[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parushram Sarang vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
1 CRA-2952-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2952 of 2014
PARUSHRAM SARANG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Bhushan Garg - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter
referred to as 'complainant') against the judgment dated 30.08.2014 passed
by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda (M.P.)
in Sessions Trial No.105 of 2011, whereby the respondents No.2 to
5/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have been
acquitted of offence under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506 and 306 of the IPC.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that from 24.04.11 and before that, the
accused used to mentally torture the deceased Pramod and his family
members by abusing them over a land dispute. On 24.04.11, at about 7:00
PM, Parasram Vishnoi, Smt. Parvati Vishnoi and deceased Pramod were
going from village Domnamou under Harda police station on the road from
Masangaon to Domnamou. At that time, the accused came there and stopped
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
2 CRA-2952-2014
them and started abusing them. They caught hold of Parasram's collar,
slapped him and threatened that if he told anyone about the incident, they
would kill him. Being harassed by the continuous beating and abuse by the
accused, deceased Pramod committed suicide by consuming poisonous
medicine on 24.04.11. During the investigation, a Marg (inquest) was
registered, and witness statements were recorded. A spot map of the incident
was prepared, and a Lash Panchayat Nama was prepared. During the
evidence, the case was found to be one of abetment to suicide, eventually a
case number 223/11 was registered against the accused at Harda police
station under sections 341, 506, and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
accused persons by the Police Station, Harda under Sections 341, 506 and
306/34 of IPC. Statement of the witnesses got recorded. Charges were
framed; read out and explained to the accused persons, they denied
committing the crime and sought a trial. During their examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons stated
that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Parasram Saran (PW1), Smt.
Parvatibai (PW2), Brajesh Vishnoi (PW3), Ramjivan Baghela (PW4),
Mansharam Korku (PW5), Dr. Arjun Singh Mohe (PW6), Dr. Manish
Sharma (PW7), Maya Singh (PW8), Mahendra Singh Meena PW9) and
Gulab Lakra (PW10) and exhibited 22 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/22) in
support of the prosecution case. During the accused examination conducted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
3 CRA-2952-2014
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied
committing the crime and expressed their view that they were falsely
implicated and gave their defence evidence. Ramsevak (DW1) and Kishore
(DW2) were examined as defence witnesses and exhibited documents
Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3.
5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial Court
by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 from the charge
under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Being
aggrieved of the order of acquittal, this appeal has been filed by
complainant/appellant.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the learned
trial Court, despite there being sufficient evidence available on record, has
erroneously acquitted the accused persons/respondents. It is contended that
Parasram (PW1), Parvati Bai (PW2), and Brajesh (PW3), who are
respectively the father, mother, and brother of the deceased, have
categorically supported the prosecution case. They have deposed that the
accused persons committed marpeet and extended threats, on account of
which the deceased, Pramod, was driven to commit suicide. Learned counsel
further submits that a copy of the previous report dated 21.04.2011 was
exhibited as Ex.P/6, which demonstrates that the respondents were in the
habit of assaulting (marpeet) Parasram and his son Pramod. It is argued that
the continuous harassment, intimidation, and assault amounted to instigation
and abetment, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 107 and Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
4 CRA-2952-2014
the evidence available on record, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, the
judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the accused persons be convicted and
sentenced appropriately.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused persons has opposed the prayer, contending that the
learned trial Court, in paragraph 61 of its judgment, has categorically
concluded that there was no prior report lodged in the matter. Although
Ex.P/6 was produced before the trial Court, its submission to the police has
been specifically denied by Mahendra Singh (PW-9). It is argued that no
previous complaint or FIR was filed before the competent authority either by
the complainant or by the deceased. It is further submitted that the FIR was
lodged after an unexplained delay of 21 days, and the statements of the
witnesses were recorded after a delay of 20-25 days, for which no plausible
explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. The evidence on record
also discloses previous enmity between the parties. According to learned
counsel, the prosecution story primarily relates to an alleged assault
(marpeet) upon the father of the deceased and not upon the deceased himself.
The deceased is stated to have sustained no injury, and even in the
postmortem report the concerned doctor found no external or internal injury
on the person of the deceased. On these grounds, it is contended that the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is well-reasoned and
does not warrant interference by the appellate Court. Accordingly, dismissal
of the appeal is prayed for.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
5 CRA-2952-2014
and evidence available on record.
