The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and any contradictions or developments in the evidence may entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Gopal Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the State.

2. Two appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 134 of 1998 and Cr. Appeal No. 182 of 1998 have heard together and being disposed by the common judgment as the two appeals arising out of same judgment and order dated 23. 03. 1998, passed by Shri Krishnakant Sahaya, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1991/131 of 1988, by which he has been convicted the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Raj Kumar Sao and Karu Sao for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant No. 3 Fulwa Devi has been convicted for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. However, all the Appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant (P.W. 8) that his daughter Asha Devi was married about ten years back with Raj Kumar Sao, son of Karu Sao. His daughter used to live with love and affection with his son-in-law, Raj Kumar Sao. However, some days prior to the occurrence due to some domestic quarrel his daughter was sad, but she did not rebut anything to them. About three days prior to the occurrence reporting, he learnt about death of his daughter during pregnancy that his daughter died at the time of giving birth to the child. Sasural people of the daughter did not disclose about the death and learnt that his Damad and Samdhi was to go to Calcutta and on enquiry he learnt that about one week prior to the occurrence there was some quarrel with the daughter of the informant and Sasural people due to which she committed suicide by drowning in a well. However, it is stated that occurrence took place due to Sasural people vexed his daughter and he was learnt that dead body was cremated in heavy haste. His further case is that Bijay Sao who lives at Calcutta informed him about the occurrence and he learned from Raj Kumar Sao.

4. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet submitted. During trial nine witnesses were examined. The trial court taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W. 8, the informant that he has stated that his daughter committed suicide due to ill treatment and assault and due to abuse and hurt and accused persons always used to abuse and assault. P.W. 5, 6 and 7 have supported the prosecution case that victim was subjected to cruelty by the Appellants by abusing, assaulting and not giving food to her by which the victim committed suicide by jumping in well. Though, P.W. 4 has stated that the victim died due to quarrel between the inmates of her Sasural and trial court taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses convicted the Appellants holding that prosecution has been able to prove the case of ill treatment, assault and abuse against the victim.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants however assail the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that abatement for commitment of suicide has not been established, nor to the fact that in instigating a person to commit suicide has to be established that victim committed suicide on the instigation of the Appellants.

6. However, taking into consideration the evidence and in the light of the submissions P.W. 8 the informant, P.W. 5 the wife of the informant, P.W. 6 the daughter of the informant and P.W. 7 the brother of the informant have stated in their evidence accused persons used to subject the victim to cruelty by assault, abuse and not giving food to her. They have further stated in their evidence that the victim used to disclose about subjecting cruelty. However, all the witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that they had not seen assault or subjecting cruelty on the person of victim nor they have seen that victim committ