1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions case No.19 (JJ) of 2009 (GR Case No. 907 of 2008) convicting the accused/appellant U/S 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months and under section 498 (A) IPC simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default further simple imprisonment for another fifteen days and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Death is always unfortunate and it become mere painful, when mother of two minor children commits suicide.

2. The brief facts which are relevant to dispose the appeal are recapitulated as under:

According to the case of the prosecution, Gita Bharali (sister of the informant) was married to the accused appellant nine years back in the year 1999 and out of the wedlock two children were born. On 14.8.2008, elder brother of the accused informed over telephone at the Aunts house that Gita expired. Then the Family Member of Gita went to their house and found that Gita committed suicide. In the meantime, the accused person informed the police about the commission of suicide by his wife in the bathroom and the police registered a U.D. Case as on 14.8.2008. But the family members of the deceased suspecting the same as a case of murder lodged an FIR on 18.8.2008 with the allegation that the present accused person along with other family members (in laws) tortured said Gita on the demand of money since the day of her marriage and prior to one months of the incident such torture increased for which she might have committed suicide or it is a case of murder by the accused persons.

3. On the basis of the FIR the Criminal law was set into motion and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused person U/S 498 (A) /306 IPC. The accused appellant faced the trial and denied the charge.

4. Prosecution in support of the case examined as many as eight witnesses including Medical Officer and Investigating Officer and defence also examined one witness. Plea of defence is total denial. At the conclusion of the trial by the impugned judgment convicted the accused appellant, hence the appeal.

5. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued the appeal before this Court. It is submitted that there is absolutely no any credible evidence on record to establish the case of abetment of suicide by the appellant U/S 306 IPC nor there is any evidence to substantiate the matter of cruelty within the purview of Section 498 (A) IPC, so the conviction under said section of law could not be sustained and bad in law. He further strenuously submitted before this Court that there is no evidence of infliction of torture upon the deceased by the appellant either prior to the incident nor even earlier, during the long span of marital life to reflect that the appellant had incited the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, it has been urged that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. Learned counsel Mr. Mahajan has led this Court through the evidence on record and has also refers several citations of the Honble Supreme Court as well as Honble Gauhati High Court as below:

(i) (2010) 1 SCC 707 Amalendu Paul @ Jantu vs. State of West Bengal

(2) (2010) 1 SCC 750 Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

(3) (2010) 12 SCC 190 S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.

(4) (2010) 9 SCC 73 Durga Prasad and another-vs-State of Madhya Pradesh.

(5) (2010) 4 GLT 492 Rajeeb Neog vs. State of Assam.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondent has supported the Judgment of the Court below contending that due to the harassment on demand of dowry on the part of the accused appellant the deceased was co