MOBARAK ANSARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
BEOHAR
Date:
2026.10.29
17:42:42
+0530
AKHILESH
BEOHAR

CGHC010034742026 2026:CGHC:45688
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
THE DATE
WHEN THE
THE DATE
WHEN THE
JUDGMENT IS
PRONOUNCED
THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS
UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE
CASE IS
RESERVED
Operative Full
15.10.2026 29.10.2026 29.10.2026
CRA No. 293 of 2026
Mobarak Ansari, S/o Kalim Ansari, aged about 20 Years, R/o Village-
•
Gamhariya, Chowki Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur-
Ramanujganj C.G.
...Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Vijaynagar, P.S.
•
Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Deputy
Government Advocate.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
C A V Judgment
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under
Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, ‘the BNSS, 2023’), calling in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, place
at Ramanujganj (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in

2
Sessions Trial No. 66/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.500/-, and, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen
days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.03.2021, PW-4
Ashrafi Yadav, uncle of the deceased, lodged a merg intimation
(Ex.P-16) at Police Station Vijaynagar, stating that his niece, Kumari
Punita (deceased), had been found hanging by a dupatta in a room of
her house and had died for unknown reasons. On the basis of the said
information, the police initiated an enquiry into the circumstances
surrounding her death. Thereafter, the police conducted the inquest
proceedings, prepared the inquest panchnama vide Ex.P-15 and sent
the dead body for post-mortem examination. Dr. Sharad Chandra
Gupta (PW-11), who conducted the post-mortem examination, opined
that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to hanging and
that the nature of death of deceased was suicidal. He prepared the
post-mortem report vide Ex.P-14.
2.1. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the deceased
and the appellant, who resided in the neighbourhood, were acquainted
with each other and used to communicate through mobile phones. The
prosecution alleged that the appellant had secretly recorded a video of
the deceased while she was taking a bath and thereafter started
pressurising her to establish physical relations with him by threatening
to circulate the said video. It was further alleged that, upon coming to

3
know of the incident, the family members of the deceased convened a
meeting in the village on 13.01.2021, which was attended by the
appellant and his family members. During the said meeting, the
appellant allegedly admitted his mistake, deleted the video from his
mobile phone and assured the persons present that he would not
repeat such conduct. His parents also allegedly tendered an apology
and assured the family members of the deceased that no such incident
would recur. According to the prosecution, despite the aforesaid
meeting and assurance, the appellant continued to harass the
deceased. Allegedly being distressed by such conduct, deceased
committed suicide on 16.03.2021. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was
registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC.
2.2. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements
of the witnesses and arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.P-9.
Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-10,
pursuant to which, a mobile phone of MI company was seized vide
Ex.P-11. Investigating Officer also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-6.
Mobile phone of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P-7, her progress
report card and Class VIII mark-sheet were seized vide Ex.P-2.
Admission and discharge register of the school was seized vide Ex.P-8.
Dupatta allegedly used in the incident was seized from the spot vide
Ex.P-17. Seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for examination vide Ex.P-19. Upon completion of the
investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

4
3. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Appellant denied the
charge and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined thirteen
witnesses and exhibited nineteen documents. The statement of the
accused/appellant under Section 351 of the BNSS was recorded,
wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him, claimed to be innocent, and alleged false implication. However,
the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and
sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1 of this
judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the
deceased were neighbours and were in a love relationship. They
intended to marry each other, but their family members were opposed
to their marriage as they belonged to different communities. He further
submits that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that they had
seen any photograph or video of the deceased on the appellant’s
mobile phone. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant had recorded
a video of the deceased while she was taking a bath is not established.
He also submits that the deceased committed suicide after more than
two and a half months from the date of the alleged meeting held in the
village, during which, the appellant had allegedly deleted the video
from his mobile phone. Therefore, there was no close proximity

