The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment of suicide and concealment of evidence, as defined in sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, can be proved based on witness testimony and the conduct of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Five persons were charge-sheeted in this case. Out of them, Santkumar Mishra is absconding. Four persons Raviprakash @ Kuttu, Prakash @ Indraprakash, Vittu @ Satyaprakash and Anil Kumar Mishra were prosecuted out of them Raviprakash @ Kuttu, Prakash @ Indraprakash and Vindu @ Satyaprakash have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them and only Anil Kumar Mishra has been convicted and sentenced, who is before us in this appeal.

2. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 1-3-2005 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Trial No. 74/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 6 months and also convicted under section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 1 month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case in short is that on 27-3-2003 Ramkumar Dubey submitted the written report to S. P., Katni to the effect that marriage of her daughter Sadhna was performed with Anil Kumar Mishra. He was Salesman in Pauniya Society. On 23-3-2003 at 5:00 p.m. he came to know that his daughter has consumed some poisonous substance and her treatment is going on in Civil Hospital, Katni. He immediately rushed there. The condition of his daughter was serious. Thereafter she was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur but appellant admitted her in a private hospital (National Hospital, Jabalpur). There she remained hospitalized for 2 days but he got discharged therefrom. When she was being carried to Civil Hospital, Katni she died on the way. Appellant did not inform to the police. The complainant tried to step down at Sihora from vehicle but appellant did not allow him to do so. He carried deceased to his village Bhatadon where her body was cremated without informing to police and marpeet of complainant was also done there for which he lodged report at Khatoli Chowki. It was also alleged that appellant and his family members used to harass Sadhna and have administered the poison in planned way. Marg was registered. Inquiry was made. It was found that she was abetted to commit suicide by taking poisonous substance as a result thereof she died and her body was cremated with intent to cause disappearance of evidence. Crime No. 92/03 under section 498-A, 304-B, 302, 328, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Sleemanabad. Map was prepared. Documents and the photographs were seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C.J.M. Katni who committed the case on 22-6-2004 to Sessions Court for trial.

4. The appellant was charged under sections 306, 498-A and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and appellant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty under sections 306 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced thereunder as stated hereinabove in para No. 2 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by trial Court, instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned therein.

5. Shri D. S. Chauhan, advocate was engaged by the appellant as his counsel but he did not appear to argue on the dates of on 10-5-2007, 21-8-2007, 10-4-2008 and 24-4-2008. Since the appeal was pending from 2005, therefore, Ku. Manju Pillai was appointed from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant so that this appeal may be disposed of expeditiousl