To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or direct acts leading to suicide must be established, which was absent in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Sachin Singh Rajput, J.)

1. The appellants in this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) have called in question the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 16/12/2003 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No. 68/2003, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

2. As per prosecution story, the appellant No.1 and the deceased Patrika Bai (herein after deceased) were in love for about 1 year prior to the date of incident i.e. 23/12/2002 and as a result of their relationship, the deceased became pregnant. When the factum of pregnancy of the deceased came to light, a panchayat meeting was convened on 16/12/2002 in the village Naktidih, wherein the appellant No. 1 accepted that he is the father of the child and had also shown his willingness to keep the deceased with him. Thereafter, the deceased came to live with the appellant No. 1 who was residing with appellants No. 2 & 3. On the next day i.e. 17.12.2002, the deceased gave birth to a female child. The sixth day ceremony was organized by the appellants which the parents of the deceased did not attend. The deceased was found missing and she was searched by the appellants and the parents of the deceased. On the next day, the dead body of deceased and her infant baby was found floating in the well. A zero FIR (Ex.P/10) was registered and based on that FIR (Ex.P/11) was recorded in P.S. Bailaigarh. Merg (Ex.P/12) was registered. Postmortem examination on the bodies of Patrika Bai and her infant child was conducted and the autopsy report of the two are (Ex.P/14) and (Ex.P/15). The cause of death as mentioned in the aforesaid autopsy reports has been opined to be drowning. Spot maps (Ex.P/5) and (Ex.P/6) were prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the appellants were arrested and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Since the case was triable by a Court of sessions, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge who in turn made over the same to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar who conducted the trial. The appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 /34 in the alternative 302/34 and 498-A of IPC . The appellants however denied the charges leveled against them and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in para 1 of this judgment which is assailed before this Court in this appeal.

4. Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that there is no admissible evidence available against the appellants to convict them under Section 306 and Section 498-A of IPC . He submits that essential ingredients of abetment as contained in Section 107 of IPC are missing in the case in hand. He also submits that though some allegations have been made by the father of the deceased namely Chhatram (PW-1) and mothe