Chattisgarh High Court
(Mrs.) Rajwala Devi vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14145
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 48 of 2026
(Mrs.) Rajwala Devi W/o Omveer Singh Chaudhary Aged About 59 Years
R/o Agrawal Colony, Shasani Road Ps Iglas, District Aligarh U.P. (Mother Of
The Deceased)
... Appellant
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District
Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh
2 - Pratibha Chaudhary W/o Late (Dr.) Arun Chaudhary Aged About 32
Years R/o Village And Post Thulai, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras
U.P.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
24/03/2026
1. The appellant/complainant has filed the present acquittal appeal
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Digitally signed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.01.2026,
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: passed by learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Additional
2026.04.07
10:50:45 +0530
Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, in Sessions Case
2
No. 62 of 2020, whereby the respondent No.2/accused has been
acquitted from the offence of Section 306 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.2/accused is the
wife of the deceased Dr. Arun Choudhary and the complainant/
appellant is his mother. On 05.05.2020, the police of police station
Kawardha received an information that the deceased Dr. Arun
Choudhary committed suicide by hanging himself in a ceiling fan
inside his house and unnumbered Dehati Merg Intimation (exhibit P-
14) was recorded on the instance of the respondent No.2/accused
Pratibha Choudhary. It was found that deceased committed suicide
by hanging himself in the ceiling fan with the help of muffler. Inquest
of the dead body of the deceased (exhibit P-7) was prepared. His
mobile phone, one strip of tablets has been seized from the spot. A
suicidal note has also been seized from the pocket of the pant of the
deceased, in which he alleged the liability upon the respondent
No.2/accused Pratibha Choudhary. During the merg inquiry, from the
statement of the witnesses it was found that, the respondent No.2/
accused used to harass the deceased for various reasons. The FIR
(exhibit P-17) was registered against the respondent No.2/accused
for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The suicidal note was sent
for its examination to the State Examiner of questioned document,
FSL Raipur. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the
respondent No.2/accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. The case
was committed to the learned Sessions Judge for its trial and the
same was transferred to the learned trial Court.
3
3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent
No.2/accused for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, which
she denied and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many
as 14 witnesses. Statement of the respondent No.2/accused under
Section 313 of CrPC has also been recorded, in which she denied
the circumstances that appears against her, pleaded innocence and
has submitted that, the witnesses are related to her in-laws and they
were not happy with her marriage with the deceased. She also
explained that when her husband was posted at Kawardha, after
about 3-4 months, she also joined her at Kawardha, but he was
having affair with his colleague. When he came to know that his
colleague is going to marry, he went in distress and disturbed. Her in
laws have separated them from family for the reason that, their
marriage was inter-caste marriage, even he was not called in his
brother’s marriage, which was performed in the month of February.
All these may be a reason for committing suicide by him and she has
never harassed him.
4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2/
accused from the alleged offence holding that, the prosecution has
failed to prove any abetment or instigation to commit suicide and also
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence this
acquittal appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there
are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent
No.2/accused for convicting her in the offence in question. From the
4
evidence of witnesses, it clearly established that the deceased was
under the continuous harassment by the respondent No.2/accused,
which culminated into his suicide. He would also submit that from the
report of State Examiner of questioned document (exhibit P-24), it
was also found proved that the suicidal note was written by the
deceased, which was found from his pocket of the pant, yet the said
suicidal note has not been considered as the proof of evidence of
abetment to commit suicide. There are sufficient ingredients of
instigation as required under Section 107 of the IPC. From the
evidence of Omveer Singh (PW-1) and Atul Choudhary (PW-3), it
also clearly proved that the deceased was harassed by the
respondent No.2/accused and he suffered persistent course of
mental harassment, which leads to his suicide. The learned trial
Court has also erred in not considering the electronic evidence
contained in the pen-drive (exhibit P-30), which recovered from the
mobile phone of the deceased. He would also submit that the
continuous course of harassment is sufficient proof thrown a person
into mental trauma and under such extreme pressure, if he
committed suicide, the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made
out, yet the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent
No.2/accused ignoring the well settled principles of law and evidence
available on the record. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
acquittal suffers from illegality and perversity and the same is liable to
be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record of the trial Court.