5
between the alleged act of the appellant and the suicide committed by
the deceased, nor was there any instigation on the part of the appellant
to commit suicide.
6.1. Learned counsel further submits that the grand-mother of the
deceased (PW-3) herself admitted that the family members were
opposed to their marriage because they belonged to different
communities. He also submits that the deceased committed suicide on
16.03.2021, i.e., one day prior to the appellant’s marriage, as admitted
by the father of the deceased (PW-1). This indicates that the deceased
wanted to marry the appellant, but her family members were opposed
to the marriage, and the appellant was going to marry another girl.
Therefore, the possibility that the deceased committed suicide because
she could not marry the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel
lastly submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant
abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial Court deserve to be set aside, and the appellant deserves to be
acquitted of the said charge. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and
Another, reported in (2026) 6 SCC 251 , and the decisions of this Court
in State of Chhattisgarh v. Ravi Kumar Sahu, passed on 26.09.2026
in CRR No. 642 of 2021; Kamal Kumar and Another v. State of
Chhattisgarh, decided on 26.06.2025 in CRA No. 441 of 2016; Golu
Sahu @ Manoj Sahu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided
on 24.03.2026 in CRA No. 1597 of 2016 and other connected

6
matters; and Premsingh v. State of Chhattisgarh, passed on
05.02.2025 in CRA No. 649 of 2007 .
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
prosecution witnesses have established that the appellant had
recorded a video of the deceased while she was taking a bath and had
been pressurising her to establish physical relations with him by taking
undue advantage of the said video. Consequently, the deceased
remained under continuous mental trauma, which led her to commit
suicide. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. The first question for consideration is whether the death of
deceased- Kumari Punita was suicidal in nature.
10. PW-2 Mamta, sister of the deceased, and PW-3 Panbarsi, grand-
mother of the deceased, have stated in their depositions that when
they woke up in the morning on 16.03.2021, they found the deceased
hanging by a dupatta in her room. Their statements are corroborated
by the inquest panchnama (Ex. P-15) and the merg intimation
(Ex.P-16), which support the prosecution case regarding the
circumstances in which the deceased was found. Further, the
post-mortem report (Ex.P-14) and the testimony of Dr. Sharad Chandra
Gupta (PW-11), who conducted the post-mortem examination of the
deceased, establish that the cause of death of the deceased was
asphyxia due to hanging. Dr. Gupta (PW-11) also opined that the death
of the deceased was suicidal in nature. Thus, the oral and documentary

7
evidence, coupled with the medical evidence, establishes that the
death of the deceased was suicidal in nature.
11. The next question for consideration is whether the appellant
abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
12. Before examining the material available on record, it would be
apposite to refer to the statutory provisions governing the offence
alleged against the respondent/accused. Section 306 of IPC provides
for punishment for abetment of suicide and reads as under:
“306. 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. ”
13. The expression “abetment” is defined under Section 107 of IPC,
which reads as under:
“ 107. 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.”
14. Thus, Section 306 of IPC has to be read conjointly with Section 107
thereof. The statutory scheme requires the existence of an act of
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, accompanied by the requisite
mens rea for abetment of the commission of suicide. It is well settled
law that for attracting Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, there

8
must be direct or indirect instigation in close proximity to the
commission of suicide and a clear mens rea to abet the commission of
suicide.
15. The expression “instigation” has been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC
301 , wherein it has been observed that instigation means to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act. Though
actual words of instigation are not indispensable, a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out
from the conduct of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further observed that, where the acts or omissions or continued course
of conduct of the accused create such circumstances that the
deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide,
instigation may be inferred.
16. In Prakash (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that
Section 306 of IPC has two basic ingredients, namely, the commission
of suicide and abetment thereof by another person. It has been held
that, in order to sustain an accusation under Section 306 of the IPC, it
must necessarily be shown that the accused contributed to the suicide
by some direct or indirect act satisfying one of the three conditions
enumerated under Section 107 of IPC. It has further been emphasized
that the act of instigation or incitement must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide, disclose clear mens rea to abet the commission
of suicide and place the victim in such a position that he/she would
have no other option but to commit suicide .
17. Recently, in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., (2026) 6 SCC 233 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained

