Dipak Chandra Roy vs The State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 5053 Cal

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

Before:

The Hon'ble Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee


                               C.R.A. 431 of 2001

                           Dipak Chandra Roy
                                    Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal.

For the Appellants:            Mr. Himanshu De, Sr.Adv.
                               Mr. Navanil De, Adv.
                               Mr. Subhrajit Dey, Adv.
                               Mr. Rajeshwar Chakra, Adv.
                               Mr. Subhrajit Dey, Adv.

For the State:                 Mr. Binoy Panda, Adv.
                               Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwalla, Adv.
                               Mr. Pratick Bose, Adv.

Heard on :                      05.04.2022.



Judgment on:                    03.08.2022.



      Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. :-

1.    Instant Appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2001 and

27.9.2001 respectively passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in

Sessions Case No. 94 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.

10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two
                                         2


years. The fine if paid is to be handed over to Smt. Lili Dutta, the bereaved wife

of the deceased.

2.    The gist of prosecution case is that Lili Dutta, the wife of the deceased

lodged a written complaint on 20.12.1999 addressed to O.C Maynaguri Police

Station, District- Jalpaiguri informing that her husband Dilip Kumar Dutta

committed suicide in their house on the night of 18.12.1999 and left behind

four suicide notes. In one of the suicide notes he wrote that that Dipak

Chandra Roy of Uttar Marichbari was responsible for his death. In the other

notes it is written that his wife, two sons and his mother were not responsible

for his death and in another suicide note addressed to the D.I, of school it was

stated that he had been cheated by Dipak Chandra Roy, the committee

member who should be punished. On the basis of the written complaint

Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 158 of 1999 dated 20.12.1999 was

registered under section 306 of IPC. Police investigated into the case and

submitted charge sheet against the accused person under section 306 of IPC.

3.    Dilip Kumar Dutta, the deceased, was the Head Master of a primary

school at Barnes Char. Rs. 2,00,000/-was sanctioned by the Government for

extension of school building. A committee was constituted to supervise and

execute the construction work of the school building. The committee comprised

of Bisakha Kabiraj as chairperson, Dilip Kumar Dutta, the Head Master as

Secretary and Dipak Chandra Roy the accused as member of village Education

Committee of Barnes State Primary School. Some wood was purchased from

Lataguri for the construction work and the accused person was entrusted for
                                       3


the purchase of wood. The accused procured inferior quality wood by receiving

commission from the seller. There was a dissatisfaction amongst villagers

regarding purchase of inferior quality wood. The accused instigated the

villagers against the Head Master who was insulted by the villagers at the

instance of the accused. On being confronted by Dilip Kumar Dutta the

accused insulted him by calling him a cheat, a liar and a thief. Due to such

indignation heaped upon the Head Master by Dipak Chandra Roy he was

driven to commit suicide at his house in the night between 18.12.1999 and

19.12.1999 leaving four suicide notes in which he made Dipak Chandra Roy

responsible for his death.

4.    Cognizance of the offence was taken by Learned Magistrate and the case

was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri. Dipak

Chandra Roy, the accused was called upon to answer the charge framed

against him as follows:

            "that on 18.12.1999 in the night one Dilip Kumar Dutta

            committed suicide at Kathalbari, Nutonbazar Domohali, P.S.

            Maynaguri, District-Jalpaiguri and he abeted said Dilip Kumar

            Dutta for such commission of suicide."

