Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Lekhram on 19 June, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
1 CRA-7744-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7744 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LEKHRAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Choubey - Public Prosecutor for appellant/State.
Shri K.S. Rajput - Advocate for respondents.
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A. No.14075 of 2023 – an application seeking grant of
leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 28.03.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.05 of 2022
(State of M.P. vs. Lekhram and others) by the learned Sessions Judge,
Khandwa, District Khandwa (M.P.), whereby the respondent/accused
persons has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased Mokam Singh had
advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.1/accused Lekhram for
agricultural sowing purposes. It is alleged that when the deceased demanded
repayment of the said amount, the respondents/accused persons namely
Lekhram, Radheshyam @ Radhelal, Gulab Singh and Chandabai started
harassing and abusing him. It is further alleged that on 07.08.2021, when the
deceased was not present at his residence, the respondents/accused persons
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
2 CRA-7744-2023
went to his house, abused him and extended threats to kill him. The mother
of the deceased, Lacha Bai, informed him about the incident and advised him
not to return home as the accused persons were allegedly threatening to kill
him and falsely implicate him in a criminal case. Thereafter, Lacha Bai
received a telephone call from her brother-in-law, Antar Singh, informing
her that Mokam Singh had consumed poison. Subsequently, Antar Singh and
other persons took the deceased, who was then unable to speak, to the
Hospital at Mundi, from where he was referred to the District Hospital,
Khandwa for further treatment. The prosecution further alleges that on
08.08.2021, while undergoing treatment at the District Hospital, Khandwa,
the deceased informed his brother, Tirath Singh, that accused Lekhram,
Radheshyam @ Radhelal, Gulab Singh and Chandabai had been harassing
him. However, during the intervening night of 08/09.08.2021, the deceased
succumbed to poisoning. Upon receiving information regarding the death, a
merg inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
registered. After completion of the inquest proceedings, Crime No. 404/2021
was registered at Police Station Mundi.
3. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Punasa, District Khandwa. The
case was thereafter committed and received by the Court of Sessions at
Khandwa. The charges under Section 306 of the IPC was framed against
respondents/accused persons. The respondents/accused persons denied the
charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
3 CRA-7744-2023
many as 14 witnesses namely Teerath Singh (PW-1), Antar Singh (PW-2),
Lacha Bai (PW-3), Gyan Singh (PW-4), Dr. Raju Kanesh (PW-5), Dr.
Shanta Tirki (PW-6), Akleem Khan (PW-7), Baldar Parte (PW-8), Dipesh
Manglaya (PW-9), Madansingh Kasde (PW-10), Satyendra Singh (PW-11),
Rajendra Rathore (PW-12), Bhawna Rawat (PW-13) and Mazhar Khan (PW-
14) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/20 and Ex.D/1 to D/4, the documents on record.
5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondents/accused persons. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submits that
the elder brother of the deceased Teerath Singh (PW-1), his uncle Antar
Singh (PW-2), his mother Lacha Bai (PW-3) and his father Gyan Singh
(PW-4) have categorically supported the prosecution case. It is contended
that their evidence clearly establishes that the deceased Mokam Singh had
advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- to accused Lekhram and that when he
demanded repayment of the said amount, accused Lekhram refused to return
the money. It is further alleged that the respondents/accused persons
extended threats to kill the deceased and to falsely implicate him in a case of
rape. Being subjected to continuous harassment and intimidation at the hands
of the respondents/accused persons, the deceased became mentally distressed
and ultimately committed suicide. In support of the aforesaid contention,
reliance has been placed upon the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4. It is argued
that, despite the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court erroneously held
that the essential ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC were not
established against the respondents/accused persons. According to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
4 CRA-7744-2023
appellant/State, such finding is contrary to the evidence available on record
and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the dying declaration
(Ex.P/15) is also available on record, wherein the deceased specifically stated
that the respondents/accused persons had been threatening and harassing him
in relation to the money transaction. The said dying declaration, according to
the prosecution, clearly indicates that the deceased was driven to commit
suicide on account of the conduct of the respondents/accused persons. In the
aforesaid circumstances, it is contended that the findings and conclusions
recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, erroneous and contrary to
the evidence on record. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal be
allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the
respondent/accused persons be convicted and sentenced in accordance with
law.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused persons has vehemently opposed the appeal and
submitted that neither the testimonies of Teerath Singh (PW-1), Antar Singh
(PW-2), Lacha Bai (PW-3) and Gyan Singh (PW-4) nor the alleged dying
declaration (Ex.P/15) disclose the essential ingredients necessary to
constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. It is
contended that the evidence available on record does not establish any act of
instigation, intentional aid or abetment on the part of the
respondents/accused persons so as to attract the provisions of Section 107 of
the IPC. Mere allegations of harassment or threats in the absence of any
proximate act compelling the deceased to commit suicide are insufficient to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
5 CRA-7744-2023
bring the case within the ambit of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC. It is
further submitted that the learned trial Court has meticulously examined the
entire evidence on record and has dealt with the aforesaid aspect in detail
from paragraph 20 onwards of the impugned judgment. The findings
recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence available on record and do not suffer from
any perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in
an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal
being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record
meticulously.
