Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 537 (CHH)

Rajaram S/o Bagha Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh

2024-07-31

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL

body2024
ORDER : 1. Both these appeals are arise out of the common sessions trial and common judgment and therefore both these appeals are being heard and decided together. 2. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Pendra Road District – Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2009 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced R.I for 5 years (to each of the appellants) with fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine further R.I for five months to each of the appellants). 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2009, at about 4:30 p.m. there was a dispute ensued between the deceased Ramdhan and the appellants Rajaram and Mahadev on the issue of fencing on the kitchen garden of the respective houses of the deceased as well as present appellants. The appellant Mahadev is the son of the deceased. Some altercation took place there and due to this the deceased left his house. After about 11 days, the dead body of the deceased Ramdhan was found in a hanging condition with a tree in the field of Shyamlal. Sehdev PW-1 has lodged merg intimation Ex.P-1 to the police. Inquest Ex.P-4 was prepared in presence of the witnesses and thereafter the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Pendra, where Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Gahwai had conducted the postmortem of the dead body and gave his report Ex.P-10. While conducting the postmortem the doctor has found that a double layered cotton rope tightly encircled around the neck with truncated right side and knot present at right mastoid, after removal of the rope a reddish discolorrated skin (bruises) around neck with mark of knot at right mastoid, width of ligature mark is 2 c.m. circumference 360 degree, fracture of hyoid bone present, and doctor has opined that the cause of death is cardio respiratory collapse due to asphyxia produced by hanging on rope and mode of death is suicidal. Spot map Ex.-P/3 was prepared by the police and Spot map prepared by the Patwari is Ex.P-6. The rope has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-3(II). Spot map Ex.-P/3 was prepared by the police and Spot map prepared by the Patwari is Ex.P-6. The rope has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-3(II). The FIR Ex.P-5 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 306, 34 of IPC. The appellants have been arrested on 15.02.2009. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., is recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pendra road. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charges against the appellants the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the respective appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. There are material, omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. They would further submit that there is no instigation or abetment to the deceased by the appellants to commit suicide. They further submit that a simple altercation was took place between the appellant Rajaram and deceased with respect to fencing of the kitchen garden which can not be sufficient to drove him to commit suicide and after about 11 days his dead body was found. He would also submit that the another son of the deceased and neighbour Ganesiya Bai have not supported the case of prosecution. He would also submit that the another son of the deceased and neighbour Ganesiya Bai have not supported the case of prosecution. They would also submit that from the evidence led by the prosecution, absolutely there is no evidence with respect to the abatement or instigation to the deceased yet the learned trial Court has convicted him for abatement of suicide which is liable to be set aside and appellants are entitled for acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is positive evidence on record with respect to quarrel which was occurred on 11.01.2009 and on the same day the deceased has committed suicide by hanging in a tree. The assault made by his own son dragged him to commit suicide and there are evidence on record that the deceased was beaten by his own son as well as the appellant Rajaram. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them which strictly in accordance with law which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record. 10. The suicidal death of the deceased Ramdhan is not disputed by the appellants moreover the postmortem report given by Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Gahwai has been admitted by the appellants on 12.03.2010 under the provisions of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure and on their admission the said postmortem report has been exhibited as Ex.P-10 and thus the appellants have admitted the suicidal death of the deceased Ramdhan. 11. PW-1, Sehdev, who is the son of the appellant Mahadev have stated in his deposition that on the date of incident when he returned back to his house he saw the altercation between his father and appellant Rajaram which was going on the issue of fencing of the kitchen garden and he tried to convince his father not to engage in quarrel. This witness has been turned hostile and in cross examination he stated that his father is used to drink liquor and used to say that he will left the house, except this lines he has not stated any other incriminating fact against the appellants. 12. This witness has been turned hostile and in cross examination he stated that his father is used to drink liquor and used to say that he will left the house, except this lines he has not stated any other incriminating fact against the appellants. 12. PW-5, Ganeshia Bai, who is claimed to be the eyewitness of the altercation between accused and the deceased have stated in her deposition that she had seen the altercation between Mahadev and Sehdev with the deceased Ramdhan who were beaten him thereafter, Mahadev gave a rope to his father and asked him to go and die. In cross examination she denied by giving her police statement vide Ex.D-1. She stated in her cross examination that the incident of assault was occurred inside the house. She further admitted that there was no altercation between the deceased Ramdhan and Rajaram and she was not there at that time. 13. PW-6 Ramswaroop, has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident when he was sitting near the house of the appellant Mahadev, the father of the appellant Ramdhan was murmuring after drinking liquor and then Mahadev took him inside the house and committed marpeet with him and dragged him by rope also. In cross-examination he stated that he saw him on the road and if the incident of assault was not there in his police statement Ex.D-2, he could not tell the reason. 