Chattisgarh High Court

Kachra Bai vs The State Of M.P on 18 August, 2022

Author:
Rajani Dubey

Bench:
Rajani Dubey
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 2008 of 2000
Order reserved on : 21/06/2022
Order delivered on : 18/08/2022
 Kachra Bai, W/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Boerdih, P.S. Deori, District- Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
 State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Police Station- Deori,
District- Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent

For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
18.08.2022

1. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2000 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 210/1999 whereby, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under:-

Conviction Sentence
Under
Section 306
of IPC R.I. for 7 years

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.1999, there was some
hot talk took place between the appellant/accused and his daughter-in-
law- Laxmi Bai (deceased) on account of that deceased was not
cooking the food. It is alleged by the prosecution that on account of
altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased,
deceased poured kerosene on her and setting herself ablaze.
Thereafter, she was taken to Dondilohara hospital by her husband
Kamlesh (P.W.-2) and his father Kalyan Singh (P.W.-1). Bhikam Lal
(PW-5) has lodged the report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station. Dr. S.S.
Devdas (PW-8) has examined the deceased and found 100% burn
injury. Y.R. Tumrame (P.W.-4) has recorded the dying declaration of the
deceased vide Ex.P/6 and another dying declaration Ex.P/9 was
recorded by Dr. S.S. Devdas (P.W.-8), thereafter, he has referred the
deceased to district hospital, Durg for further treatment. Husband of the
deceased Kamlesh (P.W.-2) took his wife- Laxmi Bai (deceased), to
Rajnandgoan hospital where she has died during the course of the
treatment. At about 7:00, P.M., merg intimation was given at Police
Station- Basantpur. G.P. Choudhary, Additional Tehsildar went to the
hospital and prepared Laash Panchnama Ex.P-4. Dr. Smt. S. Khare
(P.W.-15) performed the post-mortem of the deceased along with Dr.
Rajesh Sharma. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet
was filed against her and charges were framed under
Section 306
of
IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case and statement of
the accused/appellant was also recorded under
Section 313
of the
Cr.P.C. in which she denied the charges levelled against her and
pleaded her innocence and false implication in the case.

4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, trial court has
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 306
of
IPC, and sentenced her as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this appeal
filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court
below has erred in law and also in facts while convicting the appellant
under
Section 306
of IPC. None of the prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution as far as the allegation for
abetment to commit suicide is concerned and the material available on
record does not make a case punishable under
Section 306
of IPC.
Dying declaration is also recorded by PW-4 and PW-8 and also suffers
from serious doubts and cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the
medical examination of the deceased, it is clear that she had suffered
100% burn injuries and her pulse rate was 20 per minute and at such
circumstances, the dying declaration could not have been recorded,
therefore, the learned court below ought to have concerned that the
deceased was not in a fit state of mind to have given the so called
dying declaration. Not a single witness has stated against the appellant
which shows that she in any manner, has abetted the deceased to
commit suicide, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be
set aside.
In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of
Velladurai v. State
represented by the
Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SCC Online SC 715.

6. Learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.

8. Kalyan Singh (PW-1) has stated that he does not know why
Laxmi Bai has committed suicide and husband of the deceased i.e.
Kamlesh (P.W.-2) has also stated that after 10 months of marriage,
without any reason, his wife has committed suicide by pouring
kerosene.

9. Y.R. Tumrame (PW-4) has stated that he has recorded the dying
declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P/6 in which she has stated that,

"vkt fnukad 24&2&99 dks lqcg 8 cts ?kj esa dksbZ ugh Fkk rks eS vius cnu ij
feV~Vh rsy Mkydj [kqn vkx yxkbZ gwW esjs ifjokj ds fdlh Hkh lnL; esjs Åij vkx ugh
yxkbZ gS eSa Loa; vius mij feV~Vh rsy Mkydj ekfpl dh rhyh ls vkx yxkbZ gwW vkt
lqcg 24&2&99 dks 7 vkSj 8 cts ds chp esjs lkl ls fookn gqvk xkscj Fkksius ds uke ij
fookn gqvkA xkscj Fkksi dj vkdj rqe [kkuk ugh cuk jgh gks djds fookn gqvk ckrks
&ckrks esa fookn gqvk lkl us fdlh Hkh gfFk;kj ls okj ugha fd;kA

'kknh ds ckn ls vkt fnukad rd esjs ifr ;k esjs lkl ls fookn ugh gqvk FkkA vkt
gh lqcg esjs lkl ls fookn gqvk blh ds ckn eSusa Loa; vius 'kjhj ij vkx yxk yhA
eSa ;g c;ku fcuk fdlh ncko ds ns jgh gwW tks lR; gS A "

10. Dr. S.S. Devdas (PW-8) has also stated that in her dying
declaration, Laxmi Bai (deceased) has also stated that,

" Between 7.00 - 8.00 A.M., there was a dispute with her mother-in-law
over the application of cow dung. Thereafter, quarrel took place
between them, on which she herself put kerosene and setting her
ablaze."

11. Looking to the statement of the witnesses and dying declaration
vide Ex. P/6 & Ex. P/9, it is clear that before the date of incident,
relation of the appellant and deceased were cordial and on the date of
incident, quarrel took place for not cooking the food.

Section 306
of IPC reads as under:-

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.

Section 107
of IPC reads as under:-

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 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.

12. Looking to the statement of all witnesses and dying declarations
vide Ex.P/6 & Ex. P/9, abetment of any manner by the appellant under

Section 107
of IPC is not proved.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Velladurai Vs. State
(2021
SCC Online SC 715) has held that in para 14 is as under:-

"Now so far as the offence under
Section 306
IPC is concerned, in a case
where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a
result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person
causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under

Section 306
IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order
to bring a case within the provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of
Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the
part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the
suicide would not amount to an offence under
Section 306
IPC."

14. Therefore, it is clear that abetment by a person is when a person
instigate another to do something but in the present case, the
allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the date
of occurrence, there is no other material on record which indicates the
abetment by the appellant. There is no material available on record that
the appellant/accused has played an active role by an act of instigating
the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is
no other material available on record which indicates the abetment.
The learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the
accused/appellant for the offence under
Section 306
of IPC.

16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.07.2000 is hereby set aside. Appellant
is acquitted of the charge under
Section 306
of IPC. She is reported to
be on bail and her bail bond shall stand discharged.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE

Ruchi