Chhattisgarh HC Convicts Man For Abetting Suicide By Continuous Harassment Due To Marriage Refusal
It is quite significant to note that in a major development we see that the Chhattisgarh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Chhattisgarh vs Mohd Seraj in Case No.: ACQA No. 96 of 2020 that was reserved on 19.06.2026 and then finally pronounced on 17.07.2026 has ordered the conviction of a man under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after overturning the acquittal of a Korba man and reversing the January 2019 judgment of the Korba Sessions Court ruling which had cited absence of a handwriting expert’s opinion on the alleged suicide note and lack of direct evidence as reason for acquittal stating most explicitly that repeated harassment, threats and pressure to marry amounted to abetment of suicide. It was held most explicitly by the High Court while ordering conviction that direct material was brought on record by the prosecution regarding continuous harassment of the deceased by the accused on her refusal to marry which instigated her to commit suicide. It must be noted that the case pertains to the suicide of a woman who allegedly died by hanging at her residence in Nonbirra village under Kartala police station limits on January 30, 2018.
It also merits noting that the Court was unambiguous in holding that continuous stalking, harassment, pressure to marry and repeated death threats for refusing marriage constitute a “positive act” of instigation capable of attracting the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. It was also pointed out by the High Court that the Trial Court had overlooked direct evidence of harassment, including threats made to the deceased and her mother. It was also underscored by the High Court that the prosecution had established a clear link between Seraj’s actions and the victim’s suicide which counters effectively the Trial Court’s earlier acquittal. We thus see that this leading case clearly underscores the ever growing importance of acknowledging the emotional abuse as a key factor in suicide cases thus setting a clear precedent for future legal interpretations of abetment.
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This acquittal appeal has been filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the appellant seeks grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16.01.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Korba District Korba (CG) by which the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of the IPC.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 2 stating that, “Facts of the case in brief are that merg intimation No. 07/2018 (Ex.P-1) under Section 174 CrPC was registered at the instance of Sunder Lal Gupta alleging that daughter of his cousin brother namely Vijay Gupta after taking dinner went to her room for sleeping on 29.01.2018 at about 9.30 PM. On the next day, i.e. on 30.01.2018 at about 9.00 AM when her mother Rukmani Bai opened the door of her daughter’s room, she found that her daughter committed suicide by hanging herself with her scarf from a pipe installed in the room. Thereafter, her mother informed the incident to him. A merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was registered and the matter was investigated. During investigation, a black colour samsung mobile and a piece of paper were seized before the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, the FIR (Ex.P-20) on 28.04.2018 under Section 306 IPC was registered at Police Station Kartala, District Korba against the respondent.”
Plainly speaking, the Bench lays bare in para 3 disclosing that, “It is case of the prosecution that accused/ Respondent Seraj harassed and pressurized the deceased for marriage and when she did not agree to marry with him then he started threatening to kill her, her mother and due to the said pressure the deceased was under tension and ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself. The prosecution after investigation submitted the charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Link Court Kartala District Korba, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Korba which was registered as Sessions Case No. 70 of 2018. The prosecution to prove its case has exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has acquitted the accused and recorded its finding that the letter (Ex.P-10 A) was written by the deceased or not, in this regard handwriting expert was not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution is unable to establish that the accused tortured and harassed the victim to commit suicide for marriage and threatened to kill her and her mother. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that for attracting the offence under Section 306 IPC the prosecution should have proved that the deceased has committed suicide on the instigation made by the accused, no such evidence has been brought on record and accordingly it has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved with the order of the acquittal, the acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 24 that, “Considering the statements of the witnesses, it is quite vivid, that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment and pressure to marry by the accused/respondent. The testimony of Rukmani Gupta (PW-7) clearly establishes that the respondent persistently compelled the deceased to marry him and threatened both the deceased and her mother with dire consequences in the event of refusal for marriage. Her testimony remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination and inspires confidence. The evidence further discloses that the conduct of the respondent was not an isolated incident but a continuing course of conduct and there is direct evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding instigation done by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased. The prosecution witness PW-7 mother of the deceased has consistently stated that complaints were made regarding the respondent’s behaviour, still he continued to harass the deceased which remained rebuttal during course of cross examination. In fact, her testimony of the mother of the deceased is corroborated with the opinion of Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh (PW-5), which has been miserably failed to consider by the learned trial Court and has recorded perverse finding.”
Truth be told, the Bench points out in para 25 that, “Learned trial Court on perverse finding recording at para-27 of the judgment, ignoring the evidence of PW-7 on the pretext that no witnesses have supported the evidence of this witness. This finding is not only perverse finding but contrary to the law that quality of the evidence has to be appreciated not the quantity of the evidence. The trial Court has further committed illegality in ignoring this evidence and recording the finding that mother of the deceased PW-7 has not made any complaint before any authority regarding conduct of the respondent whereas she has categorically stated that even the Police and Panchayat have advised the accused not to repeat the act but no improvement was made in his conduct and he continued in harassing the deceased.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench while citing the relevant case law states in para 26 that, “Learned trial Court should have considered the fact that PW-7 beginning from the point of evidence recorded during merg inquiry and through the course of trial make it abundantly clear that the deceased was repeated tortured by the accused for marriage though their caste are different which lead the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, in the given fact and circumstances of the case, the offence against the respondent under Section 306 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story. The same has been so lightly ignored by the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 2025 INSC 581 has held in para-11 of its judgment which is as under:-
11. The jurisprudence regarding the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC is settled that the offence requires an active act or omission which led the deceased to commit suicide, and this act or omission must have been intended to push the deceased into committing suicide. The facts of the Crl. Appeal No.1131/2018 Page 8 of 9 case make it abundantly clear that the deceased was repeatedly tortured and abused by the accused on account of dowry demand to the extent that the deceased had to return to her parental home seeking refuge. It was only on the assurance of her parents that the deceased went back to her matrimonial home hoping that the events would take an upturn once her parents have returned from the wedding and settle the matter of dowry with the appellant-accused. However, the abuses hurled at the deceased by the appellant on the day of the incident, i.e. 04.05.1998, unfortunately acted as a straw that broke the camel’s back and led her to committing suicide. Therefore, given the factual matrix, the guilt of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 27 that, “Learned trial Court has further committed illegality in ignoring the evidence of Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh PW-5 who has deposed before the trial Court before the said incident, he has earlier examined the deceased and her mother wherein he found that the deceased has cut her wrist and mother has also consumed poisonous pill to commit suicide, despite unrebuttal evidence of this witness. The trial Court has not given any weightage to this evidence and recorded a perverse finding of acquittal.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 28 that, “Learned trial Court has further committed illegality in acquitting the accused on the count that the alleged suicide has not been examined by the handwriting expert to prove the writing of the deceased. The learned trial Court has ignored the well settled legal position of law that opinion of the expert is only corroborative evidence if the direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused is available on record no corroborative evidence is necessary to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence. The trial Court failed to appreciate the cumulative effect of the evidence and instead examined each circumstance in isolation. Such an approach resulted in miscarriage of justice whereas, the evidence on record clearly establishes a proximate nexus between the respondent’s acts and the suicide committed by the deceased.”
Quite ostensibly, the Bench most commendably directs and holds in para 29 that, “Thus there is direct material brought on record by the prosecution regarding continuous harassment to the deceased by the accused to instigate her to commit suicide, still it has been ignored by the trial Court so lightly in a casual manner, as such the impugned dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 31 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “It is well settled position of law that in a case of acquittal, the power of appellate Court is very limited and also that if two view are available then the view which is favourable to the accused has to be taken into consideration by the appellate Court but if there is only one view for conviction then only the appellate court can interfere with the findings of the trial Court acquitting the accused and can reverse the same. Thus, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that if two views can be taken then view which is more favourable to the accused should be considered by the Court and should not interfere in the finding of the acquittal deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka [2024 (8) SCC 149] has examined in which circumstances the findings can be reversed and observed in paragraphs 41 and 42 as under:-
“41. 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:
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. 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.””
Equally significant is that the Bench points out in para 32 that, “Thus, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. (Section 427 in the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can very well interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court and can reverse such finding by convicting the accused for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 33 that, “Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2018 is set aside. The respondent is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and is convicted, therefore, in compliance of Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C./Section 254(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, this Court has to hear the accused or his counsel on the question of sentence.”
Finally and resultantly, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 34 that, “Accordingly, the matter be listed on 27th July, 2026 on that date, the accused or his counsel shall remain present before this Court for hearing on sentence.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Chhattisgarh High Court after going into the nitty-gritty of the case and considering all the material on record indubitably holds the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The Court in this notable judgment was considering an acquittal appeal that had been filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We thus see in this leading case that the Bilaspur High Court was unequivocal in holding explicitly that repeated harassment, threats and pressure to marry amounted to abetment of suicide and so accused was thus convicted.