14. PW-8 Indel Singh, who is the neighbor of the appellant Mahadev and deceased Ramdhan has stated in his evidence that on the issue of fencing the kitchen garden, there was altercation took place between the deceased and the appellants and the appellant Rajaram has got furious and assaulted the deceased at that time, the wife of the deceased took him inside his house and thereafter he went away from the place. In cross-examination he stated that on the initial point of altercation he was on his own house and he went there later-on. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was having a previous dispute with Rajaram and his family. He also stated about the panchayat meeting with respect to elopement of sister of appellant Mahadev by the help of witness Ganesiya Bai PW-5. 15. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was having a previous dispute with Rajaram and his family. He also stated about the panchayat meeting with respect to elopement of sister of appellant Mahadev by the help of witness Ganesiya Bai PW-5. 15. Though an unfortunate incident of suicide was occurred on 11.01.2009 and the dead body was found on 22.01.2009 and in between that period none of the villagers have seen his dead-body hanging in a field of Shyamlal. Except for the said quarrel there is no other allegation that the accused persons have harassed the deceased so as to drove him to commit suicide. It is also not come on record that whether the deceased has committed suicide on the same day or after two– four days because his dead body was found after about 11 days. 16. In the matter of Prabhu Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police and another reported in 2024 SCC online SC 137 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consider the requirement of Section 306 of IPC for convicting the accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 13 to 21 that:- 13. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 14. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC and it reads as follows: "107. Abetment of a thing. 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. Explanation 1-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 15. In a recent judgment of this Court in Kamalakar vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of us (Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. The Court has held as follows: "8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused. played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life. conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide. 8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said Judgment is reproduced herein: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward. provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 8.4. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v. State, as under: "43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. 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, sustained conviction cannot be sustained. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in the following paragraphs: "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. 13. 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." 8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the Instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased." 16. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge: 17. Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, Paragraph 3: Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371 . Paragraph 12] 18. In order to constitute 'Instigation', it must be shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Paragraph 20] 19. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Paragraph 20] 19. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 , Paragraph 20] 20. There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of Instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide (Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 , Paragraph 12-14] 21. The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or omissions (Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628 ] 17. Applying the above yardstick to the facts of the present case, even if the case take as a whole and test the prosecution case on a demorar, it could not be said that the action of the accused persons instigated the deceased Ramdhan to take his life or that he conspired with others to ensure that the person committed suicide or any act of the appellants or omission instigated the deceased resulting in the suicide. 18. In the matter of Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra Vs. State of U.P and another reported in 2024(3) SCC 665 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the judgment of M.Mohan Vs. State ( 2011 (3)SCC 626 ) in which it is held that:- 45. 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 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide. 19. 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. After considering the entire evidence on record and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record does not demonstrate the unqualified clarity and conviction and role of the appellants is not sufficient so as to hold and inaccessible finding of their culpability under Section 306 of IPC. The material on records do not suggest any act of oppression, harassment or inducement so as to provoke or compelled the deceased to commit suicide with no alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellants with the required provocative culpability is proved by the prosecution to draw a conclusion that the deceased has been put in such a condition either physically or mentally he had chosen to commit suicide. 20. In the result both these appeals are allowed. The Judgment of their conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set-aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges framed against them, they are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for the further period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 21. The records of the learned trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial court, concerned for compliance and necessary action.