9
that even where there is an allegation of constant harassment
continuing over a period of time, the ingredients of Section 306 read
with Section 107 of IPC would not be attracted unless there is a
proximate prior act from which it can clearly be found that the suicide
was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment. The
Court has observed that the last proximate incident must be such
as to have finally driven the deceased to take the extreme step . It
has further been held that mere continuous harassment followed by
suicide cannot, by itself, result in a finding of positive instigation, and
mens rea cannot be inferred merely from what was going on in the
mind of the victim.
It has been categorically held that harsh or severe the
harassment may be, unless there is a conscious and deliberate
intention, i.e., mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there
cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306 of IPC.
18. The aforesaid principles have been very recently reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Shivakumar v. State of
Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1583 : 2026 INSC 867 , decided
on 14.08.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering
an appeal arising out of an order refusing discharge under Section 227
of the Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC. While examining the scope of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution must disclose a direct
or indirect act of instigation in close proximity to the commission of
suicide and the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above case, after considering
the allegations of harassment and the suicide notes relied upon by the

10
prosecution, observed that the material must disclose an overt act of
instigation, goading or intentional aid having a proximate nexus with
the suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 14 observed as under:
“...there must be a direct or indirect act of instigation,
in close proximity to the commission of suicide,
coupled with a clear mens rea to abet the commission
of suicide.”
20. After considering the principles as mentioned in preceding
paragraphs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that
ingredients of Section 306 are absent in the said case and held at Para
25 and 26 as under:-
" 25. We further find that the prosecution has failed to
prima facie establish that the Appellant had any intention
to instigate, aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
The suicide notes undoubtedly reflect the anguish of the
deceased, however, they do not disclose any act on the
part of the Appellant from which the requisite mens rea
can reasonably be inferred. There is also no material to
suggest that the Appellant, by his words or conduct,
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
she was left with no reasonable alternative except to
take her own life. No doubt, a young Range Forest
Officer lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However,
criminal liability under Section 306 IPC cannot rest upon
the tragedy of the outcome alone; it must be founded
upon the statutory ingredients of Section 306, which are
absent in the present case.
26. We are, therefore, satisfied that even if the entire
prosecution material is accepted at its face value, the
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306
IPC are not made out. The continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the Appellant would, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, amount to an abuse
of the process of law."

11
21. In the light of the above enunciation of law, the facts of the present
case are required to be examined minutely.
22. According to the prosecution, the appellant had recorded a video
of the deceased while bathing, threatened to circulate it and
pressurised her to establish physical relations with him. It is further
alleged that, during the village meeting held on 13.01.2021, the
appellant admitted his mistake, deleted the video from his mobile
phone and assured the family members that he would not repeat such
conduct. Despite the aforesaid meeting and assurance, the appellant
continued to harass the deceased. Being distressed by such conduct of
appellant, deceased committed suicide on 16.03.2021. Therefore, the
main question for consideration is whether the prosecution has
established that the appellant continued to harass or threaten the
deceased after the village meeting and that such conduct led her to
commit suicide.
23. PW-1 Naresh Yadav, father of the deceased, has stated that the
appellant had taken photographs of the deceased while she was
bathing and used to make obscene remarks to her while she was going
to school. He has further stated that, during a meeting convened by the
villagers, the appellant’s mobile phone was checked and the alleged
video was deleted, and the appellant and his father assured the
villagers that such conduct would not be repeated. However, the
appellant again started sending obscene messages to the deceased,
who, being fed up with the same, committed suicide on 16.03.2021.
However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, PW-1 Naresh Yadav
admitted that the deceased had not told him that the appellant had
recorded her alleged video. He further admitted that all the

