SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kiran Adak & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 30 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

APPELLATE SIDE

Before:-

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA

C.R.A. 806 of 2008

KIRAN ADAK ORS.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

For the Appellant : Mr. Soumik Pramanik, Advocate

Pradyut Kr. Das, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, Advocate

Ms. Rita Dutta, Advocate

Hearing Concluded On : 27.09.2019

Judgment On : 30.09.2019

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.:-

1.

The instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order of

conviction dated 19th December, 2008 passed by the Additional

District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hooghly, in Sessions

Trial Case No. 22 of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case NO. 126 of

2007 convicting the appellants under Section 498A Section306 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2

2. The prosecution case in short is that one Tushi Adak (nee Polley),

student of Class-X, eloped from her house and got married in a local

temple, to the appellant No. 1, aged about 22yrs, on 29th December,

2005 without the knowledge of the respective families. 15 days after

marriage, Tushi Adak was found dead at nearby railway track,

between Janai Road Railway Station and Begumpur Railway Station.

The victim and the appellants were both residents of village

Panchghara Bazar (Janai), P.S. Chanditala, District- Hooghly.

3. It is alleged in the complaint that 11 days after marriage the victim,

came back to her grandfather’s house complaining that the appellant

No. 1, the husband, and the appellant No. 2, the mother-in-law,

demanded money particularly a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- kept in form of a

joint fixed deposit account in the names of victim her father and the

same was in the custody of her grandfather, Rabin Das (PW 1). The

victim is stated to have been threatened and tortured both physically

and mentally, by the appellant No. 2 with the connivance of the

appellant No. 1.

4. The mother of the victim had died during the birth of another child,

when the victim was around 5 years old. The father of the victim got

married thereafter and hence has been living separately, with his new

family. The victim was been brought up by her grandmother Kamala

Das (PW 6) and grandfather Rabin Das (PW 1). Two persons known to

the family of the side of the appellant were stated to be present during

the marriage ceremony.

3

5. The body of the victim was found without any clothes, as per the

depositions of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 7. The non-family witnesses

deposed otherwise. There were severe injuries on the face, head,

fractured ribs, hands and feet. No serious external injuries were

found on the rest of the body. The incident is stated to have occurred

around 23:15 hrs. on Thursday, 12th January, 2006. The complaint

was received by the police on the 13th of January, 2006 at 10.55 hrs.

The incident occurred between railway gate post No. 21/7 to 21/11

between Janai Road Railway Station and Begumpur Railway Station.

6. The complaint was lodged by PW 1 Rabin Das, the grandfather of the

victim, and the informant was a railway gang man who alerted the

Station Master about the presence of a dead body on the railway

track. The complaint was lodged against the appellant No. 2, mother-

in-law, and the appellant No. 1, husband and one Barun Adak, the

brother-in-law of the deceased. FIR was lodged on 13.01.2006. The

charges were framed on 8th August, 2007 against the appellants and

one Barun Adak.

7. The prosecution examined about 22 witnesses.

PW 1 – Rabin Das, maternal grandfather of the deceased.

PW 2 – Bijoy Kumar, Railway employee.

PW 3 – Biswanath Nandi, ‘meso’, husband of maternal aunt.

PW 4 – Biswajit Das, maternal uncle.

PW 5 – Swapan Dey, husband of another maternal aunt.
4

PW 6 – Kamala Das, maternal grandmother of the deceased
and the wife of PW 1.

PW 7 – Mousumi Das, maternal aunt.

PW 8 – Kashinath Adak, father-in-law of the deceased.

PW 9 – Ajit Patra, seizure witness, scribe of the seizure list
(seized articles- conch shell bangle and vermilion bangle).

PW 10 – Kalipada Bag, villager.

PW 11 – ASI Kartik Kundu, seizure witness.

PW 12 – Constable Subhas Chandra Ghosh, seizure witness
of the dead body.

PW 13 – Constable Sushil Kumar Dey, seizure witness of the
dead body.

PW 14 – ASI Tapas Bhuinya, seizure witness.

PW 15 – Amalesh Paul, Station Master of Janai Road Railway
Station.

PW 16 – Bhabataran Dhara, Gram Panchayat Pradhan.

PW 17 – Prasanta Ghosh, bother of daughter-in-law of PW 1,
seizure witness of another seizure list.

PW 18 – Debashis Nath Chatterjee, Officer-in-Charge,
Kamarkundu GRPS who registered the UD case.

PW 19 – Budhhadeb Polley, father of the deceased.

PW 20 – Narendranath Kar, S.I. of police who conducted the
inquest along with the Executive Magistratae.

PW 21 – Dr. S. Mukherjee, Medical Officer and Post-mortem
doctor.

PW 22 – S.I. Nitai Chandra Ghosh, Investigating Officer.

8. Evidence of PW 1:The marriage of the deceased was held at a nearby

temple on the 29th of December, 2005. The father of the appellant No.

1, Kashinath Adak, came to inform PW 1 about such marriage with

his younger son Kiran Adak on the night of the marriage. After 11
5

days of such marriage, the victim came back to the house of PW 1 and

refused to go back to her in-laws’s house. The deceased informed PW

6 and 7 that the appellant No.1, appellant No. 2 and her elder

brother-in-law assaulted her. He also deposed that appellant No. 2

demanded money from the victim that was lying in form of a joint

fixed deposit account, with the PW 1. The PW 1 is stated to have

convinced the deceased to go back to her in-laws with his son-in-law

(PW 5) and son-in-law of his brother (P.W. 3) with a sum of Rs.500/-

and some of victim’s own garments. Upon reaching the house of the

appellants, the appellant No. 2 is stated to have demanded the sum of

20, 000/- as dowry else refused to allow the victim into the house and

further assaulted the PW 3 with a broomstick and threatened. That

day later at about 11:00 pm the appellant No. 1 and his brother and

one Gobordhon came to the house of the PW 1 to enquire of the

whereabouts of the deceased. PW 1 joined the said persons to search

out the deceased. PW 1 later on came to know from one of the three

persons that a dead body was found between Begumpur and Janai

Road Railway Station.