9. The star witness of the prosecution, Parasram (PW-1), who is the father of
the deceased Pramod, has deposed that on the date of the incident, he along
with his wife, Smt. Parvati Bai, was returning from Khategaon. They
alighted from the bus at Masangaon, where their son Pramod met them on a
motorcycle. While they were proceeding together and had reached near the
river, the accused persons arrived there, intercepted them, abused them, and
threatened to kill them. He further stated that the accused persons engaged in
a scuffle with him, caught hold of the collar of his shirt, and slapped him.
Thereafter, they left the place on a motorcycle. Pramod informed him that the
accused persons had been harassing him for the last two months and were
instigating and abetting him to commit suicide, and that he would not remain
alive due to such harassment. The witness deposed that he pacified Pramod
and brought him home. However, after some time, Pramod went to the upper
floor, locked himself inside the room, and did not respond despite repeated
calls.
10. Parasram (PW1) further deposed that when they peeped through the gap
in the door, they saw Pramod consuming poison. In the meantime, his elder
son Brajesh also arrived. Pramod stated that he could not survive as the
accused persons were harassing and defaming him. The door was broken
open, and Pramod was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed on the
same day. The police issued the Safina form and prepared the inquest report,
which are Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2, respectively. The dead body was handed over
to the family vide Supurdginama (Ex. P/3). The spot map was prepared by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
6 CRA-2952-2014
the police as Ex. P/4. The witness further deposed that he had entered into an
agreement to purchase 14 acres of land from Ramshankar and Ramsajeevan
for a total consideration of ₹53,00,000/-, out of which he had paid
₹5,75,000/-. The agreement was executed on a stamp paper of ₹100/- and is
exhibited as Ex. P/5. The said agreement bears the signatures of Ramjeevan,
Ramshankar, and witness Mohan. He also lodged a written report against the
accused persons, which is Ex. P/6. It is further stated that after execution of
the agreement, the boundary of the field was damaged, the pipes installed in
the field were broken, and the water supply was interrupted. The servant,
Mansharam, was also threatened. According to the witness, due to
continuous harassment by the accused persons, Pramod committed suicide.
The testimony of this witness has been supported by Smt. Parvati Bai (PW-
2), the mother of the deceased, and Brajesh (PW-3), the brother of the
deceased.
11. Ramjeevan (PW-4) was examined by the prosecution. He deposed that
after the execution of Ex. P/5, Parasram refused to make the balance
payment, stating that he could not arrange the funds required to pay the
remaining consideration. Consequently, the agreement was cancelled. PW-4
further stated that the accused persons never informed him about the sale of
the land and did not threaten Pramod, Brajesh, or Parasram in any manner.
While Pramod committed suicide, he could not state the reason for the same.
He confirmed the involvement of the other accused persons and the
preparation of the memos Ex. P/7 to Ex. P/10, but he was declared hostile by
the prosecution as he did not support the prosecution story. In his cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
7 CRA-2952-2014
examination, he admitted that after the cancellation of the agreement, he sold
the land to Mansharam Vishnoi of Gram Revapur. He also stated that the
accused persons never exerted any pressure on him to sell the land to them
exclusively. He further admitted that the accused persons and Parasram
belong to the same family and are relatives.
12. Mansharam (PW-5) has also not supported the prosecution story. He was
declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined, but he did not
corroborate the allegations made by the prosecution. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that the accused persons had not caused any
damage to the field of Parasram and had not quarrelled with Parasram,
Pramod, or Brajesh. Consequently, no assistance is derived by the
prosecution from the testimony of PW-4 (Ramjeevan) and PW-5
(Mansharam) in establishing its case.
13. Dr. Arjun Singh Mohe (PW-6), who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the deceased Pramod has opined that the death had occurred
within 24 hours prior to the examination. According to his opinion, the cause
of death was cardio-respiratory arrest resulting from consumption of a
poisonous substance and asphyxia. He proved his post-mortem report as
Ex.P/13. Dr. Manish Sharma (PW-7), who initially examined the deceased,
deposed that Parasram informed him that the deceased had consumed some
poisonous substance. At the time of examination, the deceased was in an
unconscious condition and his health was deteriorated. He prepared the MLC
report (Ex.P/14) and sent intimation to Police Harda vide Ex.P/15.