5
7. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Court, it transpires that while passing the judgment of
acquittal, the learned trial Court has considered all the evidences
available on record and also considered the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court relevant under the facts of the case. The suicidal
death of the deceased is not in dispute. The appellant alleged that
the respondent No.2/accused is responsible for his suicidal death
and on her instigation the deceased committed suicide. The appellant
is the mother of the deceased, however she has not been examined
before the trial Court. Her husband Omveer Singh has been
examined as PW-1. He stated in his evidence that his son has
completed his MBBS course in 2016 and appointed at Bijapur and in
the year 2019, he came to Kawardha and posted there at District
Hospital, Kawardha. The accused is the resident of village Thulai,
District Hathras. Whenever his son came to meet him, he informed
that the accused stopped him not to continue the relation with them
and threatened him that she will commit suicide and roped them in a
false case. Even, she raised quarrel, when he attended the marriage
ceremony of his brother. His son was under extreme pressure by the
conduct of the accused. On 15.04.2020, his son made a telephonic
call to him and asked him to get them divorced and also informed
about harassment. Again on 01.05.2020, he made the same instance
of harassment and after 3-4 days his son committed suicide. His wife
even was not ready to perform his last rites and he committed suicide
by the act of harassment given by the accused. In cross-examination
he admitted that, the deceased performed inter-caste marriage and
he and his family members were not happy with his marriage. They
6
were not attended his marriage function. He also admitted that after
his marriage they terminated all the relations with him by publishing a
notice in daily newspaper. He admitted that the allegation of stopping
the deceased to meet his parents and allegation of falsely implicated
in any case, have been disclosed before the police, but if it is not
there in his police statement (exhibit D-1), he could not tell the
reason. There are various discrepancies and omissions came in his
evidence with respect to his police statement (exhibit D-1). He is the
resident of Iglas, District Aligarh (U.P.) and the deceased was
residing at Kabirdham. He further admitted that, he served a notice to
the accused that she is not entitled for any departmental benefits of
his son. There is nothing in his detailed cross-examination, that in the
closed proximity of the incident the accused did any act, which
dragged the deceased to commit suicide. It is only a general and
omnibus allegation have been leveled by this witness that the
accused harassed his son, not to continue relation with his family
members. He admitted that he could not tell as to when the accused
harassed his son and even, he could not produce any evidence
before the police about the conversation between him and his son.
8. PW-3, Atul Choudhary is the cousin brother of the deceased. He too
is the resident of Aligarh (U.P.). It was the time of COVID-19
Pandemic, they received information about the incident and came to
Kawardha. He asked the accused about the incident, but she became
anxious and has not replied. Later on, he feels from the situation that
the accused was harassing the deceased. He further stated that at
the time of Deepawali festival, the deceased met with him and he
informed him that he is being harassing by the accused and at that
7
time he convinced him. Subsequently, he also came to know that a
suicidal note was recovered from the pocket of the pant of deceased.
His father also informed him that the deceased was under the
extreme mental pressure by the conduct of the accused. In his cross-
examination also, he admitted that he has not lodged any report or
complaint with respect to alleged harassment made by the accused
with the deceased. There is also material omissions and
contradiction with that of his police statement (exhibit D-2). Except
from the general allegation that, the accused was harassing the
deceased not to continue with relation with his family members, no
other specific instances have been deposed by the witness, which
proved the instigation or abetment to commit suicide.
9. PW-4, Varun Choudhary is the brother of the deceased. He too is the
resident of Iglas, District Aligarh and stated that when they received
information about the incident, they came to Kawardha and then the
accused informed him that there was a quarrel going on between her
and the deceased. From his evidence also, there is no any specific
instance deposed, which dragged the deceased to commit suicide.