9. 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.”
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
6 CRA-7744-2023
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.
11. 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. ……”
12. 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.”
13. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
7 CRA-7744-2023
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.”
14. 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
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.”
15. 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’.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
8 CRA-7744-2023
16. In light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this
Court is required to evaluate the evidence on record.
17. According to the prosecution, the deceased had advanced Rs.20,000/-
to the respondents/accused person and upon demanding its repayment was
threatened by them, which allegedly led him to commit suicide. The
testimonies of Teerath Singh (PW-1), Antar Singh (PW-2), Lacha Bai (PW-
3) and Gyan Singh (PW-4) indicate that the deceased had paid Rs.20,000/- to
the respondents/accused persons as an advance. However, none of these
witnesses has specified the date or period of such transaction and their
evidence suffers from material contradictions in this regard. Although, these
witnesses are related to the deceased and their testimony cannot be discarded
solely on that ground, but their testimonies are certainly subject to the close
and careful scrutiny.
18. A careful examination of the testimonies of these witnesses reveals
material inconsistencies. Lacha Bai (PW-3) stated that the
respondents/accused had visited the deceased’s house about eight days prior
to the incident and threatened to kill him as well as falsely implicate him in a
rape case. However, Gyan Singh (PW-4) deposed that the
respondents/accused had visited the house only two days before the incident.
Thus, a material contradiction emerges in the evidence of these witnesses
regarding the date and time of the alleged visit by the respondents/accused
persons to the deceased’s house.
19. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses further reveal that no threat
was allegedly extended to the deceased either on the date of the incident or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
9 CRA-7744-2023
immediately preceding it. Moreover, the alleged threat was not addressed
directly to the deceased but to his mother. There is also a considerable time
gap between the alleged threat and the commission of suicide. In these
circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that, having regard
to the prolonged interval between the alleged threat and the suicide, coupled
with the fact that the threat was not directly communicated to the deceased,
the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC are not made
out.
20. It is further borne out from the testimony of Dr. Shanta Tirki (PW-6)
that she recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P/15) on
08.08.2021. In the said dying declaration, the deceased attributed his act of
suicide to the threats allegedly extended by the respondents/accused persons.
However, even if the contents of the dying declaration are accepted in their
entirety, the allegations made therein do not, by themselves, satisfy the
essential ingredients of “instigation” or “abetment” so as to attract the
offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
21. In view of the legal principles discussed hereinabove and the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out
against the respondents/accused persons. The learned trial Court has,
therefore, rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial
Court are founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and constitute a plausible and reasonable view. It is well
settled that, in an appeal against acquittal, where the view taken by the trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
10 CRA-7744-2023
Court is a reasonably possible one, the appellate Court should not interfere
merely because another view may also be possible. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment of acquittal warrants no interference.
22. In the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8 . 3 . The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. In the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
referring to relevant precedents, has observed as follows:-
“39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to
be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4278011 CRA-7744-2023
evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above
factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 397 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been
altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against
conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate
court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is
perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the
paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice
and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the
accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that
may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the
principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala
[Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1320] has held : (SCC p. 415, para 7)
“7. The principles with regard to the scope of the
powers of the appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in
an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis
of evidence on record two views are reasonably
possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view
in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when
the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused
is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of
evidence on record and in deducing conclusions
therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal.”
21. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that
the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the
appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court
below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of
law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order
is imperative.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
12 CRA-7744-2023
25. Similar, in case of Harijan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat , (2016) 12
SCC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“12. No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two
views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal,
the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However,
this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has
recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if
the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is
against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always
open for the appellate court to express the right conclusion after
re-appreciating the evidence if the charge is proved beyond
reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused.”
26. 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
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.”…
27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law laid down
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42780
13 CRA-7744-2023
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
respondent/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
28. Resultantly, I.A. No.14075 of 2023 – application seeking grant of
leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 01-07-2026
17:07:04