5.    The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In

order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined nine witnesses in

all. Biresh Sikdar a teacher of the primary school at Barnes Char has been

examined as PW-1, Bisakha Kabiraj a member of Barnes Anchal Gram

Panchayet, the chairperson of the school committee as PW-2, Lili Dutta the
                                         4


wife of the deceased as PW-3, Amit Kumar Dutta son of the deceased as PW-4,

Dr. Asit Kumar Pal, Medical Officer at Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital who held Post

Mortem examination of the deceased as PW-5, Pratul Chandra Biswas the

timber merchant from Lataguri as PW-6, Gouranga Mallick a resident of

Marichbari, Domohani has been examined as PW-7, Ganesh Bhowmik another

co-villager as PW-8 and S.I of Police, Achinta Gupta the Investigating Officer of

the case as PW-9. Prosecution has produced an array documents like the First

Information Report which is marked as Exhibit 8, Formal FIR marked as

Exhibit 15, Sketch Map of the place of occurrence as Exhibit 17, Inquest

Report as Exhibit 18, Dead body challan as Exhibit 19, Post Mortem Report as

Exhibit 14, Report of Examiner of Question Document, CID West Bengal is

marked as Exhibit 16, Seizure List of the suicide notes as Exhibit 9/2, Seizure

List of original minutes of meeting of Village Education Committee of Barnes

State Prime Primary School and related documents as Exhibit 10/1. Seizure

List of specimen handwriting of Dilip Kumar Dutta on school records seized in

presence of Biresh Sikdar is marked as Exhibit 6/1. Suicide notes are marked

as Exhibit 1, Exhibit 7/1, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4.

6.    Mr. Himanshu De, learned senior advocate for the Appellant argued that

except the four suicide notes there is no material evidence against the

appellant for his conviction and sentence. It is contended that in column no. 8

of the Inquest Report the reason for death has to be noted but the name of the

appellant does not appear in the Inquest Report. Referring to the charge framed

against the accused person, it is argued that the same was palpably defective
                                        5


and caused serious prejudice to the appellant as the charge did not disclose

how the accused had abetted the offence and what acts of the accused

constituted the abetment or disclose involvement of the accused in aiding and

instigating the suicide. Learned advocate argued that unless there is any

evidence to establish the manner of involvement of the accused person and the

process in which the death was abetted and instigated, the accused/appellants

cannot be held responsible for the death of Dilip Kumar Dutta.

7.    The third facet of appellant's argument is that the deceased wrote in the

suicide note that he had been cheated by Dipak Chandra Roy, a committee

member regarding construction of the VEC room for which he should be

punished but none of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was cheated

by the appellant nor have the witnesses adduced any evidence to establish that

the accused person abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. It is

argued that the offence under section 306 of IPC could not be established

against the accused and except for referring the name of the appellant in the

suicide note, there is no reference of any act or inducement by which the

appellant has intentionally aided and instigated the deceased in committing

suicide.

8.    Learned senior advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that

learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the proper

perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion. It is submitted that Biresh

Sikdar (PW-1) who was a teacher in the Primary School at Barnes Char

deposed that before committing suicide Dilip Kumar Dutta wrote four suicide
                                        6


notes. One of which was addressed to him. The four suicide notes were in the

handwringing of the deceased and on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 the four

suicide notes were marked as Exhibit-1, 2, 3 and 4. The witness stated that he

heard about a dispute which arose in a meeting of the committee regarding

quality of the wood already purchased for the purpose of construction and Dilip

Kumar Dutta had to hear a lot of accusations from the villagers because the

quality of the wood was not up to mark. PW-1 stated that this accusation

caused a great mental anxiety and tension to Dilip Kumar Dutta who was a

good and honest man. In course of cross examination PW-1 also deposed that

two days before the incident Dilip Kumar Dutta was insulted by the villagers. It

is argued on behalf of the appellant that PW-1 did not make any whisper

regarding the involvement of the accused/appellant in the suicide by Dilip

Kumar Dutta. Referring to the evidence of PW-2 Bisakha Kabiraj, a Panchayet

member it is submitted that she was the chair person of the committee

constituted to supervise the construction work of the school and that the

accused was a member of the committee. It is argued that the witness did not

make a single reference to the accused in relation to the death of Dilip Kumar

Dutta.

