The prosecution must prove clear evidence of abetment for a conviction under Section 306 IPC; vague allegations of cruelty do not suffice for presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Shashi Prasad, the husband of the victim, was put on trial in ST Case No.222 of 2012 on the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and has been acquitted of the aforesaid criminal charge by the impugned judgment dated 27th May 2016 rendered by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI at Gumla.

2. Nagwant Prasad Gupta who is the informant of Sisai P.S. Case No.30 of 2012 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27th May 2016 passed in ST Case No.222 of 2012 has filed the present acquittal appeal by virtue of the proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Findings of the trial Court in the impugned judgment:

3. The trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case of abetment of suicide to the victim by the accused and the testimony of the related witnesses and held as under:

“33. Upon careful analysis of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidences available on record, I come to find that the factum of death of deceased Purnima Devi, the younger sister of informant Nagwant Prasad PW-11 is duly supported by informant as well as by PW-1 Dinesh Prasad Gupta, PW-2 Hemant Prasad Gupta, PW-4 Bhola Oraon, PW-5 Ram Kumar Sahu, PW-6 Tarkeshwar Sahu, PW-7 Basant Oraon, PW-8 Shakuntla Ram, PW-9 Ram Prasad Gupta, PW-12 I/0 Sushil Kumar Singh, PW-15 Makardhwaj Sao and PW-16 Officer Incharge Birendra Toppo. This factum has also been corroborated by testimony of PW-10 Dr. Shambhu Nath Choudhary, which in turn is also corroborated by the post mortem report (Ext.-3), inquest report (Ext.-2/2) as well as written report Ext.4. The factum of death of deceased Purnima Devi by hanging from bamboo-beam with the help of rope is also proved by aforesaid witnesses which in turn is also corroborated by post mortem report (Ext.-3) and testimony of PW-10 Dr. Shambhu Nath Chowdhary who has stated in his examination in chief at para-4, interalia, that there was no evidence of external violence on the body except ligature mark at neck, about which he again states at para-10 that the ligature mark was ante mortem in nature. Further at para-8 he has opined that death is due to asphyxia due to hanging and asphyxiating force being weight of the body. In this regard in his cross-examination at para-14 and 15 he states interlia that there was no mark of violence on her body and internal injury found were all due to hanging.

The aforesaid testimony of PW-10 is also duly corroborated by Ext.-3 the Post Mortem Report which this PW has proved at para-11.

In this regard, PW-12 Sunil Kumar Singh, the I.O of this case has also stated at para-20 that while preparing the inquest report and talking to the witnesses it appeared to him to be a case of suicide.

Furthermore, neither the factum of death of deceased Purnima by hanging nor the date, time or place of occurrence has been disputed by Ld. Advocate for defence. Thus, from the above oral and documentary evidences on record one of the two basic constituents of the offence under Section 306 IPC i.e. suicidal death stands duly proved by prosecution in this case.

In this connection, it is also worth mention that although the informant PW-11 has stated in his testimony at para-2 that it appeared that she has been murdered after marpit and his sister's head as well as leg were swollen and there were black mark on her cheek and hands, this factum has also been reiterated by PW's-1 & 2 in their respective examination in chief, but the same has not been corroborated either by the Doctor (PW-10) Shambhu Nath Chowdhary, or post mortem report (Ext.-3) or even written report of the informant (Ext.-4).

Therefore, it is neither the case of prosecution nor prosecution has been able to prove the fact of murder of deceased Purnima Devi by accused Shashi Prasad or his father Nilkanth Prasad and brother Dhiraj Sahu.

Under these circumstances it is an infallible inference that p