Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man Of Abetting Wife’s Alleged Lover’s Suicide For Lack Of Instigation, While Upholding Assault And Trespass Convictions

On 23 April 2021, the appellant went with his wife to the deceased’s home, allegedly suspecting an affair between them.

The prosecution evidence accepted by the Court established that the appellant forcibly entered the house, quarrelled with and assaulted the deceased, used abusive language, and threatened to kill him.

The deceased later left home and was found hanging from a tree; the post-mortem evidence established death by suicide.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 452, 506 Part II, 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He appealed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, requires proof that the accused instigated, conspired in, or intentionally aided the suicide, with the requisite mens rea; instigation must have a proximate connection to the suicide, and the suicide itself does not establish abetment.

Applying Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Court stated that instigation means goading, urging, provoking, inciting or encouraging, and may be inferred from conduct that leaves the deceased with no other option.

It also relied on Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 251; Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 233; and Vinod Shivakumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1583, for the requirements of proximate instigation and clear mens rea.

The Court further cited Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834, and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327, for the principles that abusive language alone is insufficient and that a positive act of instigation or intentional aid is required.

The Court found the deceased’s death to be suicidal on the basis of eyewitness and medical evidence.

It accepted the testimony establishing forcible entry, assault, abuse and threats, and accordingly upheld the convictions under Sections 452, 506 Part II and 323 IPC.

However, the evidence showed that after the appellant left, the deceased slept and later left home; no witness described any further interaction or any words or conduct by the appellant intended to provoke or assist suicide.

The deceased’s concern about possible defamation and his impending marriage did not establish instigation or mens rea.

The quarrel and suicide, without proof of the statutory elements and a proximate nexus, were insufficient to sustain the Section 306 conviction.

Considering the custody already undergone, the Court reduced the custodial sentences under Sections 452 and 506 Part II to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine and default terms; it left the Section 323 sentence unchanged.

Convictions under Sections 452, 506 Part II and 323 IPC were affirmed.

The sentences under Sections 452 and 506 Part II were reduced to the period already undergone, with the fines and default sentences maintained; the Section 323 fine and default sentence were also maintained.

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith if he was not required in another case and ordered him to furnish a personal bond for six months.