Chattisgarh High Court
Girdhari Lal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Date: 2026.04.30
10:34:41 +0530
2026:CGHC:19844-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 43 of 2020
Girdhari Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Bhaunath Sahu, Aged About 64 Years R/o
Village Ring Road Risadi Chowk, Maruti Medical Stores, Thana Balco, Civil
And Revenue, District Korba (CG)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Korba, District Korba,
(CG)
2 - Smt. Usha Bai Sahu W/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Ompur Colony, Quarter No. B/31, Police Outpost Rajgamar, District Korba,
(CG)
3 - Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG)
4 - Smt. Gayatri Sahu W/o Shri Shatrughan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Mudpar, Police Station Hasoud, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG)
5 - Ku. Sunita Sahu D/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa,
(CG)
6 - Shatrughan Sahu S/o Shri Nawdharam Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Mudpar, Police Station Hasoud, District Janjgir-Champa, (CG)
7 - Gautam Lal Sahu S/o Shri Gendram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Baksara, Pantora, Police Station Balouda, District Janjgir-Champa,
(CG)
---- Respondents
For Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.2 to 6 : None
For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Shaleen Siddique, Advocate
2
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgment on Board
29.04.2026
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant under proviso to
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning
the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.10.2019, passed
by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (CG) in
Sessions Trial No.10/2014 (Crime No.142/2013), whereby, the
respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence
punishable under Sections 306/34 and 304-B of IPC.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the
deceased, namely, Smt. Meena Sahu was solemnized with the
Respondent No.7- Gautam Lal Sahu on 10/02/2008 in accordance
with Hindu rites and rituals and she started living with her in-laws in
the matrimonial house, who, however, after six months came to her
parental house and has committed suicide on 17/06/2013 by hanging
herself, owing to which, her grandfather, namely, Muritram Sahu has
lodged the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) before the Police Station, Balco
Nagar of District Korba, stating therein, that she has committed
suicide while hanging herself on the ceiling fan. It appears that based
upon the alleged intimation, an enquiry was conducted and based
upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the
respondents on 06/07/2013 for the offence punishable under Section
3
306/34 of IPC, as during investigation, it was revealed that she was
mentally and physically harassed and tortured by her husband and
in-laws immediately after the solemnization of her marriage as she
came with inadequate dowry. Inquest of the dead body was
conducted vide Ex.P-5 and was sent for autopsy, which was
conducted by Dr. O.S. Kanwar (PW-11), who vide her report (Ex.P-
11) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia occurred on account of
hanging and, during further investigation, a suicidal note was
recovered from the table of the deceased on 17/06/2013 vide Ex.P-7,
marked as Article ‘A’, while other of her notes were recovered on
28/06/2013 from the possession of her brother, namely, Uttam
Kumar Sahu vide Ex.P-9, which was marked as Article ‘B’. After
completion of the due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba for the offence
punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and the matter was
thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon
the materials available on record, the respondents have been
charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections
306/34 and, in alternatively under Section 304-B of IPC, which was
denied by them and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution
has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 19
documents, apart from the Articles ‘A’ and ‘B’, while none was
examined by the respondents in their defence.
4. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution,
4
arrived at a conclusion after taking note of the statement of
grandfather of the deceased, namely, Muritram Sahu (PW-1) and her
father, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2), coupled with non-
examination of the handwriting expert that neither the statements of
her parents (PW-1 and PW-2) can be relied upon, nor the alleged
suicidal note and the notes written by her could be held to be written
by her and, in consequence, they have been acquitted with regard to
the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has
been preferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits
that the finding recorded by the trial court holding that the
respondents are not involved for the commission of the alleged
crime, is apparently, contrary to the materiel available on record,
inasmuch, as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the
statement of the father of the deceased, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu
(PW-2) has not been scanned in its proper manner and erred further
in disbelieving her suicidal note as well as of her handwritten notes,
while acquitting them as such.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Shaleen Siddique, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.7, while inviting attentions towards the
statement of grandfather of the deceased, namely, Muritram Sahu
and also the statement of her father, submits that the alleged
demand was made only for purchasing the medicines for his Medical
Shop and, therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the
allegations as was levelled by the parents of the deceased that she
5
was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry which,
compelled her to commit suicide by hanging herself on 17/06/2013. It
is, therefore, contended that the trial Court has not committed any
illegality in passing the impugned judgment acquitting the
respondents No.2 to 7 for commission of the alleged crime.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the
deceased, namely, Meena Sahu was solemnized with respondent
No.7-Gautam Lal Sahu on 10/02/2008 and, after the solemnization of
her marriage, she started living with her in-laws. It appears that when
she committed suicide by hanging herself on 17/06/2013, a Merg
intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by her grandfather, namely, Muritram
Sahu and, based upon the said information, an enquiry was
conducted and based upon that, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered
against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section
306/34 of IPC on the allegation that she was harassed and
maltreated by the respondents on account of demand of dowry and,
they have, thus, been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable
under Sections 306/34 and, in alternatively under Section 304-B of
IPC.
