IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) :

Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2009, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2006, “State vs. Anil Kumar”, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from the re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the deceased-Smt. Sunita, the real sister of the informant, was married with the present appellant on 22.06.2003. The appellant and his family members demanded money from the deceased. She was being harassed and tortured on that pretext. The deceased-Smt. Sunita informed about her harassment to the informant. On 28.03.2006, when the informant was at her parents’ house, at around 8:00 a.m., one Kuldeep Chandra came to her house and informed that Sunita was unwell. On receiving the said information, she went to Sunita’s in-laws house and found that Sunita was lying dead on the upper floor of the house. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.3) was lodged through written information (Ext. Ka. 1) of the informant-Babita Naithani (PW1). The First Information Report was registered on 28.03.2006 at 2:30 p.m. The inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 29.03.2006. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the appellant for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 306 IPC and in the alternative framed charge under Section 304B IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution at the trial examined nine witnesses including the investigating officer and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination.

6. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. Appellant has denied all the incriminating evidence, adduced by the prosecution.

7. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, assessed the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case under Section 306 IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the alternative charge framed under Section 304 B of IPC.

8. I heard Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for State and carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the proseuction.

9. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 3) was lodged by Smt. Babita Naithani (PW1), the sister of the deceased. She has stated that the appellant used to demand money. At the time of marriage, he had told that he worked in a private company in Delhi, but after marriage he did not go to his work. According to this witness, at the time of her sister’s death he was working as a security guard at Ghurdauri.

10. PW2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the mother of the deceased. She stated that sometimes Rs.50,000/-, sometimes Rs.20,000/- and sometimes Rs.15,000/- were demanded by the appellant. However, it has also been stated by this witness that the appellant himself had not demanded the said money.

11. PW3 Chakrdhar Prasad is the father of the deceased who stated that his daughter was distressed but he did not know the reason for her distress. According to this witness, his two daughters used to support Sunita by giving her clothes and medicines.

12. PW4 Dr. D.K. Jain had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. According to this witness, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem h