1

2026:CGHC:25275

The date when

the judgment is

reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

13.05.2026 22.06.2026 -- 22.06.2026

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 228 of 2015

1.Smt. Satwati Bai W/o Late Balram Mandavi Aged About 40 Years R/o

Village Baliyara, P.O. Bhatali, P.S. Arjuni, District- Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh

2.Indra Kumar Mandavi S/o Late Balram Mandavi, Aged About 19 Years,

Village Baliyara, P.O. Bhatali, P.S. Arjuni, District- Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh

--- Appellants

versus

1.State of Chhattisgarh, through S.H.O., P.S. Arjuni, District- Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh

2.Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, S/o Late Parasram Wadwani, Aged About 53

Years R/o Quarter No. 09, Arihant Vihar Colony, Aamapara, Dhamtari,

District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

2

CRA No. 1191 of 2015

•Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, S/o Late Parasram Wadwani, Aged About 53

Years R/o Quarter No. 09, Arihant Vihar Colony, Aamapara, Dhamtari,

District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---Appellant

Versus

•State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Arjuni, District–

Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---Respondent

For Appellants :Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate in ACQA No. 228 of 2015

and Mr. T. K. Jha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Parth

Jha, Advocate in CRA No. 1191 of 2015

For Objector

:Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate in CRA No. 1191 of 2015

For State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. in ACQA No. 228 of 2015

&Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PL in CRA No. 1191 of 2015

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgement

ACQA No. 228 of 2015

1.This acquittal appeal has been preferred by Appellant No. 1- Smt.

Satwati Bai, and Appellant No. 2- Indra Kumar Mandavi, against the

judgment dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC

& ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dhamtari, in Special

Sessions Trial No. 02/2015, whereby Respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar

Wadhwani, was acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the

SC & ST Act and awarded a lesser sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

3

CRA No. 1191 of 2015

2. This appeal is preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374 (2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated

21.09.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dhamtari in Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2015,

wherein the said Court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced

him as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 306 of

IPC

R.I. for 07 years along with a fine

amount of Rs. 2000/-, in default

of payment of fine, to undergo

additional R.I. for 03 months

3.The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment

and the records of the case in the appeals, is that on 14.06.2014

complainants- Indra Kumar, Ramlal Sahu (Up-Sarpanch of Village

Baliyara), Raghvendra Sinha (Secretary) and Hansraj (Kotwar), lodged

an oral report at Police Station- Arjuni stating that Balram Mandavi had

left his house on 13.06.2014 at about 4:00 PM without informing

anyone and had not returned. Despite inquiries made in the village, his

whereabouts could not be ascertained. On 14.06.2014, the

complainants, along with Puna Ram Mandavi and Umesh Mandavi,

went to inspect the fields and found Balram Mandavi lying dead in his

field at Navagaon Khar. His motorcycle was found parked near a drain

and a box of pesticide was lying nearby. The body was thereafter

brought home. On the basis of this information, a case was registered

and investigation commenced. During the inquest proceedings, a diary

4

and a suicide note were recovered from the pocket of the deceased

Balram Mandavi, wherein he had stated the reasons for taking his life.

The articles were seized in the presence of witnesses under a seizure

memo. During investigation, statements of the complainants and the

children of the deceased were recorded. They disclosed that Balram

Mandavi, the Sarpanch, had procured materials for the construction of

a NREGA Chaupal from a contractor Ashok Wadhwani and owed him

approximately Rs. 40,000/-. It was alleged that the accused- Ashok

Wadhwani, persistently harassed the deceased by demanding Rs. 3–4

lakhs as enhanced interest on the outstanding amount. Being fed up

with the aforesaid illegal persistent demand and harassment, Balram

Mandavi allegedly consumed pesticide in the field of Sudarshan in

Village- Baliyara after 5:00 PM on 13.06.2014, resulting in his death.

Witnesses were summoned for the inquest proceedings and in their

presence, an inquest memo was prepared, during which a diary and a

suicide note were recovered from the pocket of the deceased and

were seized under a seizure memo. A post-mortem examination of the

deceased was conducted and the post-mortem report was obtained.

Thereafter, an FIR was registered at Police Station- Kurud, statements

of witnesses were recorded and a spot map was prepared. Specimen

documents containing the natural handwriting of the deceased and

caste certificate were seized. The accused was arrested and a supply

bill was recovered and seized from his possession. The seized

documents were forwarded through the Superintendent of Police,

Dhamtari, to the Director, State Handwriting Expert, Raipur, for

examination and the expert's report was subsequently obtained. After

5

completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led

before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed

the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-

sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused person

for alleged commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC and

Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989. The accused person having abjured

guilt was subjected to trial.