12
photographs of the deceased stored in the appellant’s mobile phone
were deleted during a village meeting held about two and a half to
three months before the incident. He also admitted that the appellant’s
marriage was scheduled for 17.03.2021.
24. PW-2 Mamta, sister of the deceased, has stated that her family
members told her that the appellant had taken photographs of the
deceased while bathing and used to harass her while she was going to
and returning from school. However, in her cross-examination, PW-2
Mamta admitted that she had not stated before the police that the
appellant had taken photographs of the deceased or harassed her
while she was going to or returning from school. She further admitted
that she was stating these facts before the Court for the first time.
25. PW-3 Panbarsi, grandmother of the deceased, has also deposed
regarding the alleged video and the harassment purportedly caused by
the appellant to the deceased. She has further stated that the appellant
wanted to marry the deceased, but the deceased and her family were
not willing to marry her to him. However, in her cross-examination, she
admitted that she had stayed with the deceased for two to three days
before the incident, but the deceased had not told her about any
harassment by the appellant during that period. She also admitted that
the appellant wanted to marry the deceased, but her family was
opposed to the marriage because the appellant belonged to the Muslim
community.
26. PW-4 Ashrafi Yadav, uncle of the deceased, PW-5 Rajkumar, PW-7
Shyam Bihari, PW-8 Kripashankar and PW-12 Santosh Pandey, who
were witnesses to the village meeting, have stated that they came to
know about the alleged video from PW-1 Naresh Yadav, father of the

13
deceased, and that a village meeting was convened in that connection,
where the matter was settled amicably. They have further stated that
the parents of the deceased did not lodge any report against the
appellant at the police station. However, their evidence does not
satisfactorily establish that the appellant continued to threaten or
harass the deceased after the village meeting.
27. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is evident that the
alleged incident of taking photographs of the deceased and the village
meeting took place about two and a half to three months before the
death of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 Naresh Yadav, father of
the deceased, and PW-2 Mamta, sister of the deceased, suffers from
material omissions with regard to the alleged video and harassment
caused by the appellant, while PW-3 Panbarsi, grand-mother of the
deceased, admitted that the deceased had not told her about any
harassment by the appellant during the period of two to three days she
stayed with her before the incident. The evidence of the other
witnesses also does not satisfactorily establish that the appellant
continued to harass or threaten the deceased after the village meeting.
Therefore, the prosecution evidence does not establish any continuing
act of harassment or threat by the appellant in close proximity to the
deceased's suicide. Furthermore, PW-13 Ramdev Singh, Investigating
Officer, also admitted in his deposition that the appellant had not
harassed or troubled the deceased during the month before the
incident. That apart, it also emerges from the evidence of PW-3
Panbarsi, grand-mother of the deceased, that the family opposed the
relationship between the appellant and the deceased because they
belonged to different communities. This indicates that the deceased's

14
family opposed their relationship on account of their different
communities. Further, the appellant's marriage was scheduled for
17.03.2021, whereas the deceased committed suicide on 16.03.2021,
one day before his marriage. These circumstances may indicate that
the deceased was distressed by the situation surrounding their
relationship and the appellant's proposed marriage, and this possibility
cannot be ruled out.
28. In the matter of Mariano Anto Bruno and Anr. vs the Inspector
of Police reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834 , the Supreme Court has
has held in para 25 which reads as under:
“25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been
extensively laid out in M. Arjunan vs State , represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which are as under:-
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section
306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive language will
not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased
to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied,
accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”
29. Similarly, in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 , the Supreme Court has
observed in para 20 which reads as under:-
“20. 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.”
30. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
even if the allegations concerning the earlier video and the village
meeting are considered, there is no reliable evidence to establish that

15
the appellant continued to harass the deceased after the village
meeting or intentionally instigated or aided her to commit suicide. The
fact that the deceased died by suicide, by itself, cannot sustain a
conviction under Section 306 of IPC. The possibility that the deceased
was distressed by the circumstances surrounding her relationship with
the appellant and his proposed marriage cannot be ruled out or
discarded. Upon an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment
under Section 107 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is,
therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
31. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2026 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj, C.G. in Sessions
Trial No.66/2021, convicting and sentencing the appellant under
Section 306 of IPC are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the
charge under Section 306 of IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt.
32. Appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be released
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. However,
keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS, the
appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45
prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the concerned
trial Court, which shall remain effective for a period of six months, along
with an undertaking that, in the event of filing of a Special Leave
Petition against this judgment or seeking leave to appeal, the appellant,
on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

16
33. Let the original record of the trial Court along with a copy of this
judgment be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well
as to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and
necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Akhilesh