9. PW 1 went to the place. He stated that the body of the victim was

found without clothes and her sari, blouse and shawl were found lying

elsewhere. This was contradicted by the Inquest Officer and the other

witnesses who removed the body of the victim from the place of

occurrence. PW 1 along with PW 5 and one Naru went to Chanditala

Police Station and informed the Chanditala P.S. of the incident. The
6

PW 1 along with the police came to the place of occurrence. The

examination in inquest repost was conducted by the Kamarkundu

GRP and PW 1 witnessed the inquest report. He identified the written

complaint that was written by one Ajit Patra (not examined) on the

instruction of PW 1 and signed by PW 1.

10. In cross examination PW 1 stated that he was an employee of the

Railways. The house of the appellants and PW 1 was separated by

only one house. The house of the appellant is owned by one Late

Shaila Adak. PW 1 has two sons and two daughters. The mother of

the deceased died while giving birth to a child. The deceased was 5

years old then and had a sister. PW 1 admitted to have filed a

complaint against the father of the deceased for maintenance of the

victim after he left them, and re-married. The victim and the

appellant No.1 did not obtain his consent nor did inform him of their

marriage. The marriages of his two daughters including the victim’s

mother were held as per Hindu rites when he gave away customary

gifts.

11. The victim is stated to have left the house on the day of marriage on

the pretext of going for private tuition. The appellant no. 1 did not

inform the appellant of the marriage. The victim was preparing for

Class-X Board Examination during the year of marriage. The

accused did not demand any money directly from him. They also did

not send any letter demanding money to him. PW 1 did not invite the

deceased and her husband after being informed the marriage. He
7

admitted that he was interrogated by the police in connection with the

case. He was not present on the day when the deceased came to his

house after marriage complaining of harassment by the appellants.

The deceased is stated to have visited his house at 12 noon and for

the second time in the afternoon. PW 1 was not present at either of

those times. He came back home at 7:30 pm when he heard from his

wife that the accused persons demanded money from the deceased.

12. He did not visit the accused persons after coming to know of the

alleged demand for money. He did not meet the deceased also after

coming to know of the assault of his son-in-law Swapan Dey. He was

not even present when son-in-law took back the deceased to her in-

laws house. He has also admitted that he had not told anybody before

the deposition in Court that the deceased’s dead body was found

naked and the clothes found in a separate place. He deposed that the

deceased died out of accident and because of torture of the deceased

by accused. He deposed that there was no fog in the night in that

area.

13. A large number of accidents occurred where the deceased was found.

The railway line took a curve at the place where the deceased was

found and a large number of accidental deaths had also occurred

earlier at the same place. The railway track was used by the villagers

as a place of relieve themselves as a majority of houses in the village

did not have toilet. The appellant No. 1 was an apprentice at a gold

shop in Barabazar. The PW 1 and their family were not happy with
8

the marriage of the deceased with the appellant No. 1. The deceased

was very good looking and it was the desire of PW 1’s family that she

gets married to a well-established boy with a good family background.

14. PW 2 Bijoy Kumar is a Railway employee who found the dead body

on the railway track.

15. PW 3 is Biswanath Nandi, husband of the maternal aunt of the

deceased. He deposed that the deceased was assaulted by the in-laws

for being unable to perform household chores and was being tortured

for dowry. The appellants are stated to have demanded that the

victim brings the fixed deposit account money, jointly held in her and

her father’s name, lying with PW 1. The victim is stated to have been

assaulted by the appellants. The victim is stated to have come to the

house of PW 1 on 11th January, 2006 and informed her grandmother

of the torture for demand of dowry by the appellants. He came to

know the above from the grandmother of the deceased after such

grandmother called him and another son-in-law Swapan Dey.

16. Two sons-in-law, PW 3, PW 5 and PW 4 (the maternal uncle of the

deceased) consulted with each other and took the deceased back to

her matrimonial house alongwith a sum of Rs.500/- and some of her

garments. The father-in-law of the deceased is stated to have told PW

3 and PW 5 to keep the victim in her own house. Appellant No. 2 is

stated to have taken the money and had asked for a further sum of of

Rs.20, 000/- on the ground that “a marriage cannot be solemnized

without money”. The appellant No.2 thereafter is stated to have
9

beaten PW 5 with a broomstick and abused him filthily and drove

them out of their house.

17. In cross-examination PW 3 stated that he kept track of the status of

affairs of the deceased yet he did not know how long the deceased was

having a love affair with the appellant No. 1. He could not name the

friends of the deceased. He denied that PW 1 instituted any

proceeding against the father of the deceased. He asserted that

grandmother of the deceased lodged a case against the father of the

deceased for recovering money for maintenance of the deceased and

her younger sister. He admitted that he was interrogated by the

police. He did not invite the deceased and her husband to his house

after marriage. He admitted that he had visited the house of the

appellants on the 11th of January, 2006. He deposed that he did not

inform the local panchayat or police as regards the demand of money.

He further stated that he informed the police of the demand for dowry

by the appellant No. 2 from the deceased only after her death. He

further claims to have informed the police of having consulted with

PW 5. He could not recollect having told the police of the assault on

PW 5 by the appellant No. 2. He also admitted that he did not inform

the police that they had assured the accused persons of fulfilling the

dowry demand subsequently. He admitted that there was fog during

winter season in the area of the railway line which was used as toilet

by most of the persons in the village. There was admittedly a toilet in
10

the house of the PW 1. He further stated that his marriage and other

marriage ceremonies were held at in-laws house not at temple.

18. PW 4, Biswajit Das is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He

deposed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 13th day

of Poush at a temple and after her marriage she resided in the

appellants’ house. He deposed that the accused persons demanded

money from the deceased and threatened to assault her if she fails to

bring money from the maternal uncle’s house. He stated that on the

day before the death of the deceased, the deceased came complaining

of the torture and the dowry demand to her grandmother. On the

next day he along with PW 3 and 5 took the deceased back to her

matrimonial house along with Rs.500/- and some garments, when

appellant No. 2 assaulted PW 5 with broom and abused them with

filthy languages.

19. The deceases stayed in her matrimonial house and they came back.

Next day at about 11:00 pm appellant No. 1, his brother along with

Gobordhon and Kelo came to their house and informed that deceased

was missing. All of them went to railway gate No. 16 and found the

deceased’s body lying there. They went to the Chanditala P.S. to lodge

an FIR. The police came to the spot. He deposed that the deceased

died due to tortured being caused upon her by the appellants.