4.In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as

many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant/accused.

Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his

innocence and false implication in the case.

5.Learned counsel for the complainants/appellants in ACQA No. 228 of

2015 submits that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting

accused/Respondent No. 2 of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the

SC & ST Act and in imposing an inadequate sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC, without properly appreciating the

evidence and material available on record. It is contended that the

prosecution established that Respondent No. 2 continuously harassed

the deceased for payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-, despite the deceased

having already paid the amount due towards the construction

materials purchased by him. Such harassment constituted the

instigation that drove the deceased to commit suicide, while the trial

Court rightly convicted accused/Respondent No. 2 for offence under

Section 306 of IPC, it imposed an unduly lenient sentence considering

6

the gravity of the offence. It is further submitted that the prosecution

proved that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community

and that accused/Respondent No. 2 was fully aware of this fact, yet he

deliberately subjected the deceased to harassment knowing his

financial inability to pay the alleged amount. Therefore, the ingredients

of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 stood

proved, but the trial Court has failed to record a conviction under the

said section. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, the acquittal of accused/Respondent No. 2 for the offence under

the Atrocities Act is not sustainable in law and is contrary to the settled

principles of law. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be

modified.

To buttress her contention, she relied upon the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gurbachan Singh vs.

Satpal Singh and Ors

1

and Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh

2

6.Ex adverso, learned Senior counsel for the accused/appellant in CRA

No. 1191 of 2015 and respondent No. 2 in ACQA No. 228 of 2015

vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the

complainants/appellants in ACQA No. 228 of 2015.

7.Learned Senior counsel for the accused/appellant in CRA No. 1191 of

2015 submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, contrary to law,

and unsupported by the evidence on record. It is contended that

conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC requires

1(1990) SCC 445

2(2017) 7 SCC 780

7

proof of mens rea and a positive act of instigation, aid, or intentional

conduct that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

The prosecution has failed to establish any such intention or conduct

on the part of the appellant. It is further submitted that the prosecution

has not proved any circumstances showing that the appellant

compelled or provoked the deceased to take the extreme step of

suicide. The suicide note does not state that the deceased was

instigated by the appellant to commit suicide. Except for a reference to

the appellant’s name, the note contains no allegation of any act,

omission, or conduct amounting to instigation, intentional aid or

abetment. There is also no evidence of any conspiracy involving the

appellant that led to the suicide. Relying on settled law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Senior counsel submits that mere

demand for repayment of money legally due from the deceased

cannot constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. In the

present case, the deceased was burdened with an outstanding bank

loan of Rs. 2,58,000/-, which is a relevant circumstance ignored by the

trial Court. Attention is also drawn to the testimony of PW-1 (son of the

deceased), who admitted in his deposition that he did not inform the

police at the time of lodging the report that the deceased had

committed suicide due to any instigation by the appellant, nor did he

state during the inquest proceedings that his father had been harassed

by the appellant. It is further argued that most independent witnesses

did not support the prosecution case, yet the learned trial Court

convicted the appellant solely on the testimonies of PW-1 (Son of the

deceased) and PW-2 (father of the deceased). Accordingly, the

8

conviction under Section 306 IPC is unsustainable and liable to be set

aside. Learned Senior counsel also submits that learned trial Court

rightly acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of

the Act, 1989 and acquittal appeal filed by the complainants/appellants

without any merit is liable to be dismissed and appeal filed by the

accused/ appellant may be allowed.

To buttress his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matters of Mahendra Awase vs. State

of Madhya Pradesh

3

& Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala vs. State

of Gujarat and Anr.

4

and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble

Delhi High Court in the matter of Smt. Sunil vs. State of Govet of

NCT of Delhi

5

and in the matter of Smt. Shaila Singh vs. State of

C.G. and Anr.

6

passed by this Court.