9. Although, it was alleged as such, but a bare perusal of the statement
of her grandfather, namely, Muritram Sahu(PW-1) would reveal the
fact that both the deceased- Meena Sahu and her husband- Gautam
6
Lal Sahu were living happily and it reveals further from his testimony
that he was informed by his grand-daughter, the deceased, that her
husband used to demand money for purchasing the medicines for
keeping the same in his Medical Shop and, for which, her father
Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2) had given him some amount as well. It
reveals further from his testimony that he has pacified her not to live
in parental house and simultaneously, pacified her husband to bring
her back to his house. It reveals further from his testimony that the
husband of the deceased, namely, Gautam Lal Sahu had taken
some loan amount from his father-in-law, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu
and wanted to repay the same, but since it was not repaid, therefore,
a dispute arose between them and, he pacified his father-in-law
(Girdhari Lal Sahu) that he will repay the same gradually in
installments and told him not to keep his daughter as such at his
home. Further of his testimony would reveal the fact that her
husband had demanded Rs.2-3 lacs from her father for carrying on
his business and, it reveals further from his testimony that he was
stated by his deceased- grand-daughter that because of the
existence of the dispute between her husband and father, she is not
living comfortably and if, the settlement is not arrived at between
them, she would commit suicide. It reveals further from para 30 of his
testimony that she is residing in her parental house along with her
son for about three years.
10. Father of the deceased, namely, Girdhari Lal Sahu (PW-2), though
has alleged that his daughter was harassed and maltreated by her
7
in-laws because of demand of dowry, but no report to this effect has
ever been lodged during her life time and, instead it was admitted
specifically at paragraphs 9 to 12 that, his son-in-law had demanded
Rs.2 lacs for purchasing medicines in order to carry on his Medical
Shop. Further of his testimony would show that after taking the said
amount of Rs.2 lacs, his son-in-law has taken his daughter back to
his house at village- Pantora, where, he kept his daughter in cordial
manner. It appears further from his testimony that after some time,
his daughter came back to his house, as she was being tortured by
them in her in-laws house and since then, his daughter has resided
in his house at village- Risadi. He alleged further that because of the
alleged pressure and torture with regard to the repeated demand of
amount, his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. The
statements of others’ are formal in nature.
11. What is, therefore, reflected from the allegations, levelled by the
prosecution that since the deceased has come with inadequate
amount, she was, therefore, harassed and tortured by her husband
and in-laws. But, as revealed from their testimonies that from date of
her marriage, which took place on 10/02/2008, since the date of the
occurrence of the alleged incident, occurred on 17/06/2013, no
report as such was ever lodged by her parents that she was tortured
and harassed either by her husband or by her in-laws. Therefore, it
cannot be said that she was tortured as such on account of demand
of dowry. It is to be noted here further that the deceased was living
separately from her in-laws for a considerable period of about three
8
years, as such, it cannot be said that she was harassed or
maltreated either by her husband or in-laws on account of the
demand of dowry soon before her death, so as to hold them guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and, the trial
court has, therefore, not committed and illegality in acquitting them
with regard to the alleged offence.
12. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is
concerned, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have
stated that she has committed suicide because of the instigation
made by them and, even the same cannot be inferred as well, as she
was living separately from her husband and in-laws for a sufficient
period of about three years and therefore, it cannot be said that
during such a long period, she was ever instigated compelling her for
taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on 17/06/2013. It
is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Awase vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801, wherein, while
interpreting the provisions prescribed under Sections 306 and 107 of
IPC, it was observed at paragraphs 12, 16 and 19, 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.
9
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.
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…….”
13. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the
above-referred matter, it is, thus, evident that 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 they could be convicted under
Section 306 of IPC.
14. Since, as observed herein-above, none of the witnesses have stated
anywhere that she was instigated to take such an extreme step of
committing suicide, therefore, the trial court has not erred in
acquitting them for the said offence as well.
10
15. Insofar as the suicidal note recovered vide Ex. P-7, on 17/06/2013,
marked as Article ‘A’ from the table of the deceased, and of her
handwritten notes on 28/06/2013, vide Ex.P-9 from her brother,
marked as Article ‘B’, are concerned, in absence of the examination
of the handwriting expert, the trial court has not erred in disbelieving
those notes as well.
16. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in
this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly,
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge Judge
sunita