Subsequently, upon the death of the deceased at Bhagwati Narsingh Home,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
8 CRA-2952-2014
he again informed the police. The testimony of both these witnesses clearly
establishes that there were no visible external injuries on the body of the
deceased Pramod.
14. Shri Maya Singh (PW-8), the concerned Police Officer, conducted the
merg enquiry. During the enquiry, he recorded the statements of various
witnesses. After completion of merg enquiry and upon consideration of the
post-mortem report, he registered the offence under Sections 306/34, 341 and
506 of the IPC vide Ex. P/17. He also prepared the spot map (Ex. P/4).
15. Mahendra Singh (PW-9), the Investigating Officer, deposed that during
the course of investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses and
arrested the accused persons Omprakash (Ex. P/7), Shrikrishna (Ex. P/8),
Gokul (Ex. P/9) and Pankaj (Ex. P/10) through their respective memorandum
statements. He further stated that the seized articles were forwarded to FSL,
Sagar, along with the forwarding letter (Ex.P/18).
16. Gulab (PW-10) stated that he prepared the Safina form and spot map
(Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2) and submitted the application for post-mortem
(Ex.P/19). He also issued the duty certificate to Constable Shailendra
(Ex.P/20). The seized material was forwarded from Government Hospital,
Harda, and the seizure memo (Ex.P/21) was prepared. He further lodged the
merg intimation (Ex. P/22). In his chief examination, he reiterated that there
were no visible external injuries on the body of the deceased and that the
death appeared to have been caused by consumption of some poisonous
substance.
17. The statement of PW/1 to PW3, namely, Parasram, Parvati Bai and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
9 CRA-2952-2014
Brajesh respectively, who are the close relatives of the deceased are on
record, which is not supported by independent witnesses PW4 and PW5,
namely, Ramjeevan and Mansharam, therefore, their testimony is under close
scrutiny. From this angle, when we travel through the testimony of these
witnesses, it is found that FIR in this case has been lodged after a delay of 21
days, as the incident relate to 24.04.2011, while the FIR has been lodged on
19.05.2011, but the delay has not been explained properly. The statement of
witnesses were also taken after a delay of 20 to 25 days. It also reveals from
the testimony of witnesses PW1 to PW3 that accused persons on the date of
offence committed marpeet with Parasram and gave threat to him, but it also
reveals from his testimony that no marpeet was committed to the deceased
nor any injury has been found on the person of deceased in the light of
evidence of Dr. Arjun (PW6) and Dr. Manish Sharma (PW7).
18. Parasram (PW-1) has stated that on 21.04.2011 he had lodged a report
against the accused persons alleging assault and damage to his field, which
has been marked as Ex. P/6. However, Mahendra Singh (PW-9), the
concerned police officer, has categorically denied that any such report was
submitted before him or before the police station. There is no material on
record to show that any offence was registered pursuant to the said report.
The contents of Ex. P/6 and the evidence on record further indicate the
existence of prior enmity between the complainant party and the accused
persons. It has also come on record, through the statements of defence
witnesses Ramsewak (DW-1) and Kishore (DW-2), that the deceased was
against the agreement executed by Parasram with Ramjeewan (Ex. P/5),
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
10 CRA-2952-2014
suggesting an underlying dispute between the parties.
19. Since there was no scuffle, assault, or commission of any offence
against the deceased, there appears to have been no immediate provocation
for the deceased to commit suicide on account of any alleged abetment or
instigation by the accused persons. It is also pertinent to note that no suicide
note or other material has been brought on record to indicate that the
deceased took the extreme step due to any harassment allegedly meted out by
the accused. It is well settled that, in order to establish an offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients
of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunju Muhammed @ Khumani
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. ......"
21. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
11 CRA-2952-2014
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."
22. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
12 CRA-2952-2014
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."
23. 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
13 CRA-2952-2014
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."
24. 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."
25. 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 5/accused persons. The
prosecution has failed to establish, by cogent, reliable and trustworthy
evidence the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment as defined
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.
26. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
14 CRA-2952-2014
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.
27. 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
15 CRA-2952-2014
(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 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."...
28. Keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid cases and the evidence
led by the prosecution and also having regard to the facts disclosed from
defence evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the offence against accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
Certainly, the accused persons are entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Therefore,he observations made by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned Trial Court on proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15820
16 CRA-2952-2014
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.
29. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property
is affirmed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
rv
