The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted an appellant charged under Section 307 IPC after finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the complainant’s mental illness, absence of motive, and contradictory testimonies. The judgment reaffirms the foundational principle that conviction in criminal cases demands more than suspicion - it requires unimpeachable proof.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sheshnarayan Sahu, was married to Leela Bai in July 2006. The couple lived together for approximately nine to ten months before Leela Bai returned to her maternal home in Borsi, where she resided with their six-month-old son, Doman Sahu. A social meeting held in April 2008 resulted in an agreement that the appellant would pay Rs. 700 per month for maintenance. On 30.04.2008, the appellant visited his father-in-law’s house to reconcile with his wife. He slept in the same room with his wife and child, while her parents and brother slept in the courtyard.
Key Facts
- The appellant and Leela Bai were married on 01.07.2006.
- Leela Bai returned to her parental home after 9 - 10 months of marriage.
- A social meeting occurred on 04.04.2008, during which the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 700/month maintenance.
- On 30.04.2008, the appellant visited his in-laws’ house and slept in the same room as his wife and child.
- At approximately 3:30 a.m. on 01.05.2008, Leela Bai alleged the appellant attempted to strangulate their son with a nylon rope.
- The child, Doman Sahu, was taken for medical examination on 01.05.2008.
- FIR was lodged at Police Station Kumhari on 01.05.2008 at 7:30 a.m.
- The nylon rope was seized and marked as Exhibit P/3.
- Leela Bai admitted to suffering from mental illness and undergoing treatment.
- PW-2 (father) and PW-3 (mother) admitted they requested police to arrest the appellant "by any means."
- The appellant consistently maintained in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that his wife had attempted to strangulate the child and falsely implicated him.
Procedural History
- 30.04.2008: Appellant visits in-laws’ house; incident allegedly occurs at 3:30 a.m. on 01.05.2008.
- 01.05.2008: FIR lodged at 7:30 a.m. at Police Station Kumhari.
- 01.05.2008: Medical examination of child conducted; X-ray and rope analysis ordered.
- 19.11.2008: Sessions Judge, Durg, convicts appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentences him to 5 years RI with Rs. 500 fine.
- 10.05.2008: Charge sheet filed.
- 24.03.2026: Judgment reserved on 31.01.2026; pronounced and uploaded on 24.03.2026.
- 10.05.2008: Case committed to Sessions Court by Magistrate.
- 19.11.2008: Conviction and sentencing by trial court.
- 24.03.2026: Appeal heard and decided by Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He requested the setting aside of the conviction and sentence, and release from all legal consequences.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution established attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, given the complainant’s mental illness, absence of motive, contradictory testimonies, and the plausible alternative explanation offered by the accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies. The complainant admitted to mental illness and treatment, and her parents admitted to pressuring police to arrest the appellant "by any means." The rope was not recovered from the appellant’s possession but produced by the complainant’s family. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC offered a credible alternative: that the complainant, under mental stress, attempted to strangulate the child and falsely implicated him. Reliance was placed on Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, where the Supreme Court held that absence of motive and lack of clarity in prosecution evidence vitiate conviction under Section 307 IPC.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, and that the conviction was justified. It argued that the complainant’s testimony was consistent with the medical findings and that the appellant’s defense was a post-facto fabrication.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution’s case fundamentally flawed. The complainant, PW-1, admitted to mental illness and treatment, and her parents admitted to urging police to arrest the appellant regardless of evidence. The Court noted that PW-2 and PW-3 were not eyewitnesses and relied entirely on the complainant’s version.
"The prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant for the alleged commission of the offence."
The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Raju v. State of Uttarakhand had held that in cases involving familial relationships, absence of motive and presence of mental instability in the complainant must be weighed heavily. The Court observed that the complainant’s cross-examination revealed material contradictions: she refused to read her own FIR, admitted to requesting arrest "by any means," and denied writing the FIR despite its typewritten format.
The medical evidence, while confirming a ligature mark, did not establish intent to kill. Dr. S.K. Fating admitted he recorded the cause of injury based on what the complainant told him, not independent observation. Dr. A.K. Sahu’s X-ray report found no fracture, undermining claims of violent strangulation.
The Court held that the defence’s version - that the complainant, under mental stress, attempted to harm the child and then falsely implicated her husband - was not only plausible but probable. The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution, and the defence need only raise reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution’s case collapsed under its own inconsistencies.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC dated 19.11.2008 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The appellant, already on bail, is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount before the trial court, effective for six months. He must undertake to appear before the Supreme Court if a special leave petition is filed against this judgment. The trial court record and a copy of this judgment are to be returned immediately for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mental Illness Can Create Reasonable Doubt
- Practitioners must rigorously investigate the mental health history of complainants in cases involving familial violence.
- Medical records, treatment history, and admissions of mental instability must be treated as material evidence, not collateral.
- Prosecution cannot rely solely on emotional testimony when the complainant’s credibility is compromised by documented psychological conditions.
Absence of Motive Is Fatal in Section 307 Cases
- In cases under Section 307 IPC, especially involving close relatives, the prosecution must establish a clear, credible motive.
- Courts will not infer motive from mere opportunity or familial discord.
- Raju v. State of Uttarakhand now stands as binding precedent requiring explicit motive analysis in every attempt-to-murder prosecution.
Witness Credibility Must Be Scrutinized Beyond Surface Testimony
- When witnesses admit to bias - such as requesting arrest "by any means" - their testimony must be treated with extreme caution.
- Corroboration by independent evidence is mandatory; reliance on family members as sole witnesses is insufficient.
- The Court’s observation that the rope was not recovered from the accused’s possession but produced by the complainant’s family underscores the need for chain-of-evidence scrutiny.