8.Ex adverso, learned counsel for the appellants/complainants in ACQA

No. 228 of 2015 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on

behalf of the accused/appellant in CRA No. 1191 of 2015. It is

contended that the prosecution has successfully established its case

beyond reasonable doubt and that the learned trial Court rightly

convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306

IPC. It is further submitted that although the evidence on record clearly

attracted the provisions of the Act, 1989, but the learned trial Court

failed to properly appreciate the relevant statutory provisions and

erroneously acquitted the accused/Respondent No.2 of the charge

3(2025) 4 SCC 801

42026 LiveLaw (SC) 270

5CRL REV.P. 591/2023 & CRL.M.A. 14085/2023

6CRMP No. 1441 of 2017

9

under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. Accordingly, it is prayed that

ACQA No. 228 of 2015 filed by the complainants/appellants may be

allowed by setting aside the acquittal under the Act, 1989 and CRA

No. 1191 of 2015 preferred by the accused may be dismissed.

9.Learned counsel for the State supporting the argument of learned

counsel for the appellants/complainants in Acquittal Appeal No. 228 of

2015 and vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of

the accused/appellant in CRA No. 1191 of 2015, submits that the

learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants/

accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC, but the learned trial

Court failed to minutely appreciate the relevant statutory provisions

and erroneously acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section

3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989.

10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

11.It is not disputed in this case that learned trial Court framed charges

under Section 306 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989 against the

accused- Ashok Kumar Wadhwani. After appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court

acquitted the accused person of charge under Section 3 (2) (v) of Act,

1989, but convicted him for offence under Section 306 of IPC and

sentenced as mentioned in para 02 of this judgment. It is also not

disputed in this case that deceased Balram Mandavi had committed

suicide on 13.06.2014 by consuming pesticide.

10

12.The prosecution produced the caste certificate of Indra Kumar, son of

the deceased, marked as Ex. P/8, which was issued by the S.D.O.,

Dhamtari. The said certificate establishes that the deceased Balram

Mandavi, belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community. The learned

trial Court has also recorded a finding to the same effect.

13.PW-1- Indra Kumar, son of the deceased Balram Mandavi, stated that

the accused worked as a contractor and also lent money on interest in

the village. His father had engaged the accused for gravel and stone

work and made payments from time to time. The accused was

demanding the remaining amount of 40,000 and had allegedly

₹

inflated the liability by charging interest, claiming an amount of 3–4

₹

lakhs. According to the witness, his father committed suicide due to

this persistent harassment, which was also mentioned in the suicide

note. The police subsequently recorded his statement.

14.PW-2, Raghunandan, father of the deceased, stated that he had

known the accused for a long time and that the accused was engaged

in money lending on interest. He deposed that the accused once came

to his house looking for his son (deceased). While his son was

present, a conversation took place between the accused and his son;

however, he was unable to state the contents of that conversation.

15.A careful scrutiny of the statements of PW-1 Indra Kumar and PW-2

Raghunandan reveals that neither witness has alleged that the

accused ever subjected the deceased to any caste-based insult,

intimidation, humiliation or harassment. Their evidence is confined to

the allegation that the accused was demanding repayment of money

11

allegedly due from the deceased. Both witnesses have admitted that

an amount was in fact payable by the deceased to the accused. The

contents of the suicide note (Article-1) also do not disclose any

allegation of caste-related harassment. The deceased merely stated

that the accused was demanding 3–4 lakhs by charging excessive

₹

interest on the outstanding amount of 40,000/-. The suicide note

₹

further reveals that the deceased along with his father and brother,

had purchased a tractor and that a sum of 2 lakhs remained unpaid

₹

towards the said purchase.

16.Thus, the material available on record indicates that the deceased was

under financial liabilities and was facing demands for repayment of

dues. Even if the prosecution case is accepted at its highest, the

allegations pertain solely to a monetary dispute and recovery of an

outstanding amount. There is no evidence, either oral or documentary,

to suggest that the accused harassed or intimidated the deceased on

account of his caste. Consequently, the essential ingredients of caste-

based offences are conspicuously absent from the prosecution

evidence.

17.A perusal of the suicide note (Article-1) does not disclose any

allegation that the deceased was harassed, humiliated, or subjected to

any ill-treatment by the accused/appellant on account of his caste. The

contents of the note pertain only to a monetary dispute between the

parties.

18.The learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire oral

and documentary evidence on record and has rightly concluded that

12

the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the

offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. The finding

of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not

suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference.

Consequently, ACQA No. 228 of 2015, preferred by the complainants/

appellants against the acquittal under the Special Act is devoid of

merit.

