The court emphasized that the charges under Section 306 and 498A of IPC require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that mental state and sentiment of the victim should be considered in cases of suicide.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Roshan, J. - The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 6/2/14, passed by court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2012, whereby the learned appellate court, affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.04.2012, passed by 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. Case No. 207 of 2008, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years, under Section 306 of IPC, and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years, for the offence under Section 498 A of IPC and further directed that both the sentences were run concurrently and the period undergone in course of trial shall set off.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Dhaneswari Devi made the statement before the police at about 8:00 p.m. on 30.12.2007, alleging that her daughter namely, Pratima Kumari (victim) had been hanged to death by her husband namely, Shambhu Pradhan. She further alleged that her daughter was well educated and was having the technical degree of BCA. She further stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the petitioner in a temple without her consent. It has also been alleged that her daughter took Rs.15,000/- from her to pay the advance rent of the rented house. It has also been stated that the husband of the informant, i.e. the father of the victim was an employee of cable company, which was closed since last 8 years, but he took P.F loan amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same was paid to the petitioner for running a coaching centre. It has also been stated in the fardbeyan that her daughter was also doing tuition and she was meeting the family expenses out of her own income and Shambhu Pradhan was not paying any amount to her daughter towards house expenses. She further alleged that after some time of marriage, the petitioner began to torture her daughter and compelled her for demanding more money from her parents. It has lastly been alleged that her daughter was physically and mentally tortured and whenever she conceived, she was forced to get aborted. She further stated in the fardbeyan that the petitioner was doing teaching job in River View School at Kadma and he was having love affair with a school student. She has further stated in the fardbeyan that the mother-in-law of the victim never accepted her daughter-in-law after marriage.

3. After institution of FIR, the investigation started and charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, under Section 306/498A of the IPC. The learned CJM took cognizance and charges were framed and the petitioner pleaded not guilty and sent up for trial.

4. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1-Ganga Prasad Sahu, is the uncle of the deceased, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased had a love affair with the petitioner and both got married in the temple without the consent of their parents. During his cross-examination, this witness stated that all fact of demand of dowry was never made before him, rather the same was narrated to him by the informant. P.W. 2- Siyaram Sahu is the father of the deceased. He has stated in examination-in-chief that his daughter was suffering from illness and, hence he had brought her to his home for getting her treated. During cross-examination, this witness stated that the petitioner use to teach her daughter as tutor and had fallen in love with her. P.W.3-Sevakraj Sahu is the brother of the deceased. In his crossexamination, he has stated that he identified the suicidal note, personal diary of his sister. He has also admitted the fact that the petitioner was in visiting terms with them before marriage and he has also deposed that he had no knowledge of any kind of illicit relation with any other student. P.W. 5-Janki Devi, who is landlady of the informant, said about the fact of marriage and further stated that she did not k