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 establish abetment of suicide.

JUDGMENT :

Jagdish Prasad Gupta, J.

This judgment shall govern the disposal of aforesaid both criminal appeals as these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment.

1. These appeals have been filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 269/07; whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 of the IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

2. In brief, relevant facts of the case are that, on 26.5.2006 at 17:00 O'clock Police Station Omti received an information from Victoria Hospital with regard to death of one Kisanlal S/o. Laxman Prasad Prajapati, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Nai Basti, Kusner, due to consuming some poisonous substance, upon which, Police Station Omti registered a marg no. 0/06 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, sent it to the Police Station Panagar for further investigation and after marg inquiry, crime no. 346/06 was registered under Section 306/34 of the IPC against the appellants/accused. During investigation, Police recovered a suicide note, Ex. P/22, from a pocket of the deceased alleged to have been written by the deceased himself, in which, it is alleged that the present appellants are responsible for his death as the appellants got him financed a tractor from the Bank and also harassed and tortured him for payment of installments. It is also alleged that the deceased was entered into an agreement with one Chetram, resident of the same village, for payment of the installments of the tractor and the tractor was also handed over to him but the installments were not being paid, therefore, he was under pressure and tensed. On completion of formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC in the court of JMFC, Jabalpur who on its turn committed the case to the court of Session for trial.

3. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence under section 306 of the IPC against the appellants but the appellants/accused abjured their guilt and on examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case but no evidence in defence has been adduced. However, the learned trial court by its impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned earlier. Hence, these appeals have been filed by them.

4. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged by appellants on the grounds that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with law. The prosecution case is mainly based on the so called suicide note Ex. P/22, about which, close relatives of the deceased Gopal Prasad Prajapati (PW-6) has stated that it was given by Kallu Prajapati (PW-4). While Kallu Prajapati (PW-4) has denied the fact that it was given by him to Gopal Prasad Prajapati (PW-6) and the suicide note Ex. P/22 has not been legally proved to be written by the deceased as there is no handwriting expert report in the record despite of sending the document to the handwriting expert and Gopal Prasad Prajapati (PW-6) has not stated that on what basis he claimed that he is acquainted with the handwriting of the deceased. In the circumstances, suicide note Ex. P/22 cannot be said to be written by the deceased. Apart from it, if the same is found to be proved then it only discloses a dispute with regard to transaction of the money and on the basis of the dispute it cannot be said that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, no offense under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellants and the finding of the trial Court deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned