The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santram & Ors.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

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:-

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:-

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:-

In the case of M. Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that :-

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:-

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:-

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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The contents of the alleged suicide note (Exhibit P/12), which state “म� लीख देने वाला मानिसंग मेरे को गजु और धरम�द और संता राम और टूट� 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 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.

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.

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 :-

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 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.

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.

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 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.

The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property is affirmed.