20. He deposed that on 11.01.2006 they remained half an hour in the

house of the appellant, some of the villagers were present thereat but

he could not name any of them. He deposed that they did not file any
11

FIR against the incident of assault of PW 5. He further deposed that

the deceased have been living at his residence for 10 long years yet he

does not know the names of any of her friends. He came to know

about the marriage on 29.12.2005 at about 9.00 pm and on that day

itself he learnt about their love affair. He deposed that on 11.01.2006

the deceased herself confessed about the torture to him but he did not

inquire the reason for such torture.

21. In cross-examination PW 4 deposed that he is illiterate. He was

interrogated by the police, Kamarkundu GRP Office on the day after

her death. He stated that he specifically mentioned to the police the

fact that appellant No. 1, his brother along with Gobordhon and Kelo

came to their house on the date of the death of the deceased but he

did not mention that those persons took him to the place of

occurrence.

22. PW 5, Swapan Dey is the husband of the maternal aunt of the

deceased. He stated that on 11th January, 2006 the deceased ran

away to her maternal uncle’s house and told her grandmother that her

husband and mother-in-law are torturing her and that she would not

go back to her matrimonial house. He further deposed that she told

her grandmother that if she was forced to go back to her in-laws

house, she would commit suicide. On the same day in the afternoon

he along with PW 3 and the maternal uncle of the deceased Biswajit

Das and one Sujata Nandi, maternal aunt of the deceased, went to the
12

house of the appellant. As soon as they reached there, appellant No.

2 abused them in filthy language and assaulted him with a

broomstick. That on the 12th of January, 2006, Biswajit Das (PW 4)

informed him that the victim died and was found on the railway line.

He then came along with Biswanath Nandi and Biswajit Das to the

house of PW 1 and they went to Chanditala Police Station and

informed of the complaint of the incident.

23. In cross-examination he deposed that he was interrogated by the

Kamarkundu GRPS along with PW 3, PW 4 and PW 1. They were all

examined separately on the same day by the police. PW 6 Kamala Das

was not present at that point of time. His wife’s name is Pratima Dey.

He deposed that PW 1 had two other full brothers. He had good

relations and access to the house of PW 1. He claimed to be as

affectionate towards the deceased as her two other maternal uncles

and aunts were. He made no enquiries as to the circumstances under

which deceased got married nor received any information prior

thereto. He came to know of the marriage on the 13th Day of Poush

while on a visit to in-laws house. He admitted that he did not visit the

matrimonial house of the deceased before 11th January, 2006. He is a

carpenter by profession.

24. He stated that a large number of other persons also went along with

him, PW 3 and PW 4 to the house of the appellants on the 11th of

January, 2006. He remembers some names but does not remember

the others. The deceased was in the house of the PW 1 on the 11th of
13

January, 2006. He came to know from the deceased directly that she

was being tortured and would commit suicide if she was sent back to

the house of the appellant. He took her to reside with her in-laws

despite such statement from the deceased. He did not inform any

other villagers of the incident. He is stated to have convinced the

appellants not to harass the deceased.

25. He also stated that he was hit with a broomstick by the appellant No.2

but did not take any steps towards lodging a written complaint to the

Police. He did not notice other villagers who came to their house. He

could not recollect as to whether he informed the police that the victim

threatened to commit suicide if she is taken back to her in-laws house

and not given money. He further deposed that he informed the police

that the deceased told her grandmother that if she is sent back to her

matrimonial house she would kill herself. The appellants and the

brother of the appellant No. 1 were torturing her. He could not again

recollect whether the deceased told him about any money demand by

the appellants. He denied that the family of the deceased did not

accept her marriage with the appellant No. 1.

26. PW 6 Kamala Das, grandmother of the deceased, deposed that the

mother of the deceased is her elder daughter. She deposed that the

father of the deceased is one Budhhadeb Polley. She deposed that

the marriage of the deceased with the appellant No. 1 took place in a

local temple. She deposed that marriage was a result of a love affair.

She said that the in-laws and husband of the deceased assaulted and
14

tortured her. She stated 14 days after marriage the deceased came to

her house and refused to go back to her matrimonial house for she

was being tortured for demand for Rs.20,000/- kept in a fixed deposit

account. She also said that the deceased was abused and teased in

filthy languages by the appellants. She informed PW 3 and PW 5 of

the above and consulted with each other and took the deceased back

to the house of the appellants alongwith Rs.500/- and garments to

the deceased . She said that the deceased left the house of the

appellant on the said date and that deceased died on the next day by

committing suicide.

27. In cross-examination she deposed that the deceased has a sister

called “Tumpa” who was around 9 years younger to her. She said that

the deceased was beautiful. She also admitted that her family wanted

the deceased to get married to a well-established boy with a good

family background. She stated that they were informed of the

marriage of the deceased with the appellant No. 1 by the father of the

appellant No. 1 at about 9:00 pm.

28. She admitted that she would have given the customary gifts in the

event if marriage was held by way of negotiation and that wedding

gifts were given to the daughters who were married of from her family.

She admitted that the deceased and her husband were not invited to

their home even after being informed of marriage. She had no

knowledge of the love affair of the accused persons nor went to their

house before marriage. The wife of the older brother of the appellant
15

No. 1 was living in her paternal house during the time of incident.

She also admitted that the accused never demanded any sum of

money when they visited their house nor did she enquire if the

appellants had any monetary demands. She claimed that the

appellant No. 1 was a student at the time of marriage.

29. She stated that they have toilet in their house similar to all other local

houses. This contradicted by all defense and independent witnesses.

She also stated that the accused had toilet in their house. This is a

false statement. She claimed that she does not go outside of the

house. She stated that during marriage or even thereafter there was

no interaction between the house of the appellants and her house and

their respective family members. This Court finds a large number of

contradictions in the evidence of this witness.

30. PW 7 Mousumi Das is maternal aunt of the deceased, wife of PW 4.

She came to know of the marriage of the deceased and that the

deceased later resided at her matrimonial house thereafter. On 11th

January, 2006 the deceased came to the house of the PW 1. PW 7 was

present along with her mother-in-law when the deceased came around

in the noon. She stated that deceased told her that the appellant No.

