Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santram on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
1 CRA-889-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 889 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SANTRAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment
dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Khandwa (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.73 of 2013, whereby the
respondents/accused have been acquitted of an offence under Sections 323 and
306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to case of the prosecution, on 21.01.2013 at about 08:00 PM,
the deceased Mansingh had a dispute with the accused persons, namely
Santram, Dharmendra, Gajanand, Sarajabai and Jamnabai due to which, the
accused persons threatened the deceased that he would be summoned before
the Panchayat on the following day and subjected to humiliation. Owing to
such alleged threat and apprehension of public humiliation, the deceased
Mansingh is stated to have been instigated and, under such fear, committed
suicide on 22.01.2013 at about 4:30 AM by hanging himself with a rope from
a soapberry tree situated in front of his house. Thereafter, on 22.01.2013 at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
2 CRA-889-2016
about 10:00 AM, one Jhawarsingh lodged information regarding the incident
at Police Station Pipalod, which was recorded in the inquest register as Ex.
P/8 bearing No. 02/13. During the course of investigation, statements of the
wife of the deceased, namely Janakibai, his sons Ganesh and Umesh, and his
brothers Laxman, Karan Nayak and Parvatibai were recorded. Upon
investigation, it was revealed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging
himself allegedly on account of harassment, assault and intimidation by the
accused persons, including the threat of being summoned and insulted before
the Panchayat. On the basis of the material collected, a prima facie case under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused
persons and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, witnesses
were examined, and a body inquest (Panchayatnama Ex. P/2) was prepared,
wherein the Panchas opined that the cause of death was hanging. An
application (Ex. P/16) was submitted for conducting post-mortem
examination of the deceased. A spot map (Ex. P/3) was prepared. Vide
seizure panchnama Ex. P/4, a lined paper was recovered from the right
pocket of the pant of the deceased. Vide seizure panchnama Ex. P/5, a white
coloured rope was seized and duly sealed. Vide seizure panchnama Ex. P/6, a
notebook, a small diary and a handwritten paper of the deceased were seized
upon production by his son Umesh. Further, vide seizure panchnama Ex. P/7,
four bills of Balaji Krishi Seva Kendra were seized.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered a case for the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. under
Crime No.37 of 2013, and after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa. The learned Magistrate, in
turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
3 CRA-889-2016
No.73 of 2013. Charge under Sections 323 and 306 of the I.P.C. was framed
against respondents, to which they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined witnesses namely Umesh (PW-1), Janki Bai
(PW-2), Jhanwar Singh (PW-3), Inder Singh (PW-4), Mangilal (PW-5), Laxman
(PW-6), Dr. R.D. Bakoriya (PW-7), Raghunath (PW-8), Omprakash Solanki (PW-
9), Sheikh Hamid (PW-10) and exhibited documents from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/27 and
Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/2.
5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial Court
by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents from the charge under Sections
323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-3 are material witnesses, who have fully supported the case of the
prosecution in its entirety. The prosecution case is further corroborated by Dr.
R.D. Bakoriya (P.W.-7), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead
body of the deceased and supported the cause of death as alleged by the
prosecution. It is further submitted that P.W.-8, P.W.-9 and P.W.-10, being the
Investigating Officers, have duly proved the investigation and supported the entire
proceedings carried out during the course of investigation. It is also contended that
the deceased had left behind a suicide note (Exhibit P/12), which was sent for
examination to the State Handwriting Expert, who, after due analysis, submitted
reports marked as Exhibit P/25 and Exhibit P/26. As per the said reports, the
handwriting in the suicide note was found to be matching with the admitted
handwriting of the deceased. Despite the aforesaid material evidence available on
record, the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused
persons on the ground that the ingredients of instigation or abetment to commit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
4 CRA-889-2016
suicide were not proved. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of
acquittal be set aside and the respondents/accused persons be convicted and
sentenced in accordance with law.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. 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.
9. 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.
……
10. 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 suicideSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:262505 CRA-889-2016
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.”
11. 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 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.”
12. 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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:262506 CRA-889-2016
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.”
13. 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.”
14. 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 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.
15. Turning to the evidence on record, Umesh (P.W.-1) has deposed before
the learned trial Court that on 21st (Monday) at about 08:00 PM, he was
present at his house along with his mother, Janki Bai (P.W.-2), and his
younger brother, Dinesh. At that time, accused Tooti Bai and Jamuna Bai
came to their house and inquired about the whereabouts of his father,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
7 CRA-889-2016
Mansingh. Upon being informed by his mother that Mansingh had gone for
grazing goats, within about 5-10 minutes, they heard the cries of his father
and other persons. Thereupon, when they rushed towards the rear side of their
house, he saw that the accused persons, namely Santram, Dharmendra,
Jamnabai, Sharjabai and Gajju @ Gajanand, were assaulting his father. He
has specifically stated that Tooti Bai and Sharjabai were beating his father
with slippers, while the other accused persons were assaulting him with
hands and fists. When he and other family members intervened, Tooti Bai and
Sharjabai threatened that they would defame Mansingh and would not allow
him to reside in the village. He has further deposed that accused Santram also
assaulted his father inside the house by hands.
16. It is further deposed by Umesh (PW-1) that thereafter the accused
persons left the place and went to their respective houses. His father
Mansingh informed him that he had gone to the house of the accused persons
for singing and playing instruments, however, Tooti Bai and Sharjabai
levelled false allegations against him. The witness has further stated that his
father expressed his unwillingness to attend the Panchayat meeting,
apprehending defamation to himself and his family, and also uttered that it
would be better to die. However, the family members consoled him, assuring
that nothing untoward would happen, and thereafter the deceased went to
sleep along with other family members.