He admitted in his cross-examination that, when they came to
Kawardha, they came to know about the staff nurse.
10. PW-5, Nikita Nelson is the staff nurse and working under the
deceased. She turned hostile and has not supported the
prosecution’s case. She also denied by giving her police statement
(exhibit P-5). In cross-examination she admitted that, since she was
the co-worker with the deceased as the deceased was the
Gynecologist, she was well acquainted with his family affairs and his
family members were not liking him. She also admitted that the
8
accused used to visit her house. During their duty, the deceased
proposed her for making relation. When their relation spread up, she
asked the deceased to inform his wife, but she did not know as to
whether he informed her or not. When the accused came to know
about their relation, she came to her house and raised objection. She
further admitted that before commission of suicide by the deceased,
she was in telephonic talk with the deceased. On the date of incident
also, she met with the deceased in the evening. She also admitted
that the deceased was defamed due to their relation. From her
evidence also, there is nothing to hold that the deceased was being
harassed by the accused for any reason in closed proximity of the
incident.
11. PW-6, Anand Kumar Tiwari is the neighbour of the deceased. He
stated in his evidence that he did not know about relation of the
deceased and the accused. He turned hostile and not supported the
prosecution’s case.
12. PW-11, Hemant Paikra is the Tahsildar and neighbour of the
deceased. On the date of incident, at about 10:30 in the night the
accused was in his house and when she had gone to her house, the
door was opened. When he also had gone to her house, but they
could not be able to get the door opened, then they informed the
police and thereafter, police came and entered from balcony side and
came to know about the incident. This witness has also not disclosed
any incriminating evidence against the accused, which can be
considered for abetment to commit suicide.
13. PW-12, Raghuvansh Patil is the Sub-Inspector Police, who stated that
he recovered a suicide letter from the pocket of the pant of the
9
deceased, in which it has been mentioned that the accused is
responsible for his death and thereafter he sent the dead body for its
postmortem. He also seized one mobile phone, strip of tablets having
two tablets in the strip and the suicide note vide seizure memo (exhibit
P-8). He also proved the other part of the investigation, which he
conducted.
14. PW-13, Dr. S. Jaiswal, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body
of the deceased and gave his report (exhibit P-18) and opined that the
death of the deceased is homicidal in nature.
15. PW-14, Mukesh Som is the Police Inspector and conducted part of the
investigation. He sent the suicidal note (exhibit P-26) for its handwriting
examination to the State Examiner of questioned document and also
sent the mobile phone of the deceased for its examination and after
completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.
16. From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, there is no any
proximity link disclosed by the prosecution in their evidences, which
sufficiently discloses the act of any instigation or abetment to commit
suicide. The evidence suggests that the deceased was under the
extreme mental pressure, but such state of the deceased was due to
any act of the accused could not be established by the prosecution. The
evidence also suggests that it was a COVID-19 Pandemic, all the
doctors and staff nurses were under extreme mental pressure, the
relation between the deceased and the staff nurse was came into
knowledge of accused, which she objected, due to the inter-caste
marriage between the accused and deceased, the relationship with his
family members were broken down by his family members, and
therefore all these instances cumulatively may cause the reason for
commit suicide, but it certainly not the instigation or abetment to commit
10
suicide. There is no instances disclosed by the witnesses in the closed
proximity of time of the incident. The deceased was a qualified medical
doctor. From the evidence it has also not been established that, he was
not having any other option except to commit suicide.
17. From perusal of the suicidal note, it also reveals that it is only one-lined
suicidal note with the contents that “esjs suicide djus ds fy, Pratibha
ftEesnkj gS”. There is no reason or any other instances disclosed in the
suicidal note which dragged to conclude that the deceased was being
harassed to the extent that he was not having any other option except to
commit suicide. There may be a domestic quarrel between husband and
wife, but that itself is not sufficient to conclude that she abetted the
deceased to commit suicide.