2 caught hold of her by hair on the previous night and the husband

coerced her to bring a sums of money kept in the fixed deposit

account. She further stated that at the relevant time her husband

tried to grab the deceased by the neck while insisting on the sums of

money.

16

31. She also stated that her mother-in-law of the deceased often teased

and demanded money lying in the fixed deposit account and insisted

that she die. She claimed that the mother-in-law assaulted the

deceased and that if the deceased failed to bring the said sum of

money lying in the fixed deposit, she would get her son remarried.

These could not have been to the personal knowledge of the PW 7. No

other witness deposed as such.

32. She thereafter informed her husband and the PW 1 and other sisters-

in-law and their husbands of the incident narrated by the deceased.

She also said that after consulting with each other PW 3, 4 5 visited

the house of the deceased with a sum of Rs.500/- and some clothes of

the deceased. The appellant No. 2 is stated to have assaulted PW 5 on

that day and had used abusive languages against the persons who

visited their house. On the next day the appellant No. 1, his brother

and two other persons namely Gobordhon and Kelo asked of the

whereabouts of the deceased from her husband and her family

members were informed that the deceased did not come to their house

on the said day. She thereafter came to know from her husband that

the body of the deceased was found in a naked condition near the

railway line. She could not have personal knowledge of the incident

as she did not visit the place of occurrence. She narrated the incident

thereafter she came to know as stated by the PW 1.

33. In cross-examination she stated that she does not remember the date

of her marriage or the date of birth of her sons. She stated that she
17

had no ill-will towards the father of the deceased. She claimed to have

loved the deceased like her own daughter and similarly deceased loved

her back like her own mother. How come then, did the deceased not

tell her of her love affair or the alleged dowry demand of the accused.

However, the deceased did not inform of any affair with anybody or

about the appellant No. 1.

34. She claimed that the deceased used to go for private tuitions at 9:00

am in the morning and 4:00 pm in the afternoon and other working

days at 6:00 am. She stated that the deceased went to Begumpur to

another private tuition. The deceased had a lady tutor in the morning

and in the afternoon. PW 7 was not aware as to whether the deceased

went to appellant No. 1 to learn English.

35. She did not go to meet the deceased at her in-laws house. She was

not aware of the days when the other members of the P.W. 1’s family

got married. There was no social relations between the family of the

accused and her own neither was there any enmity. She stated that

some members of her family went to the house of the accused for the

first time on the 11th of January, 2006.

36. She could not recollect whether she was examined by the police in

connection with the above case or whether she stated anything to the

police as regards the date of marriage. She did not ask the PW 1 to

send any gifts to the house of the accused. She did not invite the

deceased or her husband to her house. She claimed that the
18

economic status of her family and particularly PW 1 was higher than

that of accused persons.

37. She claimed to have informed the police that the deceased came to

their house crying on the 11th of January and informed them of the

demand of dowry of a sum of Rs.20,000/-, by the appellants. She also

stated that the deceased told her and PW 6 that she was assaulted by

the appellant No. 1 and 2. She stated that her husband was

acquainted with the said Kelo and Gobordhon who came to their

house on the 12th of January to enquire the whereabouts of the

deceased.

38. She recalled having told the police as to how her husband and other

in-laws found the deceased on the railway line. She denied that her

caste and economic status changed after her marriage. She claimed

that the family of the deceased was not inclined to send a sum of

Rs.20,000/-. The credibility of this witness is found to be suspicious.

39. PW 8 Kashinath Adak, father-in-law of the deceased. He deposed

that after the death of the victim the police came to search the house

of the appellants but did not find anything. He claimed to have put a

signature on a seizure list. He claimed that he thought and knew that

the victim had died due to an accident. He could not recollect as to

whether the relatives of deceased came to his house on the 11th of

January, 2006. He was not present in the house at the time when the

PW 2, 3 5 came to his house on the 11th, of January, 2006.
19

40. PW 9, Ajit Patra, is a villager and scribe of the complaint. He is also

a seizure witness of the articles seized by the police at the place of

occurrence. He is also seizure witness to the search conducted by the

police at the house of the accused.

41. PW 10, Kalipada Bag, is a villager and a seizure witness of the article

seized at the place of occurrence. He has stated in his deposition that

he lived opposite of the house of the accused persons. He stated that

98% of the houses in that area do not have a toilet. He contradicted

the evidence of the police that he had signed on the seizure list at the

place of occurrence as he stated that he was ill and was on bed rest at

home on the advice of doctor on the 13th of January, 2006.

42. PW 11, ASI Kartik Kundu, another seizure witness at the place of

occurrence.

43. PW 12, Subhas Chandra Ghosh, a seizure witness of the dead body

and one of the persons who carried the dead body from place of

occurrence to Chanditala S.D. Hospital for post-mortem. He collected

the wearing apparels of the deceased after the post-mortem and

handed over to PW 20 S.I. of Police against a proper seizure list. He

identified his signature on such seizure list being Exbt. 8.

44. PW 13, Constable Sushil Kumar Dey who took seized wearing

apparels from PW 12. The above contradicts the evidence of PW 12

that he gave such apparels to PW 20.

20

45. PW 14, Tapas Bhuinya, another seizure witness who stated that PW

12 handed over the wearing apparel of deceased to PW 20.

46. PW 15, Amalesh Paul, Station Master of Janai Road Railway Station.

He claimed that during night duty on the 12/13th January, 2006, he

was informed by the onduty gateman that a dead body was found on

the rail line between Janai Road and Begumpur Railway Station

between rail level crossing gates Nos. 16 and 17. He stated that since

1994 he was posted in the same Railway Station and may have

reported about 6-7 cases of death by accident on the railway line near

the said Railway Station. He stated that Investigating Officer did not

seize any copies of such seize. He also deposed that he was not

informed that the dead body was without clothes.

47. PW 16, Bhabataran Dhara, is the pradhan of Panchghara Gram

Panchayet. He gave a certificate to Swapan Dey that Tushi Adak

(Victim) had committed suicide. He had issued certificate as per the

request of Swapan Dey without holding any enquiry.