9.    Taking me through the evidence of Lili Dutta, PW-3 learned advocate for

the appellant argued that the witness stated that her husband was the

Secretary of the committee for looking after the new construction works of the

Barnes Char Primary School. He went to purchase wood at Lataguri and

subsequently found that the wood were not up to the required standard. She
                                        7


further deposed that the accused was given kickbacks and on being confronted

by her husband the accused called her husband a cheat, a liar and a thief. The

evidence of PW-3 disclosed that her husband left behind four suicide notes. In

cross examination of PW-3 admitted that she did not mention in the FIR that

the accused called her husband a cheat, thief and a liar. She stated the same

before the Investigating Officer. Learned advocate for the appellant took me

through the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-9) who in the cross

examination deposed that PW-3 did not state to her that the accused called

Dilip Kumar Dutta a cheat and liar. It is argued by learned advocate that the

statement of PW-3 to such extent cannot be accepted as it was an improvement

made by her in course of her evidence. In support of his argument learned

advocate relied upon a decision in the case of Tarun @ Gautam Mukherjee Vs.

State of West Bengal; 2001 CRI. L. J. 4937 (SCC), wherein it was held,

            "4. To appreciate this contention, we have ourselves scrutinised
            the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 5. The maid servant (PW- 4), who
            deposed in her evidence in chief about the fact that the accused
            used to assault the deceased almost daily on the instigation of
            his sister, but in the cross-examination, it has been elicited that
            she has not stated so in her statement to the police recorded
            under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such material omission would
            discredit her version in court. If her evidence is taken out from the
            purview of consideration, then the evidence of PWs. 2 and 5
            cannot be held to be of such nature which would establish the
            cruelty on the part of the husband to bring home the offence
            under Section 498-A, I.P.C. In our view, therefore, the High Court
            was in error in upholding the conviction under Section 498-
            A, I.P.C."
                                         8


10.   Referring to the testimony of Amit Kumar Dutta PW-4, the son of the

deceased it is argued that PW-4 in his evidence stated that accused took

commission for purchasing wood from the seller and the quality of the wood

was not satisfactory. He further deposed that the accused threatened his father

with dire consequence and instigated the villagers against his father who was

badly insulted by the villagers at the instance of the accused. Referring to the

evidence of S.I. Achinta Gupta, PW-9 it is submitted that PW-4 did not

disclosed to the Investigating Officer that the accused threatened his father

with dire consequences or that he instigated the villagers to go against the

fathers. Learned advocate submitted that the evidence of PW-4 does not in any

manner establish that the accused person had aided, instigated or abetted the

suicide committed by the deceased. Learned advocate for the appellant argued

that simply by naming the accused person in the suicide note left behind by

the deceased, does not establish that the accused has abetted the death of

Dilip Kumar Dutta or he had any mens rea for his death.

11.   To fortify his argument learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the

decision in the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal; (2005) 2 SCC

659 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that, "there was absolutely no

averment in the alleged suicide note left behind by the victim that the appellant

caused any harm to him or was in any responsible for delay in paying salary to

the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It was noted that the deceased was very

much dissatisfied that the working condition at the work place but that the

deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office and had
                                          9


absented himself for the period of 2 (Two) years and that the suicide took place

on 16.02.2001. It was held that the appellant could not have been any way

instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide

of Pranab Kumar Nag". It was held that "an offence under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission

of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of

the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code says that a person

abets the doing of thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages

with one or more other person/persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that

thing, if an act or illegal omission take place in pursuance of that conspiracy, or

that person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The

explanation to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code says that wilfully

misrepresentation or wilfully concealment of a materials fact which he is bound

to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It was observed by

the Hon'ble Court that in the suicide note, except referring to the name of the

appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incident whereby the

appellant was alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or

intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing

the act of suicide. In that case Hon'ble Court found it fit to invoke the

extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant.

12.   Learned Advocate for the appellant to reinforce his argument that there

was no "abetment" on the part of the appellant to induce the deceased to
                                           10


commit suicide, relied upon the decision in the case of Harbhajan Sandhu Vs.

