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.

JUDGMENT

Date : 22-12-2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2025 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 2024, arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 189 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and six months along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under the said section. In case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months.

3. According to written statement given by the informant/PW-2, informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter Neha Kumari four years ago with Nanhak Rai- appellant according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that after some days, appellant-husband and informant’s daughter- wife started quarreling on the issue of dowry which was being informed by informant's daughter. The informant had pacified the dispute on one or two occasions. It is alleged that on 16.06.2023 on the issue of going outside in connection with livelihood, informant's daughter has been killed by the appellant and others at about 10:00 PM regarding which he got information on 17.06.2023 at 6:00 AM. On the aforesaid information, he reached the house of his son-in-law where he found that his daughter was lying dead.

4. On the basis of written statement given by the informant/PW-2, Chenari P.S. Case No. 189 of 2023 dated 17.06.2023 was registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Section 304(B) of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 304(B)/34 and 302/34 of the IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home guilt of accused person/appellant, prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses. PW-1 Dr. B.K. Pushkar, PW-2 Suresh Rajbhar (informant of the case), PW-3 Sitaram Bind and PW-4 Manita Kumari (I.O. of the case).

6. Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record:-

Ext. 1- Post mortem report

Ext. P-1-Inquest report

Ext. P-2- Signature of I.O. on charge sheet.

7. Defence has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. However, defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.

8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the second paragraph of the judgment.

9. Following submissions have been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is illegal and not supported by any material available on record and same is based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that during course of trial not a single witness has been examined by the trial court who is the w