IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove both the act of suicide and the accused's role in abetting it for a conviction under Section 306 IPC; failure to establish the cause of death undermines the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2018 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 1, Lakhisarai, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 62 of 2005, arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 243 of 2003, G.R. No. 694 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

3. The appellant Pankaj Kumar @ Vijay Pandit was tried along with co-accused Ram Prasad Pandit and Badami Devi.

4. The accused persons including the appellant stood charged for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘DP’ Act).

5. The accused persons namely, Ram Prasad Pandit and Badami Devi were acquitted of the offences for which they were charged. So far as the appellant is concerned, the trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 304B of IPC and Section 3/4 of DP Act but succeeded in establishing its case under Section 306 of IPC which is a lesser offence to the offence of Section 304B of IPC and accordingly, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

6. Mr. Udbhav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that out of the material witnesses of the prosecution, PW-2 to PW-7 were declared hostile before the trial court and the appellant's conviction is completely based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-8, who are stated to be father and mother of the deceased but there are serious contradictions among their statements regarding the relevant facts. It has been further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the cause of death of the victim and the Doctor concerned, who conducted the postmortem examination, did not find any external or internal injury over the body of the deceased, so he could not ascertain the cause of death of the deceased and eventually he sent the viscera of the deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as (‘FSL’) for ascertaining the cause of death but during trial, the prosecution failed to produce the viscera report of the deceased. It has been further argued that so far as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the offence cannot be deemed to have been proved as the trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of Section 304B of IPC, so on the same evidences, particularly in the circumstance of non-proving the cause of death, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC which is a lesser offence to the offence of Section 304 of IPC cannot be deemed to have been proved. Further submission is that the deceased died due to bursting of appendix and when her condition deteriorated she was taken to hospital by the appellant and his family members and in this regard the evidence of PW-1 and PW-8 is relevant and the FIR is ante-dated and some important persons who are stated to have accompanied the informant to the house of the appellant and to the hospital where the victim was being treated, were not produced and examined by the prosecution despite their specific names having been given in the FIR.

7. On the contrary, learned APP appearing for the State has argued that the victim died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and the appellant failed to establish his defence as to victim’s death caused due to bursting of her appendix and from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-8, it is clearly evident that the appellant and his family memb