HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 4 of 2010
Judgement reserved on 6-9-2018
Judgement delivered on 29-10-2018
• Radheshyam S/o Haldhar Saura aged about 29 years, R/o
Salhejhariya Police Station Basna, Mahasamund (CG).
• State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Basna, District
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer
(SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 3-12-2009 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Mahasamund (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2009
wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for the
commission of offence under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
eight years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.
2. In the present case, deceased namely Subhashini was
wife of the appellant who committed suicide by hanging herself in
the house of the appellant on 15-6-2009. The matter was
reported and investigated. In investigation it is found that
deceased committed suicide due to harassment and continuous
beating by the appellant. The appellant was charge-sheeted.
After completion of the trial Court, the trial court has convicted
the appellant as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
I) Ingredient of abetment which is defined in
Section 107 of IPC is not established by the
prosecution, therefore, charge is not
ii) There is no sufficient evidence on record to
show that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty and it is also not clear as to what
happened on the date of occurrence,
therefore, finding recorded by the trial Court is
Iii) It is not a case where the appellant by his act
or omission or by continuous course of
conduct created such circumstances that the
deceased had left with no option except to end
iv) Element of positive complicity on the part of
the abettor at the point of time is lacking in the
v) Domestic quarrel and perfunctory abuses
normally occur in the family and the same is
not constituting the abetment.
vi) Prosecution has not examined any witness
from neighbourhood regarding cruelty on the
part of the appellant, therefore, finding of the
trial Court is liable to be reversed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit
that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on proper
marshaling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be
interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record of the court below in which impugned judgment is
6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined
as many as 11 witnesses.
7. In the present case, place of incident is Salhejhariya where
the deceased committed suicide. PW/1 Jagannath Bisal is father
of the deceased who is resident of village Toshgaon. This
witness has made general statement regarding beating to the
deceased by the appellant. PW/2 Prakash Barik is also resident
of village Toshgaon to whom the deceased informed about
beating by the appellant. PW/3 Mahesh Bhoi is resident of village
Atarla to whom father of the deceased namely Jagannath
informed that the appellant used to beat the deceased. PW/4
Ram Bihari is also resident of village Toshgaon and as per
version of this witness when he reached to the house of the
appellant on14-6-2009 the deceased informed him that the
appellant had beaten her. PW/6 Sanyasi deposed that in the
meeting arranged by the people of locality the appellant assured
that he will not beat the deceased in future.
8. From the entire evidence, the only evidence established by
the persecution is that the appellant had beaten the deceased.
Though Dr. Jaya Prakash Prathan (PW/10) examined the
deceased after her death, but as per report of this witness he did
not find any mark of injury, therefore, version of prosecution
witnesses is not supported by the version of medical evidence.
9. All the witnesses appear to be hearsay. In Kalyan Kumar
Gogoi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri reported in (2011) 2 SCC 532,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:
“(a) the person giving such evidence
does not feel any responsibility. The law
requires all evidence to be given under
personal responsibility, i.e., every witness
must give his testimony, under such
circumstance, as expose him to all the
penalties of falsehood. If the person giving
hearsay evidence is cornered, he has a line of
escape by saying “I do not know, but so and
so told me”,
(b) truth is diluted and diminished with
each repetition and
(c) if permitted, gives ample scope for
playing fraud by saying “someone told me
that………..”. It would be attaching importance
to false rumour flying from one foul lip to
another. Thus statement of witnesses based
on information received from others is
10. When second hand evidence is inadmissible then it is
difficult to hold that any physical or mental harassment was
done by the appellant.
11. In order to hold a person guilty under Section 306 of the
IPC, it is necessary that the case should fall within the ambit of
Section 107 of the IPC, which should comprise :
(i) instigating a person to commit an offence.
(ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit an
(iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit an
Therefore, a person said to have abetted, doing of a thing
when he or she instigates any person to do so with any other
means of abetment besides instigating are conspiracy and
intentionally aid the commission and it is sometime more than
12 In the present case, though prosecutrix informed about
beating by the appellant, but the same is not substantiated by the
medical evidence. The witnesses cited by the prosecution are
not the eye witnesses, but they are stating before the trial court
what is informed to them by the deceased or family members of
the deceased. In absence of the evidence of the deceased,
version of other witnesses is treated to be hearsay evidence
which has been held inadmissible in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi
13. Looking to the inadmissible evidence, it is not established
that the deceased was beaten by the appellant. Charge under
Section 306 of the IPC is not established, therefore, conviction of
the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable.
14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section
306 IPC. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds
shall remain operative for a further period of six months from
today in terms of Section 437-A of CrPC.
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)