The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of mens rea or guilty motive to instigate or abet the victim is crucial in cases of abetment of suicide.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28th May, 1990 passed by the Learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, 24 – Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 1(9) of 1988, convicting and sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The police case was started against the appellants on the alleged grounds that the appellants committed torture and cruelty on the victim lady named Munni Debi wife of Suraj Prosad for that she was compelled to commit suicide by setting fire on her person after pouring kerosene oil on her person. She was removed to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital where she died.

3. Based on the written complaint, G.R. Case No. 467 of 1987 in connection with the F.I.R. of a cognizable offence reported under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procefure at Entally Police Station.

4. The Investigating Officer after completion investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.

5. Charges were framed under Section 498A read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 18 witnesses and exhibited certain documents and the defence cited two witnesses.

7. The Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that:-

i. The Learned Sessions Judge was wrong in law in taking into consideration the evidences of PW-5 and PW-7 (who are the landlord and landlady of the appellants/accused) and PW-13 (relation of PW5) and PWs-14,15,16 (tenants under the PW-7) as it has been established from the materials on record that they are the interested witnesses.

ii. The Learned Sessions Judge should have taken into consideration the delay (11 hours) of lodging F.I.R. by PW-1 and no explanation has been given for the same by the prosecution.

iii. The Learned Sessions Judge erred in law in relying on the F.I.R. being Exhibit-I as the same was lodged after the launching of investigation as the same will be evident from the materials on record.

iv. The Learned Sessions Judge should have believed the evidences of PW-1 (father of the victim girl), PW-2 (husband of the victim lady) and PW-9 and should have acquitted the appellants/accused from the charges under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

v. The Learned Sessions Judge ought to have disbelieved the evidence of PW-4 as the said witness failed to produce any document in order to support of his oral statement.

vi. The Learned Sessions Judge should not have taken into consideration the Exhibit-7 as the same has not been proved in accordance with law.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that:-

i. In the instant criminal prosecution the husband of the victim housewife was not made as an accused by the de-facto complainant. On the other hand the husband of the victim housewife was examined as PW-2 and during the trial he was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-5 in her examination-in-chief (second last line) deposed that Suraj Prasad @ Prosad (husband) assaulted his wife. PW-14 (seventh line from bottom) deposed that wife of Suraj Prasad was treated with cruelty by her husband and other in-laws. The accused persons and also Suraj Prasad used to assault the victim. PW-15 also deposed in the same fashion that Munni Debi was subjected to torture and assault by the accused persons and her husband.

ii. When the prosecution intended to place the husband of the deceased on the witness side; the prosecution could not