48. PW 17, Prasanta Ghosh, brother of PW 7, visited the house of PW 1

on 13th January, 2006. He informed the Court that a copy of the FD

receipt and the reading material of the deceased were seized from the

house of the deceased 7 months after the incident. He was a

signatory to such seizure list marked as exbt. 10. A photograph of

appellant No. 1 was affixed in a book kept by the deceased.
21

49. PW 18, Debasis Nath Chatterjee, Officer-in-Charge, Kamarkundu

GRPS, who registered and started the UD Case No. 3 of 2006 dated

13th January, 2006.

50. PW 19, Budhhadeb Polley, is the father of the deceased. The

evidence indicates that he neither cared for the deceased nor made

enquiries about her welfare. He admittedly lived in a separate house

away from the village with his second wife and family.

51. He had deposed evidence only based on what he heard. He deposed

that a FD account of Rs.20,000/- was jointly held in the name of his

wife (mother of the deceased) and himself, later post demise of his wife

the FD was currently held in the name of the deceased and himself.

52. PW 20, Narendranath Kar, S.I. of Police, who conducted the inquest

along with the Executive Magistrate, one Sanjukta Chakraborty. She

did not depose evidence in the trial. He sent the dead body after

inquest and examination for post-mortem through PW 12. He said

that many people had assembled by the time he reached the place of

occurrence. He deposed that he had noted down the wearing apparel

of the deceased while holding the inquest examination.

53. PW 21 is Dr. S. Mukherjee who conducted the post-mortem

examination. He noted the inquiries. He identified the post-mortem

report. He claimed to have seen fractures, sharp cutting injuries,

bruises and lacerated injuries on the dead body. He did not note the

exact measurement of the injuries in his report. He indicated that
22

the injuries may have been caused either by light sharp cutting

instrument or heavy sharp cutting instrument. He did not note the

type of the lacerated injuries. He did not mention the shape of the

lacerated injuries. He admits that non-mentioning of such shape

would prevent any conclusion as regards such injuries. He did not

mention the type of fracture sustained. Although he noted the

condition of brain but only stated in his report that there was a

haemorrhage. No further details of the head injury were mentioned in

the report. The nature of the bruises on the body of the deceased was

also not noted. He found liquid in the stomach of the deceased. He

found injury on the liver but did not note the nature of the injury.

The nose of the deceased was also injured. He found lung injury and

noted it in his report but did not mention the nature or type of injury.

54. He admitted that his report indicates that the injuries were sustained

for being hit by a running train and they could either be suicidal or

accidental or homicidal. He stated that decapitation occurs whenever

a person lying down on a railway line to kill himself in all cases.

There was no decapitation found in the case of the deceased. He

stated that if anybody commits suicide by lying down on the railway

line then the grease and other dirt from the engine are to be found in

the garments of the deceased. No such dirt was found on the

garments of the deceased or her person.

55. PW 22 is Nitai Chandra Ghosh, S.I. of Police and the Investigating

Officer of Kamarkundu GRPS. He deposed that he visited the place of
23

occurrence and drew a sketch map and prepared index. He examined

the de facto complainant under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He

consulted with the police officer who held the inquest report. He

examined the available witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. .

He admitted that he searched the house of the accused persons but

did not find anything. He received seized articles from the S.I. of

Police PW 20 who held the inquest along with wearing apparels. He

examined EO and recorded his statement under Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C. He exhibited the seizure list of the body, wearing apparels and

the broken conch shell bangle and vermilion bangle. He also

exhibited the seizure list of the copy of the FD account and the

dictionary from the house of the victim. He collected the post-mortem

report and submitted the chargesheet.

56. In cross-examination he deposed that he did not resume and

commence investigation on the basis that it was a case of suicide. He

denied that there was an agreement recorded in the FIR as regards

any account of money to be exchanged between the family of PW 1

and the appellants. He admitted that he did not collect information as

to whether the deceased and her husband went on a honeymoon. He

did not enquire as to who the deceased visited for private tuitions and

who her friends were. He did not enquire as to the place of work of

PW 1. He did not make enquiries of the nature and character of

deceased or whether any customary gifts were given during the

marriages of the boys and girls of the family of the PW 1.
24

57. He did not find any other positive evidence that the accused

demanded money from the deceased other than from the oral

statement of the witnesses. He also did not find any positive evidence

that there was an agreement between the families of PW 1 and the

appellants of any gifts before or after marriage. He did not find any

demand or letter from the accused persons to the PW 1 demanding

any money. He also did not find any statement of any witnesses that

the deceased was depressed after marriage in the house of the

accused. There was no written document from the accused persons

showing any demand of money. There was no suicide note either in

the place of occurrence or in the house of the deceased. He found

that the deposit cash certificate was originally in the name of PW 19

and mother of the deceased. Thereafter, in place of the deceased’s

mother, the name of the deceased was entered. Only a Xerox copy of

the deposit account was seized the veracity of the Xerox copy was not

verified with the bank. There was no evidence that the deceased was

treated by any doctor for torture caused by the accused. None of the

witnesses had stated that the victim to commit suicide.

58. He claimed to have found material to the effect that the appellants

sent a proposal to the house of the PW 1 for asking dowry; particulars

of such material have not been brought on record. He further stated

that the accused did not directly propose or demand dowry from the

PW 1 by going to his house. He claims not to have found that it is on
25

account of the failure of the unlawful demand of the accused which

provoked the deceased to commit suicide.

59. He did not make a prayer for police custody of the appellant or

recovery the seized articles and other articles. The distance between

the houses of the appellant and that of the PW 1 is about 5-6 houses

but the same was not recorded in the CD. He could not state the

names of the owners of those houses in between. He did not seize the

garments and clothes of the deceased from the house of the accused

person.

60. He did not seize blood stained stones and blood stained earth where

the dead body of the deceased was found lying. The same was not

noted in the CD. He did not also inquire or also ascertain the time

period during which the love affair between the deceased and the

husband went on. He did not collect any certificate from the local

gram panchayat as stated by the PW 16. He did not send the wearing

apparels for forensic examination. Hence it could not be ascertained

by the injuries caused by the wheel of the rail or from other parts of a

rail compartment. The dead body of the deceased was already taken

away from the place of occurrence before he reached. He examined

witnesses at different places.

