Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man Of Abetting Neighbour’s Suicide, Finding No Proof He Continued Harassment After Meeting Over Alleged Bathing Video

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj, under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he had secretly recorded the deceased while she was bathing, threatened to circulate the video, and pressured her to establish physical relations with him.

At a village meeting on 13 January 2021, he allegedly admitted wrongdoing, deleted the video, and undertook not to repeat the conduct.

The deceased died by suicide on 16 March 2021; the appellant’s marriage was scheduled for the following day.

The appellant appealed his conviction under Section 415(2) BNSS.

Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, requires proof of suicide and abetment by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, accompanied by the requisite mens rea.

As explained in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, instigation means goading, provoking, inciting, or encouraging; it may be inferred from conduct creating circumstances that leave the deceased with no other option, but the inference must be supported by the evidence.

Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, and Vinod Shivakumar v. State of Maharashtra emphasise that a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, a close nexus with the suicide, and clear mens rea must be shown; harassment or the tragic outcome alone is insufficient.

Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, M. Arjunan v. State, and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh likewise require evidence of an intention to instigate, aid, or abet the suicide; abusive or insulting conduct, without more, does not establish the offence.

The post-mortem evidence and the testimony of the witnesses who found the deceased established that her death was by suicide.

However, the evidence concerning the alleged video and harassment was materially weakened by omissions and admissions in cross-examination; the witnesses to the village meeting did not establish that the appellant continued to threaten or harass the deceased afterwards.

The alleged meeting had occurred approximately two and a half to three months before the suicide, and the Investigating Officer accepted that the appellant had not harassed or troubled the deceased during the month preceding it.

The Court therefore found no reliable evidence of a proximate act, intentional aid, or mens rea connecting the appellant’s conduct to the suicide.

The possibility that the deceased was distressed by the circumstances of the relationship and the appellant’s impending marriage could not be ruled out.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

As the appellant was reported to be in jail, the Court directed his release forthwith unless required in another case, subject to furnishing the prescribed personal bond and surety for six months.