State of Punjab and Haryana & Anr.; CRM-M-34495-2021. In the said case

under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code where a suicide note was left

behind by the deceased, the provisions under Section 306 and Section 107 of

the Indian Penal Code as under:-

      "Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
      "Section 306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide,
      whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
      imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
      years, and shall also be liable to find."
      Section 107 of the IPC reads as under :-
      "107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
                   Firstly. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
                  Secondly. - Engages with one or more other person or persons
                  in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
                  omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, an in
                  order to the doing of that thing; or
                  Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
                  doing of that thing."
13.   The fact of the case in brief is that a suicide note addressed to the

S.H.O., Jalandhar was left stating that on 18.02.2019 he was returning after

purchase of milk and at about 9.p.m. when he reached in front of Gurudwara

Ravidass, accomplices of appellant Harbhajan Sandhu attacked him and he

was grievously injured. About 8-9 youths beat him up along with Bindri,

brother-in-law of Harbhajan Sandhu, his driver Jagjit Singh @ Jeeta; Ashok,

Sonu and Monu. He was admitted at a Civil Hospital for 25 days and his nose

and two ribs were fractured. The matter was reported to the police and police
                                       11


apprehended 3 (three) persons, who were afterwards released. In the said note

the deceased also wrote that since they was poor people police did not help

them and he was fade up with his injuries and could not tolerate pain any

more. His family members were out for working and that after his death strict

legal action should be taken against the accused Harbhajan Sandhu the main

accused who had also threatened him at the hospital that he will kill his other

family members.

14.   Reliance was also placed upon the decision in the case of Tarun @

Gautam Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal, wherein a case under Section

306 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code there was allegations of

harassment and cruelty meted out by the wife, who was forced to commit

suicide. On considering the evidence the High Court held that offence under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out by the prosecution, but

the materials on record proved the offence under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and therefore convicted the appellant under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for

2 (Two) years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Two Thousand only).

15.   Drawing support from the principle laid down in the case of Raja Ram

Vs. State of Rajasthan; (2005) 5 SCC 272, wherein a witness who did not

support the prosecution case, was not declare hostile by prosecution and it was

held that the defence can rely upon the evidence of such witness and it would

be binding upon the prosecution. Learned advocate for the appellant referring

to the evidence of PW-7 Gouranga Mallick argued that the witness deposed that
                                        12


there was a dispute in respect of purchase of bad quality of wood and the

members of the public insulted the Head Master, Dilip Kumar Dutta holding

him responsible for purchase of inferior quality of wood and the Headmaster

committed suicide in two to three days. The witness was not declared hostile by

prosecution and leaned advocate argued that the cause of death of Dilip Kumar

Dutta should be ascribed to the insult heaped upon him by the public, holding

him responsible for purchase of inferior quality of wood. According to leaned

advocate for the appellant the impugned Judgment of conviction is bad in law

and the same is liable to be set aside and appellant acquitted from this case.

16.   Mr. Panda, learned advocate for the State argued that the impugned

Judgment needs no interference as it is based upon the suicide notes left

behind by the deceased which are admissible under section 32 of the Indian

Evidence Act and can be treated as trustworthy for the purpose of conviction of

the accused/appellant.

17.   I have considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the

appellant and the respondent. On reassessment of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses it appears to me that the evidence of PW-1 does not

disclose about involvement of the accused person for the death of Dilip Kumar

Dutta. From the cross examination of the evidence it appears that two days

prior to the incident the deceased was insulted by villagers. It also appears

from the evidence in chief of PW-1 that there had been a lot of accusation

against Dilip Kumar Dutta for purchase of bad quality of wood and he was

suffering from metal anxiety and tension. Apart from such evidence there is

nothing to indicate that Dipak Chandra Roy was instrumental to the death of

Dilip Kumar Dutta. The evidence of PW-2 Bisakah Kabiraj, only disclose that

she was the Chairperson of the committee to supervise the new construction

work for the school. The deceased was the Secretary and the accused was a

Member. The evidence of PW-2 does not have any bearing upon the prosecution

case and does not disclose the cause of suicide by Dilip Kumar Dutta.