18. To constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the law is
settled by the Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab, 2017(1) SCC 433, in which it was observed as
under:-
“20. Section 306 of the Code prescribes the
punishment for abetment of suicide and is
designed thus:
“Abetment of suicide. If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
11
21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is
one of abetment of the commission of suicide by
any person, predicating existence of a live link or
nexus between the two, abetment being the
propelling. causative factor. The basic ingredients
of this provision are suicidal death and the
abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the
intention and involvement of the accused to aid or
instigate the commission of suicide is imperative.
Any severance or absence of any of this
constituents would militate against this indictment.
Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions
rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize
the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of
abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate
of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity,
culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained
incitement for suicide.
22. Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is
extracted hereunder:
“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
12an 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 doing.
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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
Not only the acts and omissions defining the
offence of abetment singularly or in combination
are enumerated therein, the explanations
adequately encompass all conceivable facets of
the culpable conduct of the offender relatable
thereto.
27. The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has
since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and
13
the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out
hereunder.
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding
that person in doing of a thing. In cases of
conspiracy also it would involve that mental
process of entering into conspiracy for the
doing of that thing. More active role which
can be described as instigating or aiding the
doing of a thing is required before a person
can be said to be abetting the commission of
offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994)
1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the
courts should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of
each case and the evidence adduced in the
trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing
suicide. If it transpires to the court that a
victim committing suicide was hypersensitive
to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences
were not expected to induce a similarly
14circumstanced individual in a given society to
commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that the accused charged of abetting the
offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring
to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal
(supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been
meted out to the victim and that the same had
induced the person to end his/her life by
committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim
committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life, quite common to the society to which
he or she belonged and such factors were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual to resort to such step, the accused
charged with abetment could not be held guilty.
The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @
Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC
707.
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in
order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC,
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an
offence and that there ought to be an active or
15
direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide,
being left with no option, had been propounded by
this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.”
19. Recently in Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025
(4) SCC 801, the Supreme Court held as under:
12. As is clear from the plain language of the
Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306,
the accused should have abetted the commission
of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing
who Firstly 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.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and
Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant
remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This
Court held that:-
“3….. Those words are casual nature which
are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people.
16Nothing serious is expected to follow
thereafter. The said act does not reflect the
requisite ‘mens rea’ on the assumption that
these words would be carried out in all
events……”
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat
and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court 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 that the intention of
the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held 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
17harassment 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.”
16. 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.
17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626
followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under-
18
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar has examined different shades of the
meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as
under: (SCC p. 629) “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.”
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence and material available on
record where from an inference of the appellant
accused having abetted commission of suicide by
19
Seema (the appellant’s wife therein) may
necessarily be drawn.”
18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
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. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act
or omission or by a continued course of conduct
should have created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide. It was also held that a word
uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.
20. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held
as under:-
20
“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the
view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse,
it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of
acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is
not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal,
merely because the Appellate Court finds the way
of conviction to be more probable. The
interference would be warranted only if the view
taken is not possible at all.”
21. In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference
in appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as
under:-
“25. While dealing with an appeal against
acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.,
the Appellate Court has to consider whether the
Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible
one, particularly when evidence on record has
been analyzed. The reason is that an order of
acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate
Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the
order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
Therefore, the presumption in favour of the
accused does not get weakened but only
strengthened. Such a double presumption that
21ensures in favour of the accused has to be
disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the
accepted legal parameters.”
22. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam
Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held in para 27 of its judgment that :-
“27. It is trite law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-
appreciate evidence and come to its own
conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation.
But it is equally settled that the appellate court
must not interfere with an order of acquittal
merely because a contrary view is permissible,
particularly, where the view taken by the trial
court is a plausible view based on proper
appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by
ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on
record.”
23. After considering the material available on record as well as the
elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very
much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of
Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an
appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view
favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the
Appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is
22
not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that
the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons
is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
24. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