17. Umesh (PW-1) has further deposed that at about 03:00 AM in the night,
upon hearing some noise, he found that his father was not present on his bed.
On searching, it was discovered that Mansingh had committed suicide by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
8 CRA-889-2016
hanging himself from a tree situated in front of his grandfather’s house.
Thereafter, Jhawar Singh and Inder Singh went to inform the police regarding
the incident, stating that the deceased had committed suicide on account of
assault and the threat of being summoned to the Panchayat by the accused
persons. The witness has also proved the Safina Form (Exhibit P/1), Naksha
Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2), spot map (Exhibit P/3), seizure of suicide note
(Exhibit P/4), seizure of rope pieces (Exhibit P/5), and seizure of admitted
writings of the deceased (Exhibits P/6 and P/7). The testimony of this
witness finds corroboration from the statements of Janki Bai (P.W.-2), wife
of the deceased, and Laxman (P.W.-6), who is the younger brother of the
deceased.
18. However, the independent witnesses, namely Janak Singh (P.W.-3) and Inder
Singh (P.W.-4), who had gone to the police station to inform about the incident
immediately thereafter, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Both the
said witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and, during their
examination, they denied the suggestion that the deceased had committed suicide
on account of humiliation or insult caused by the accused persons. It has further
come in their cross-examination that at the time of preparation of the Safina Form
and Lash Panchayatnama, no complaint was made by the family members of the
deceased to the police alleging any act on the part of the accused
persons. Similarly, Mangilal (P.W.-5) has also not supported the prosecution story
in material particulars and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
19. It is evident from the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 that accused
Tooti Bai and Sharja Bai had levelled allegations against the deceased to the effect
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
9 CRA-889-2016
that he had entered their house and attempted to outrage their modesty, and on that
basis, the accused persons proposed to convene a Panchayat in the matter. It has
further come in their evidence that the family members consoled the deceased,
whereafter the deceased went to sleep in the house along with them.
20. Dr. R.D. Bakoriya (P.W.-7), who conducted the post-mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased, has categorically opined that the cause of death was
hanging and that the nature of death was suicidal. Though he noted an abrasion on
the back of the left leg of the deceased, he has admitted in his cross-examination
that such an injury could be sustained by a labourer in the course of routine labour
work. No other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. In the
backdrop of the allegation that all five accused persons had brutally assaulted the
deceased, it would normally be expected that multiple injuries would have been
present on his body. However, in the absence of such corresponding injuries, the
version of the prosecution witnesses, namely P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6,
regarding the alleged assault does not inspire confidence and appears to be
unreliable.
21. The contents of the alleged suicide note (Exhibit P/12), which state “म लीख
दे ने वाला मानिसंग मेरे को गजु और धरमद और संता राम और टू ट और सारजा ने मारा
मेरे घर आकर”, merely indicate an allegation of assault by named individuals.
However, the note does not disclose any proximate or compelling reason that led
the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. There is no express
or implied statement establishing that the alleged incident of assault was the cause
or instigation for the suicide. In the absence of any clear nexus between the alleged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
10 CRA-889-2016
act of assault and the decision to commit suicide, the note fails to satisfy the
evidentiary requirement of demonstrating abetment or causation. Consequently,
the suicide note does not materially advance the prosecution’s case on the issue of
culpability for the offence of abetment of suicide. Furthermore, although the
prosecution has sought to rely upon expert opinion regarding handwriting to
prove the authenticity of the document, such evidence is of limited probative value
in the present context. Even if the authorship of the note is accepted, its contents
do not establish the essential ingredients necessary to attribute criminal liability to
the accused.
22. 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 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.
23. 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 :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
11 CRA-889-2016
“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.”…
24. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements, and upon testing the evidence adduced in the present case on the
touchstone of those settled principles, it becomes manifest that the act attributed to
the accused persons–namely, convening a panchayat in relation to the alleged
attempt by the deceased to outrage the modesty of accused Tooti Bai and Sharja
Bai does not fall within the ambit of “instigation,” “intentional aid,” or “abetment”
so as to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The
material on record does not disclose any positive act, direct or indirect, on the part
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
12 CRA-889-2016
of the accused which could be construed as having provoked, incited, or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Mere convening of a panchayat, in the
given factual matrix, cannot be equated with inducement or abetment in the legal
sense required to establish culpability under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the
essential ingredients necessary to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide
remain unfulfilled, and the acts attributed to the accused cannot be said to squarely
fall within the statutory definition so as to sustain their conviction under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the evidence on record in relation to the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is found to be
insufficient and lacking in material particulars. There is no cogent or reliable
evidence to substantiate the allegation of voluntarily causing hurt by the
accused. In such circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial
Court, whereby the accused have been acquitted of the said charge, cannot be said
to be erroneous, perverse, or contrary to law. The finding of acquittal, being based
on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles, does not warrant
interference.
25. It is trite law that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of
acquittal unless the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or grossly unjust.
Merely because another view is possible, interference is not justified. No such
perversity or illegality is discernible in the impugned judgment.
26. Ex consequenti , in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law
laid down 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26250
13 CRA-889-2016
judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned Trial Court on proper
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.
27. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property is
affirmed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 09-04-2026
12:37:00