61. The prosecution did not produce charge sheet named witnesses

namely Aurobindo Adak, Surajit Adak and Rupali Adak. He did not

find any evidence as to whom among the local villagers saw the

deceased go to her grandfather’s house or who saw the maternal
26

uncles and others visiting the house of the accused on the 11th of

January, 2006.

62. He did not question Swapan Dey as to whether he was beaten up by

the appellant No. 2 with broomstick. Swapan Dey could not show any

injury nor was a GD being lodged by him in that regards. He is not

sure where the dead body was removed from. He did not ascertain the

actual distance between the railway track and the dead body was

found. He denied that PW 3 told him that the deceased told her

grandmother of any demand of money by the accused persons.

63. He also denied that the PW 4 told him that Gorbardhan and Kelo

visited the house of PW 1. He also denied that PW 5 told him that after

11:00 pm on 12th January, 2006 that PW 3 and PW 4 found the

deceased on the railway line. He further denied that PW 6 told him or

recorded a statement that the deceased told that that if she would be

sent back to her matrimonial house again, she would commit suicide

or that the appellants and the brother of the Appellant No. 1 caused

torture on her. He further denied that PW 7 told him that on 11th

January 2006 the deceased came to the house of the PW 1 crying that

the accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/- or that the Appellant No.

2 assaulted the deceased with a broomstick. He also denied that PW 7

told him that on 11th January 2006 the appellant No. 1 caught the

neck of the deceased demanding Rs.20,000/-. He also denied that PW

7 told him that her husband had taken to her railway line where the
27

dead body of the deceased was found and that they went to

Chanditala P.S. thereafter.

64. The prosecution witnesses were examined under 313 SectionCr.P.C. The

appellant No. 1 denied that dowry was not given to him as the

marriage occurred due to love affair as deposed by PW 6. He also

denied that PW 6 ever went to her house after marriage as deposed by

PW 1, 3, 4 7. He also denied that the dead body was not found

without clothes. He also denied that the victim committed suicide and

that the prosecution case was instituted as the marriage occurred due

to love affair between himself and the deceased. Appellant No. 2 also

denied that the deceased ever went to her house after marriage as

deposed by PW 1, 3, 4 7. She also denied that the body was found

in naked condition.

65. The defence examined as many as 10 witnesses.

DW 1 – Surajit Adak, cousin brother of Kiran Adak

DW 2 – Rita Adak, wife of Barun Adak and sister-in-law of
appellant No. 1.

DW 3 -Rupali Adak, villager.

DW 4 – PradipKoley, villager.

DW 5 -Jyotiprakash Adak, villager.

DW 6 – Sambhu Malik, friend and classmate of appellant
No. 1.

DW 7 – SanjitKarmakar, another villager.

DW 8 – HaripadaAdak, another villager.

DW 9 – Madan Das, villager and son-in-law of the Adak
family.

28

DW 10 – Kiran Adak, the appellant No. 1.

66. During the examination-in-chief of DW 1 Surajit Adak admitted that

he frequented the house of appellants. He visited the house of the

appellants event after marriage of the appellant No. 1. He deposed

that the family of deceased never accepted the marriage and was

economically higher in status than the family of the appellants. He

visited the house of the maternal uncle of the deceased and had social

relations with them. The Astamangala ceremony (usually performed

in the bride’s parental house) in the instant case was performed in the

house of the groom i.e. appellant No. 1. The bride’s house refused to

perform the said ceremony in their house. There was no demand for

dowry or torture upon the deceased by the appellants in the presence

of the DW 1. He was friendly with the deceased prior to marriage.

The deceased never told him that appellants caused any form of

torture or demanded dowry from her. He denied that the deceased

ever went crying to her paternal house complaining against the

appellants.

67. There was no latrine in 98 per cent of the families residing in the

village Panchghara such people went to the railway line for answering

the nature’s call as did the family members of the appellants. None of

the family members of the appellants visited the maternal house of the

deceased prior to or after her death.

68. In cross-examination he said that he worked as a jewellery setter in a

jewellery shop in Barabazar, Kolkata. He denied that there was any
29

toilet or latrine facility in the house of the appellants. He admitted

that he was a charge-sheet witness No. 11 but was not asked to

deposed evidence by the police.

69. DW 2 is Rita Adak, wife of Barun Adak and sister-in- law of the

appellant No. 1. She deposed that during her marriage there was no

demand for any dowry made by the appellants. She deposed that the

family members of the deceased did not accept her marriage with the

appellant No. 1. She stated that at the time of marriage appellant No.

1 also worked as a jewellery setter in a shop of Barabazar, Kolkata.

She denied that there was any demand for dowry made by the

appellants against the deceased or her family members. She deposed

that there was no toilet facility in her matrimonial house and that of

the deceased. She said her mother-in-law always accompanied her to

the railway line for the purpose of relieving herself. She deposed that

on the date of death, deceased went to the railway line on three or four

occasions to relieve herself.

70. In cross examination she deposed that she had younger brother-in-

law called Arun Adak who is not married. She was at her matrimonial

house on the day the deceased passed away. She also denied that she

lived in the house of her father seven days prior to the date of

incident. She admitted that despite going to relieve herself three to

four times to the rail line, the deceased did not see any doctor or take

any medicines.

30

71. DW 3 is Rupali Adak, villager and deposed that all families in the

village knew each other very well and visited their respective houses

on social ceremonies. She also said that she visited the house of the

deceased on a regular basis. She deposed that the grandfather and

family of the deceased did not accept her marriage with the appellant

No. 1. She frequented the house of the appellants as well as the PW 1

before and after marriage. She said that she also deposed that the

Astamangala ceremony of the deceased was performed at the house of

the appellants contrary to normal practice, as the family of the

deceased did not invite her or the appellant No. 1 to perform such the

ritual. She denied that the family of the accused ever caused torture

on the deceased or demanded money from her. She denied that the

uncle of the deceased was assaulted and hit with the broom when he

came to visit the deceased and her family. She denied that there was

any latrine facility in her matrimonial house. She deposed that her

family members in the matrimonial house visited the local railway line

to ease themselves or answer nature’s call. She admitted that her

statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

72. DW 4 is Pradip Koley, villager. He runs a printing press in the

village. He knows the de facto complainant Rabin Das and had access

to his house as also that of appellant Kiran Adak. He deposed that

the Astamangala ceremony was held in the house of the accused

persons. He was not aware of any torture or demand for dowry being

made by the accused on the family of the deceased or on the
31

deceased. He reiterated that there was no latrine or lavatory or urinal

in the house of the accused persons and that they use the railway line

for such purpose. He reiterated that the family of the deceased did

not accept her marriage with the appellant No.1. He admitted that he

saw the deceased lying dead on the railway line and also saw many

people assembled thereat. He said that many of the local residents

accidentally died on that spot of the railway lines while easing

themselves.

