the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment as defined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
11 CRA-214-2020
under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 306 of the
IPC. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court warrant no
interference.
22. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14
SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice
in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In
case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere
with the same.
23. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3
SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while
deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarised as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of
all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51071
12 CRA-214-2020
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address
all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover
all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error
of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."...
24. Ex consequenti, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis
of the evidence, the observations made by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned Trial Court on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
accused/respondents. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of
respondents by trial court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby
dismissed.
25. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property
is affirmed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