19.Insofar as ACQA No. 228 of 2015, seeking enhancement of sentence

under Section 306 IPC by the complainants and CRA No. 1191 of

2015, preferred by the accused/appellant challenging his conviction,

are concerned, the evidence of PW-1 Indra Kumar and PW-2

Raghunandan unequivocally establishes that the accused had been

demanding repayment of the amount due from the deceased Balram

Mandavi.

20.At this juncture, it is appropriate to look into the provisions of Sections

306 & 107 of Indian Penal Code, which 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

of which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine.

107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a

thing who-

First- Instigates any person to do that thing: or

Second- Engages with one or more other person in any conspiracy

for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal mission takes place

in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that

thing; or

13

Third- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing

of that thing.

Explanation 1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by

willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,

voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a

thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the

commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the

commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof,

is said to aid the doing of that act. ”

21. It has been recently held and observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the matter of Dhirubhai (supra) in paras 13 and 14 as under:-

“13. What is evident from the charge-sheet submitted

by the investigating agency is that the deceased had

borrowed money from multiple accused. Insofar as the

present appellant is concerned, it appears the deceased

initially borrowed Rs. 4 lacs and in lieu thereof, issued a

cheque drawn on State Bank of India. Later, Rs. 6 lacs

were also lent. The only basis on which the charge-

sheet has been laid against the accused is the suicide

note coupled with the call detail records which indicate

that 40 phone calls were made by the appellant to the

deceased in last six months. As far as the suicide note

is concerned, we find that it lacks material particulars

regarding the nature of those threats and the time and

place when those threats were extended. Moreover, the

suicide note indicts as many as 9 accused without

specifying the role of any one of them. It is not the case

14

of the prosecution that all accused belong to one family

or were harassing the deceased as a group. Further, the

deceased has painted all creditors with one brush.

Therefore, a trial based on such a suicide note would

be a futile exercise. Besides, if a creditor makes a

phone call to the debtor for return of his money that

being a lawful act, it cannot on its own constitute a

ground to prosecute the creditor. Moreover, the

deceased may have committed suicide on account of

depression for not being able to clear of the debt.

14. In such circumstances, particularly when there is

no material to indicate that the deceased was beaten

or physically assaulted to return the dues, we are of

the view that there is hardly any material on basis

whereof it could be inferred that the appellant by

demanding his dues abetted commission of suicide by

the deceased. In our view, therefore, the continuance

of the proceedings against the appellant would be a

futile exercise and would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court. Hence, to secure the ends of

justice, it is necessary that the same be quashed.”

22. It has been held and observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter

of Mahendra Awase (supra) in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 as under:-

“ 19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the

requirement of instigation the accused by his act or

15

omission or by a continued course of conduct should

have created such circumstances that the deceased was

left with no other option except to commit suicide. It was

also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion

without intending the consequences to actually follow

cannot be said to be instigation.

20. Applying the above principle to the facts of the

present case, we are convinced that there are no grounds

to frame charges under Section 306 IPC against the

appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution's

case on a demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the

suicide note reveals that the appellant was asking the

deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased

and advanced to Ritesh Malakar.

21. It could not be said that the appellant by performing

his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his

employer can be said to have instigated the deceased

commit suicide. Equally so, with the transcripts, including

the portions emphasised hereinabove. Even taken

literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to

instigate the commission of suicide.

22. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his

acts created circumstances which left the deceased with

no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from

the armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the

deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave the

16

deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This

is the conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach,

keeping the context and the situation in mind. Strangely,

the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two months

and twenty days.

23. This Court has, over the last several decades,

repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by

law for Section 306 IPC (Now Section 108 read with

Section 45 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) to be attracted.

They however seem to have followed more in the breach.

Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily

resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in

genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be

spared, the provision should not be deployed against

individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the

distraught family of the deceased.”

23.It has been held and observed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter

of Smt. Sunil (supra) in paras 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 as under:-

“ 25. Harassment in the present case is alleged on

account of exuberant rate of interest, threats of jail.

visits to the home of deceased and constant calls by

Respondent No.2. In allegations, there is also mention

of a remark made by Respondent No.2 on one call,

soon before the victim committed suicide, where he

asked the victim to pay the dues or to commit suicide.

17

Pertinently, in his suicide note, the deceased has only

mentioned the threat of jail as the reason of

harassment.

26. Insofar as the remark in relation to suicide is

concerned, even if the same is taken at the highest.

such words of casual nature employed in heat of the

moment are to be seen from a practical point of view,

and the same alone does not reflect intention on part of

the accused to incite the deceased into committing

suicide. Even as per the statement of the petitioner, the

remark only appears to be made in an attempt to

pressure the deceased into making payment of the

remaining dues.