73. DW 5 is Jyotiprakash Adak, a villager, who knew the appellant and

his family very well as also the family of the deceased. He frequented

the house of the PW 1 and the appellants. He reiterated that the

family of the deceased did not accept her marriage with the appellant

No.1. He reiterated that Astamangala ceremony was held in the house

of the appellants. He denied that there was any torture, physical or

mental, caused upon the deceased by the appellants. He also denied

that the deceased ever told him about any torture on her. He

reiterated that many persons of the village died due to railway

accidents while easing themselves at the same spot that the deceased

had died. He vehemently denied that the deceased committed suicide

as a result of any torture by the accused persons.

74. PW 6 is Sambhu Malik was a friend and classmate of the appellant

No. 1. He was very friendly with the appellant No. 1. He also said

that the family of the deceased did not accept the marriage of the

deceased with the appellant No. 1. He denied that the accused ever
32

caused any torture on the victim or that there was any demand of

Rs.20,000/- which was lying in form of a fixed deposit in the name of

the deceased. He was not told by the deceased that the appellant

demanded the said sum of money from her towards dowry or torture

the deceased. He also said that the PW 1 and his family never told

him about any torture of the deceased by the appellants. He

reiterated that similar to other villagers the family of the appellants

used the railway line for easing themselves. He named at least three

persons who died on the railway track during easing themselves. He

visited the house of the accused during Astamangala ceremony.

75. DW 7 is Sanjit Karmakar who saw the Astamangala ceremony in the

house of the appellants. He deposed that the PW 1 and his family did

not accept the marriage of the deceased with the appellant No. 1 and

that he had good relations and access to the house of the appellant

No. 1. He did not see or hear of any torture on the deceased by the

appellants, neither had the deceased ever told him about any such

torture. He particularly denied that the family of the deceased i.e. PW

1 and others never informed him of any torture on the deceased. He

said that he was a cited witness in the charge-sheet but was not called

upon to depose. He was personally invited by the appellant No. 2 for

the Astamangala ceremony which he attended.

76. DW 8 is Haripada Adak. He was well acquainted and in talking terms

with PW 1, grandfather of the deceased. PW 1 Rabin Das never told
33

him about any torture or dowry demand from the appellants. He is a

cousin of appellant No. 1.

77. DW 9 is Madan Das who was a brother-in-law of the appellant No. 1.

He was named as charge-sheet witness but not asked to depose in

evidence. He had access to the house of both the PW 1 as well as the

appellants’. The PW 1 never told him about any torture upon the

deceased by the appellant nor did the deceased ever tell him about

any such torture as such.

78. DW 10 is the appellant No.1 who admitted that he was in a love with

the deceased for about 3 years prior to the marriage. He deposed

that the deceased left her maternal uncle’s house for the marriage on

the pretext of going for a private tuition to one Shyam Guin. He

deposed that the deceased had left two exercise books for English and

History in her matrimonial house that were written in her own

handwriting. The said books were marked as Exbt. A and B but the

same did not find place in the Lower Court Record. He deposed that

the deceased did not go to her maternal uncle’s house or grandfather’s

house after marriage as she had forbidden him from informing people

at her grandfather’s house that she was married. He denied that

there was any demand of dowry upon the deceased or that she was

ever assaulted. He also deposed that the deceased wrote a diary

presented by him to her that was marked as Exbt. C. The said diary

did not find place in the Lower Court Record. He denied that anybody

from the in-laws house ever visited his house.

34

79. In cross examination he denied that the police seized the exercise

books or the diary despite being told of the same. He identified the

signature and handwriting in the exercise books and diary as that of

the deceased. He denied having written the exercise books and diaries

himself. He also denied that the exercise books and diary were

manufactured by him. He denied that anybody in the family of the

deceased accepted their marriage.

80. The accused No. 1 and 2 being appellant No. 1 and 2 were convicted

under Section 498A and Section306 of the Penal Code and under Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act. The third accused was acquitted.

81. Let us take the evidence that has come on record under Section 498A

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The only evidence

showing alleged claims of dowry emanate from the victim and the

family members of the victim. They are found in the depositions of the

prosecution witnesses; viz., PW 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (deceased’s

maternal grandfather, maternal uncles, maternal grandmother and

maternal-aunt @ Mami respectively).

82. Evidence of other prosecution witnesses are merely hearsay evidence

of dowry demand made upon the deceased. The incident of the

deceased coming for rescue to PW 6 and 7; running and crying, was a

mere piece of narrative that the PW 1, 3, 4 and 5 heard from the PW 6

and 7.

35

83. The evidence of alleged dowry demand being made upon the relatives

of the deceased is particularly found in the deposition of PW 3 and 5

(deceased’s maternal-uncles @ Meshos), who claim to have visited the

appellant’s home, in the context of taking their niece (deceased) back

to her matrimonial house along with some of her wearable garments

and a sum of Rs. 500/-, but even this fact remains uncorroborated as

no independent neighbour has been called upon, by the prosecution

as an ocular witness to depose that they have witnessed the incident

in toto, as narrated or deposed by the PW 3 and 5. The first thing

strikes the mind of this Court is the statement of the Investigating

Officer that the PW 3, 4, 6 and 7 have not made any statement under

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to the fact that the victim was

harassed and tortured for dowry. Coupled with the above fact is the

evidence of the independent witnesses, as also on behalf of the

defence that there was no demand for dowry ever or torture as

deposed by PW 1 to PW 3, 5, 6 7.