18. Lili Dutta PW-3, the wife of the deceased lodged the First Information

Report where she has stated about her husband's death and his leaving behind

four suicide notes. According to her evidence her husband found that the

accused received commission from the place where wood was purchased and

later on being confronted by her husband the accused insulted her husband by

calling him thief, liar and cheat. In cross examination the witness stated that

she did not mention in the FIR about the accusation made by the accused

against her husband. She also deposed that she did not make any statement to

the Investigating Officer that the school students and local people held her

husband responsible for everything. In course of cross examination of PW-9,

the Investigating Officer it was elicited on behalf of the accused person that

PW-3 stated before the I.O. that the students of the primary school as well as

the villagers held her husband responsible for purchasing inferior quality of

wood. It also appears that the witness that she did not state to the I.O. that the

accused called Dilip Kumar Dutta a cheat and a liar. It would therefore, emerge

from the evidence of PW-3 and the Investigating Officer (PW-9) that the

husband of PW-3 was held responsible by students of the school and local

people for the purchase of bad quality of wood. The role of the

accused/appellant for the suicide of Dilip Kumar Dutta does not transpire from

the evidence of PW-3. Amit Kumar Dutta PW-4, the son deposed that his father

committed suicide on 18.12.1999 by hanging. He also stated that a committee

was formed to supervise the new work for construction of the school. His father

went to Lataguri to purchase the wood. PW-4 also stated that he heard from

his mother that accused took commission over purchase of wood from the

seller for which the quality of the wood was not satisfactory and the accused

also instigated the villagers to go against his father and the father was badly

insulted by the villagers. It was elicited through cross examination of PW-9 (I.O)

that PW-4 did not disclose to him that the accused threatened his father with

dire consequence or the accused instigated the villagers to go against his

father. Therefore, the evidence of PW-4 regarding alleged instigation of the

villagers by the accused person to insult the deceased is not established. PW-5

the Doctor who held Post Mortem examination has proved the Post Mortem

Report as Exhibit 14. It appears from the Post Mortem Report that he death of

Dilip Kumar Dutta was due to suicide.

19. PW-6 a timber merchant from Lataguri deposed that on 1.12.1999 Dilip

Kumar Dutta, Dipak Chandra Roy, Gouranga Mallick and two others went to

his shop and placed order for making delivery of some salwood of different size.

On 3.12.1999 he delivered all the wood on receiving of a consideration price of

Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter 50% of the wood delivered was returned because of its

poor quality and such persons went to his shop on 17.12.1999 to place a fresh

order for getting wood and they paid Rs. 7,00/- as advance. Cross examination

of the witness has been declined by defence. It is gathered from the testimony

of PW-6 that due to bad quality of wood delivered by PW-6, 50% of the same

were returned on 17.12.1999. The deceased committed suicide on the following

date that is on the night of 18.12.1999. The cause of death may be related to

purchase of inferior quality of wood for which a part of it was return. However,

there is no iota of evidence to establish that the accused/appellant had

received any commission or kick back or was solely responsible for purchase of

inferior quality of wood. It would appear from the evidence of PW-7 Gouranga

Mallick that a dispute crept up regarding purchase of bad quality of wood for

which public insulted the Head Master. On close scrutiny of the oral testimony

of the witnesses I do not find any material which would suggest that

accused/appellant aided, instigated or abetted the suicide committed by the

deceased by his act or omission.

20. Learned Trial Judge in the impugned Judgment has relied upon the

suicide notes and shifted the burden on the accused person to prove as to why

the deceased held the accused person responsible when there was no prove to

establish any enmity between the deceased and the accused. I find that learned

Sessions Judge referring to the contents of the suicide notes noted that the

accused caused deception upon the deceased and such deception actively

stimulated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Sessions Judge went to

the extent of holding that the accused might not have intended that the

deceased would commit suicide but there are cogent circumstances where from

it would appear that the accused was instrumental in infusing the idea of

committing suicide in the mind of the deceased. He went to the extent of

holding that the dying man will not falsely implicate an innocent person for his

death.

