The court established that mere allegations or hearsay evidence are insufficient for conviction under IPC Section 306; concrete evidence of instigation or aid in the act of suicide is essential.

1. These appeals are tied together for disposing by a common judgment and order on consideration that both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-2-2005 as passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in ST 61 / (WT / A) of 2003 by convicting and sentencing Kishore Debnath, the appellant No. 3 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005, Jatindra Debnath alias Jatan Debnath, the appellant No. 1 in the Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005, Kanailal Debnath, the appellant No. 2 in Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, in the payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 1 year each under S.306 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. By the said judgment and order, Smti. Bhabani Debnath, the appellant No. 1 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 and Smti. Aparna Debnath, the appellant No. 2 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 are convicted under S.305 read with S.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, in the payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 1 year.

3. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005 contended in unison that the judgment of conviction is not based on any legal evidence and the findings those are returned are palpably wrong and perverse. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted further that if the evidence as led by the prosecution be revisited, it would be apparent that the finding of conviction as returned be at once set aside on acquitting the appellants from the charge under S.306 read with S.34 of the IPC.

4. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional PP representing the State while resisting such submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants stated that there are some evidence against the appellants but in his usual fairness submitted that the materials to establish the charge under S.306 of the IPC may not be available as required to return a finding under S.306 of the IPC without reasonable doubt.

5. Irrespective of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it needs that the relevant facts be noticed and the evidence as led by the prosecution be appreciated afresh to examine the challenge.

6. The prosecution was launched against the appellants on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kalidas Debnath (PW 1) who stated in his written ejahar that Parbati Debnath daughter of Late Harendra Debnath, aged about 18 years was his niece. She knew how to read and write and for about four months she was in love with Kishore Debnath son of Jatindra Debnath of village - Aralia and they all knew Kishore would marry Parbati. Kishore Debnath used to come to Parvati's house very often and Parvati also used to visit Kishore Debnath's house very often. Kishore took his niece Parvati to his house in the evening of 18-8-2002 and no sooner had she been taken to his house, Kishore's father Jatindra Debnath, uncle Balailal Debnath, Kishore's mother and sister all assaulted Parvati and cropped her locks. At that time, Kishore was also present there but he did not raise any protest and having sustained injuries as a result of their assault, Parvati declined to return home stating that she would commit suicide. She was then persuaded and thus brought home and at about 9 O'clock in the morning of 19-8-2002, she set herself ablaze being unable to bear the insult and injury resulting from their assault. Her entire b