84. DW 1 to 9, who had access and social relations and were in talking

terms with the PW 1 wholly denied that the PW 1 had ever informed

them of any dowry demand or any torture in that respect caused upon

the deceased of her family by the appellant. The accused No. 1 and

the deceased were admittedly in love for three years. It is, therefore,

unlikely that within 4 days of marriage a dowry demand could

possibly emerge. Thus, the story of being tortured by the appellants is

also difficult to believe. One must also give due regard to the fact that
36

the Astamangala ceremony (blessing of the newly married couple)

which ought to have been performed in the matrimonial house of the

deceased was in fact performed at the house of the appellants, when

friends and neighbours were hosted by the appellant and his family.

A demand for dowry or torture is inconsistent with the above chain of

events. The chances of a concocted story of dowry demand and

suicide appear more plausible in view of the fact that the economic

status of the victim’s family was much higher than the appellants.

There is overwhelming evidence that family of the deceased did not

accept the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and the deceased.

Admittedly the deceased was very good looking and the PW 1

grandfather was a railway servant.

85. There is also no clear evidence except that of PW 1, 7 when compared

with that of PW 15 and PW 19 that the body of the victim was found

naked. The chances of a person taking off her clothes to ease herself

or even to commit suicide are quite unlikely, unusual and unheard of.

The grandmother of the deceased, Kamala Das (PW 6) and PW 7

ascertaining that there was a toilet of the house of the appellants is

clearly contradicted by each of the evidence of the 10 defence

witnesses (DW) including some prosecution witnesses. On the

contrary PW 10 and DW 1 had stated that 98 per cent of the residents

of the village did not have toilet in their house and used the railway

line for answering the call of nature appears more credible. PW 6

grandmother of the deceased who admittedly does not leave the house
37

and has not visited the house of the appellants could not have,

therefore, known whether there was a toilet in the house of the

appellants.

86. Further the evidence of PW 7, aunt of the deceased, that she treated

the deceased as her own daughter is also not believable since she was

not even aware for three years love affair that the deceased had with

appellant No. 1. If the family of the deceased had indeed accepted the

marriage they would have performed Astamangala ceremony in their

own house or would have visited the house of the appellants to

ascertain her welfare and enquired of the alleged torture and demand

for dowry. There is yet another fact that is relevant here PW 1

deposed that there was no fog in the night of 11th January, 2006

which is most unlikely. The area is a part of semi-rural of the Bengal

and a village having fog and smog in the late hours of the night is

common knowledge. On the contrary PW 1 3 specifically deposed

that there was fog in the night of the date of incident.

87. The above contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

particularly the family members of the deceased, throw serious

suspicious on the veracity and the weight of their evidence. There is

no other contemporaneous evidence or corroboration from any

independent witness of the occurrence of any demand for dowry or

any chances of any torture, hence the same cannot be conclusively

arrived at. It is also relevant to note that the deceased went to ease

herself to the railway line three or four times that night. This fact
38

coupled with irrefutable evidence of the defence witnesses that many

people past have died on the said railway line while easing themselves

lends more credence to the defence of the appellants, that the

deceased died accidentally while relieving herself.

88. The aforesaid analysis with regard to the death of many people in the

past on the said railway line while easing themselves is also relevant

for the purpose of a decision of conviction on the ground of Section

306 of the Penal Code. The prosecution could not establish any bad

blood between the appellant and the victim. On the contrary there is

evidence to suggest that the victim was not comfortable and use to

relieve herself on a railway track appears more plausible. The

absence of 161 statements in the Lower Court Records and diary of

the victim throw serious suspicious in the mind of the Court as to the

manner of conduct of the investigation and the transmission of the

record to this Court. There is no evidence that handwriting of the

victim in the diary was sent for expert examination or compared with

any other handwriting of the victim. The victim’s handwriting was

available in a dictionary recovered from her house albeit seven months

after the incident.

89. The post-mortem report was also not conclusive and to seizure list

has been rather casual and inconclusive. What is but relevant from

such post-mortem report is that in case of a personal desire to commit

suicide a person would normally lay herself in front on a railway track

as that would lead to certain decapitation as a normal consequence.
39

No such decapitation has been found. The post-mortem report further

indicates that if the victim fell underneath the running train in

between the tracks her clothes would have revealed dirt, dust and

other materials from underneath the railway engine or the

compartments. Even if the victim jumped in front of running train,

injuries would have sustained on both sides of the body, one from the

impact from the train and second upon being flung away and with the

fall on the railway track nearby. There is no evidence in the post-

mortem report to this effect. Injuries have only been found on one

side on the victim’s body. The clothes of the victim were not even sent

for Forensic Laboratory report.

90. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no clear evidence that the

victim had committed suicide, the question of any abetment to suicide

hence doesn’t arise as the suicide itself has not been proved beyond

reasonable doubts by the prosecution. The appellants ought not to

have been convicted under Section 306 of the Penal code and should

have been given the benefit of doubt.

91. The Counsel for the appellant have cited the following judgments:

i. SectionTakhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing reported
in (2001) 6 SCC 145

ii. SectionState of U.P. v. Wasif Haider reorted in (2019) 2 SCC 303

iii. SectionGanga Singh v. State of M.P. reorted in (2013) 7 SCC 278

iv. SectionPawan Singh vs. State Ors. Criminal Appeal 929/2011

v. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan reorted in (2010) 12
SCC 190
40

vi. SectionAmalendu Pal v. State of W.B. reorted in (2010) 1 SCC 707

vii. SectionMangat Ram v. State of Haryana reorted in (2014) 12 SCC
595

viii. SectionHans Raj vs. State of Haryana. Appeal (Crl.) 609 of 1997

92. The ratio held in Amalendu Pal (supra) has been followed and

applied in the instant case. The relevant Paragraphs has been set out

hereinbelow:

“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section
306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of
the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an
act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.”

(Emphasis Added)

93. For the reasons stated hereinabove the appeal must succeed. The

impugned judgement and the order of conviction is liable to be set
41

aside and is hereby set aside. The appellants are given the benefit of

doubt and acquitted.

94. The bail bonds are discharged.

95. There shall be no order as to costs.

96. Urgent Photostat Certified server copy of this judgment, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties on urgent basis.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation