The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear mens rea and a positive act on the part of the accused to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide.

Both the appellants Puja Kumari and Virendra Sah faced trial along with four others in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 2012/50 of 2012 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No. 229 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 306/120B, 354, 323 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 67, 67A, 84B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of six months have been ordered for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The appellants were acquitted of other charges as referred to above. Other four accused Lovely Kumari, Bhairav Rai, Akhilesh Paswan and Gauri Yadav have been acquitted of all the charges by the same judgment giving benefit of doubt.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the matter is of love-affairs and the victim was done to death as honour killing by the prosecution side and thereafter, the present false case has been lodged. The post-mortem report would reveal that no case of suicide by hanging was found by the Doctor. Their contention is that even if the entire prosecution case and the evidences are accepted, the prosecution has failed to prove that death of the victim was result of abetment of the appellants. Their contention is that on the very same evidence, the learned trial court has acquitted the other accused persons and convicted the appellants and did not consider that if on the same materials two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be preferred. Their next contention is that there is complete lack of evidence of criminal conspiracy to abet the suicide, hence, conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also bad in law. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has wrongly relied on the suicide note of the victim, only against the appellants. His contention is that on careful perusal the suicide note (Ext. 5) would reveal that the victim was frustrated from different corners as a result whereof she committed suicide. Therefore, the finger cannot be pointed against the appellants alone and benefit of doubt should have been given the appellants also.

5. To counter the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the informant submits that there is definite and sufficient evidence pointing the allegation against the appellants that the abetment of the appellants was result of the suicide committed by victim Kanchan Bala. His submission is that, in fact, the appellant Birendra Sah was harassing her sexually and mentally to enter into forceful marriage with the victim which was not liked by her and she found herself tortured by different acts committed on different occasion by the appellant Birendra Sah against her and she committed suicide. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court should not be interfered with for trivial and negligible discrepancies in consideration of the evidence.

6. The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report (Ext. 9) lodged by Manish Kumar Jha (P.W. 4) the brother of the victim-girl is that in the night of 22.08.2012 Kanchan Bala, the sister of the informant slept in the house along with the mother. In the early morning, the mother and the informant went for morning walk. In the meantime, Kanchan Bala committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling and with the help of her Dupatta. When the informant and his mother returned back they noticed the aforesaid suicide.

The reason for suicide is disclosed that victim Kanchan Bala and appellant Puja Kumari along with acquitted accused Lovely Kumari were studying in Shail Computers since January, 2011. Appellant Birendra Sah was also visiting thereat as he had some affairs with