When "No" Is Met With Threats: Abetment of Suicide in State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohd. Seraj

Courts like to say that evidence is weighed, not counted. A recent decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court shows what happens when a trial court forgets it. In State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohd. Seraj,¹ a single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas set aside an acquittal in an abetment-of-suicide case and held the accused guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court’s principal reason for acquitting was that the prosecution had not examined a handwriting expert. This note asks why that was not enough. It draws on the published report of the order,² and readers should consult the judgment for its full reasoning.

§ 1The facts as reported

A young woman died by suicide at home, and an FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused pressed her to marry him and, when she refused, threatened to kill her and her mother. A written note, which the prosecution attributed to the deceased, and a mobile phone were seized. The Sessions Judge, Korba, acquitted the accused on 16 January 2019, chiefly because no handwriting expert had confirmed that the note was in the deceased’s hand. The State appealed against the acquittal (ACQA No. 96 of 2020).

§ 2What Section 306 requires

Section 306 punishes whoever abets the commission of suicide. Abetment is defined in Section 107, and in a case like this the relevant limb is instigation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that harassment alone is not abetment: there must be a positive act of instigation, with intent, and the accused must have goaded, urged or provoked the deceased to the act.³ For offences committed after 1 July 2024, the corresponding provisions are Sections 45 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

As reported, the High Court framed the inquiry in four parts. The accused’s acts, direct or indirect, must be:

1. Instigating. They must actually push the deceased towards the act.
2. Proximate. They must be reasonably close in time to the suicide.
3. Intentional. They must show a clear intent to abet.
4. Without alternative. They must leave the deceased with no other option.

§ 3The High Court’s reasoning

The Court relied on the testimony of a prosecution witness (PW-7), which it found established repeated pressure to marry and threats against the deceased and her mother, and which stood unshaken in cross-examination. It treated the conduct as a continuing course rather than a single quarrel, and found the mother’s account consistent with the doctor’s opinion. Its central legal point is the one that decided the appeal: expert opinion is only corroborative, and where direct evidence exists, corroboration is not required. The trial court, it held, had overlooked that direct material in a casual manner.

§ 4Why the handwriting point failed

The Evidence Act itself shows why. Section 45 admits an expert’s opinion on handwriting, but Section 47 also admits the opinion of anyone familiar with a person’s handwriting, and Section 73 allows the court to compare writing itself. An expert is one route to proof, not a toll gate through which every case must pass. That observation is the author’s, not the Court’s, but it explains why an acquittal resting on the missing expert was fragile.

An expert can corroborate a case. He cannot be made a toll gate through which every case must pass.

The reasoning also protects the line that matters most in this area. A refusal to marry is a person’s own decision, and it is never a wrong. What the law punishes is the pressure and the threats that follow it.

§ 5What the report does not tell us

• Sentence. The accused has been held guilty, but the Court directed that he be heard on sentence first, so the outcome is not complete until sentence is passed. The report refers to both Section 235(2) of the CrPC and Section 254(2) of the BNSS for this step.
• Authorities. The report does not name the precedents the Court relied on.
• The evidence. It does not describe the contents of the note or what the seized phone showed.
• Further remedy. The accused may seek further review in the Supreme Court.

§ 6Takeaways

• For prosecutors: lead with direct evidence of instigation and treat expert reports as corroboration.
• For trial courts: do not set proof requirements the Evidence Act does not impose, and assess the evidence as a whole.
• For the defence: proximity and intent remain the strongest ground, because harassment alone is not instigation.
• For readers: note that a conviction pending sentence is not the last word.

If you or someone you know is struggling, Tele-MANAS offers free, confidential support in India on 14416.