21. I am unable to accept the reasonings noted by learned Trial Judge for

shifting the burden of proof upon the accused person and presume that simply

because the name of the accused appeared in the suicide note as a person who

cheated the deceased, he is responsible for aiding and instigating the suicide

committing Dilip Kumar Dutta.

22. On a close reading of the Suicide note marked Exhibit-1 the deceased

noted that he has never committed any wrong and he was dying for the sake of

the construction of the school building and being wrongfully insulted. In the

second Suicide note (Exhibit-3) it has been written that Dipak Chandra Roy

was responsible for his death and he should be punished. There is no mention

in the Suicide note how and why Dipak Chandra Roy was responsible for his

death. In the third suicide note the deceased wrote that he had good relation

with his wife, two sons and mother and they were not responsible for his death

and furthermore he could not keep anything for their survival for which he

requested someone to take care of them. In the fourth Suicide note marked as

Exhibit 7/1 the deceased addressed the D.I of School, Jalpaiguri and wrote

that he has been cheated by Dipak Chandra Roy regarding construction of the

VEC room for their school and he should be punished. The deceased further

wrote that one of his family members should be provided with a job and that

Rs. 29,500/- was spent for purchase of wood and subsequently the wood was

returned. He stated that in future no other VEC room should be constructed

and that the dignity of a teacher was much higher. Furthermore, no one from

his family member was responsible for his death. After considering all the

Suicide notes (Exhibit- 1, 3) it appears that the name of accused/appellant

appears in Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-7/1. It has been stated that Dipak Chandra

Roy has cheated him. On reading the contents of the suicide notes along with

the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses. It cannot be ascertain as to

how the appellant was responsible for the death of Dilip Kumar Dutta. There

were other members and Chairperson in the committee but they did not

adduced any evidence disclosing the involvement of Dipak Chandra Roy in

cheating or defrauding money allotted for the purpose of construction of the

new school building. There is no evidence on record to show the extent of such

cheating. In a suicide note (Exhibit-7/1) it has been stated that Rs. 29,500/-

was spent for the purpose of purchase of wood and it appears from the

evidence of PW-6 the timber merchant that he received R. 30,000/- for delivery

of wood. Therefore, the amount which was spent was received by PW-6 and

there is no evidence to indicate the accused/appellant had cheated or it was for

such reason the deceased committed suicide. On reappraisal of the evidence it

appears that there was a discontentment amongst school students and local

people over purchase of inferior quality of material use for purpose of

construction of the school. For such dissatisfaction the villagers blamed the

deceased and insulted him. The evidence of PW-1 reveals that the deceased

was undergoing mental anxiety and tension due to lot of accusation made

against him. Though in the two suicide notes accused/appellant was name by

the deceased, there is no evidence to prove that the accused by his act and

omissions abetted the death of Dilip Kumar Dutta. I also do not find any

material in the evidence to establish that the accused person had any mens

rea, intending to drive Dilip Kumar Dutta to commit suicide.

23. In view of such facts and circumstances and the principal laid down in

the case of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal supra and Harbhajan Sandhu

Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana & Anr. were the names of the accused were

mention in the suicide notes but they were not found guilty of the offence, I

hold that learned Trail Court has failed to evaluate the evidence on record and

erred in law by shifting the onus upon the accused to prove as to why the

deceased would named him in the suicide notes if he was not guilty of the

offence. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions

Judge is therefore found not tenable under the facts and circumstances of the

case and the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses.

24. In view of my aforesaid discussion the impugned Judgment of conviction

and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case

No. 94 of 2001 is set aside. The appeal stands allowed on contest. The

appellant/accused is acquitted from the charge under section 306 of IPC and is

discharged from his bail bonds.

25. Interim order if any stands vacated. Let a copy of this judgment along

with LCR be sent to Learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, for information.

26. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, be supplied to the

parties if applied for, maintaining all formalities .

(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.)