IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Ram Prasad Hazam, son of late Bihari Hazam - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1468 of 2003
Decided On : 09-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2003 and order of sentence dated 11.08.2003 passed by Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in S.T. Case No.451 of 2000, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-under Section 306 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State at length and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that a false case was foisted against the appellant without any evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide by administering poison. He submits that there is no eye witness of this incident, as out of the total five cited prosecution witnesses, no one was present during the last breath of the deceased. It is further submitted that P.W.-2 has been declared hostile. He further submits that the viscera of the deceased which was sent for FSL examination had been sent in an unsealed packet so there was possibility of tampering with the said viscera or the same could have been changed.
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes this Criminal Appeal and submits that the appellant has been rightly held guilty for instigating the deceased to commit suicide, as it is revealed from the F.I.R. that the appellant was enraged with his wife (deceased) for not having a child even after 7 – 8 years of the marriage and he abetted her to commit suicide by administering poison. It is also submitted that the forensic expert has also found poisonous substance in the viscera of the deceased.
5. The history of the case dates back to 02.04.2000, on which day a fardbeyan came to be filed by the informant – Mahendra Hajam, alleging therein that on the same day he was sleeping in the house when Sahdeo Hajam along with one Ghonu Hajam came and told him that his daughter – Kalpana Devi (deceased), was suffering from severe stomach ache and she is calling him. On hearing this, he along with his son and cousin reached Biradidih village in the morning with the medicine for stomach ache to the house of his son-in-law, where he found his daughter lying on a cot and her body was covered with a cloth. On removing the cloth, he found his daughter dead with blood oozing out of her nose and foam coming out of her mouth. There were black marks on her body. He stated that her daughter (deceased) was married with Ram Prasad Hazam (appellant herein) and there was no child out of the said wedlock, and as she did not bear a child, her husband used to torture her and threaten her to perform second marriage and at the end he killed her daughter by administering poison.
On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Sonahatu P.S. Case No.12/2000 has been registered under Sections 328/ 302/ 34 IPC. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 328/ 302 IPC. Thereafter, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the appellant claimed to be tried. Thereafter charge was framed under Section 302/328 IPC.
6. Altogether 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case:-
a) P.W.-1 namely Surendra Nath Mahto, deposed that he came to know that wife of Ram Prasad Hazam (appellant) has died. He stated that police came and prepared a panchnama of the body of the deceased which was recovered from the house of Ram Prasad Hazam. The police also prepared the inquest report.
b) P.W.-2 namely Ram Singh Munda has been declared hostile.
c) P.W.-3 namely Mahendra Hazam, is the informant of this case. He deposed that Ghonu Hajam and Bhondu Hajam came to him and told that his daughter is suffering from stomach ache. When he reached Biradidih village he saw hi
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or active involvement in the suicide, which was absent in this case.
Administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view wh....
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and active instigation for conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to estab....
To convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation, which was lacking in this case.
To convict for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate or aid the victim's act, which was not present in this case.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or abetment, which was not established in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.