28. Merely pursuing the borrower by way of repeated

calls, or making occasional house visits where harsh

words are said in the moment, for repayment are also

not sufficient to prima facie raise grave suspicion

against the accused qua instigating suicide.

29. Simple harassment is insufficient to make out a

case of abetment and by no stretch of imagination can

it be said that the accused created a scenario that left

the deceased with no other option but to commit

suicide. As has also been rightly appreciated by the

learned Trial Court, in the face of threats of jail, the

victim had the option of repaying the debt and facing

legal consequences. Alternatively, in case the charged

18

interest was indeed usurious, the deceased was

entitled to refuse payment and pursue his legal

remedies in this regard instead.

30. It is imperative to appreciate that although financial

distress and 'harassment' by Respondent No.2 (who

was seeking to recover dues) may have been the

motivating factors behind the suicide of the deceased,

as is canvassed from the suicide note and statement of

the petitioner, culpability cannot be attracted against

the accused in absence of any mens rea. Even if the

allegations of harassment are presumed to be correct,

in their capacity as lenders, the intent of the accused

appears to be to only pressurise the deceased to

recover the loan amount and not to instigate the

deceased into committing suicide. As also appreciated

by this Court in the case of Laxmi Jha & Anr v. State &

Anr: 2025: DHC:8234, while conduct of a person may be

a reason for the victim to take their life, in the absence

of active instigation, the said conduct cannot be

equated with abetment to suicide. “

24.In light of the above judgments, in this present case also, it is evident

that the appellant had merely demanded repayment of the loan

amount due from the deceased- Balram Mandavi. PW-1 and PW-2

have categorically admitted that the accused was seeking recovery of

his outstanding dues and had even warned him by saying that in the

event of non-payment, he would go to the Court and initiate legal

19

proceedings for getting back his money. The evidence of PW-1 further

reveals that the deceased had availed a bank loan for purchase of a

tractor. Due to non-payment of the loan installments, the bank

repossessed and auctioned the tractor. PW-1 has also admitted that

the deceased was deeply distressed by the loss of the tractor and that

these facts were specifically mentioned in the suicide note. He further

admitted that a sum of 2,58,000/- remained outstanding towards the

₹

bank loan during the lifetime of the deceased. The suicide note itself

reflects the financial liabilities of the deceased, including the

outstanding bank dues and his mental state of health due to the loss of

the tractor. The independent witnesses have also supported the

defence version by acknowledging that the appellant/accused used to

lend money on interest in the village and had demanded repayment of

the amount due from the deceased. It is evident from all the witnesses

that that no overt act done by the accused against the deceased and it

is well settled principle of law that merely pursuing the borrower by

way of repeated calls, or making occasional house visits where harsh

words are said in the moment, for repayment are also not sufficient to

prima facie grave suspicion against the accused qua instigating

suicide. Consequently, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the

essential ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107

IPC.

25. It has been held and observed by this Court in the matter of Smt.

Shaila (supra) in para 13 as under:-

13. Even if the prosecution version is taken as true

20

and correct, there is no material on record to

establish that the petitioner had adopted any coercive

methods to recover her loan amount. Further, if there

was any demand made by the petitioner, that cannot

be treated as abetment as any person who has given

loan would certainly like to get it back. If there was

any unlawful activity performed by the petitioner in

order to recover the loan amount, either the deceased

or her husband could have taken shelter of any

competent Court of law or at least made a complaint

before the police authorities, which admittedly in this

case is missing.

26.In the light of above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for offence under

Section 306 of IPC, but the learned trial Court did not minutely

appreciate the material evidence on record in its correct perspective

and erroneously recorded a finding of conviction. The conclusions

drawn by learned trial Court are thus not sustainable in law and are

liable to be set aside.

27. On the basis of aforesaid discussions,

1.Ex consequenti, the Acquittal Appeal No. 228 of 2015 filed by the

appellants/complainants being devoid of any substance is hereby

dismissed.

2.The criminal appeal filed by the appellant- Ashok Kumar Wadhwani in

CRA No.1191 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned judgment of

21

conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2015 is hereby set-aside

and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charge.

The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, in view of

provisions of Section 481 of BNSS his bail bond shall remain in

operation for a period of six months from today.

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and

necessary action.

SD/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL