Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 9 January, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.631 of 2002
======================================================
Pintu Kumar Singh, son of Dinesh Singh, resident of Mohalla-East
Dahiyawan, P.S.-Chapra Town, District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2024
The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-convict under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.10.2002
passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge,
Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.66 of 2001 arising out of
Chapra Town P.S. Case No.206 of 1998 whereby the concerned
Trial Court has convicted the sole appellant under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
29.04.1998, in the night, when the husband of the
informant/PW-5, namely, Meera Devi was not at his house, the
appellant entered into the house of the informant and committed
rape upon her daughter, namely, Babita Devi and in order to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
disappear the evidence, the appellant injected some poisonous
material in her body, as a result of which, she died. The motive
behind the occurrence is that appellant/convict, namely, Pintu
Kumar Singh wanted to make illicit relationship with deceased
Babita Devi and when she did not agree to his wishes, the
appellant has committed the offence. Thereafter, the co-accused,
namely, Dinesh Singh, who is father of the appellant/accused
arrived at the house of the informant/PW-5 and threatened her to
kill alongwith family members, if she would lodge any case.
The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by
the informant on 08.07.1998, which was referred by the CJM,
Chapra to Chapra Town Police Station for institution of FIR and
investigation, as per provision laid down under Section 156(3)
of the Code.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written information,
Chapra Town P.S. Case No.206 of 1998 dated 27.07.1998 for
the offences under Sections 376 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC
was registered.
4. After completion of investigation, the
investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet No.390 dated
31.12.2000 under Sections 452, 376, 302, 328 and 201 read with
34 of the IPC against appellant-accused and co-accused Dinesh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
Singh, who have also faced trial along with appellant/convict
Pintu Kumar Singh but, the trial court has acquitted him.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has
examined altogether ten witnesses. They are:- Mosmat Shaibu
Nisha (PW-1), Shatrughan Singh (PW-2), Ali Hasan (PW-3),
Pankaj Kumar (PW-4) who is brother of the deceased, Meera
Devi (PW-5), who is mother of victim and informant of this
case, Dr. Sanat Kumar Singh (PW-6), who conducted
postmortem examination upon deceased Babita Devi, Animesh
Kumar Singh (PW-7), Mohan Ram (PW-8), Dr. Sharda Nand
Singh (PW-9), who is Scientific Assistant, Forensic Science
Laboratory, Patna and Manjoor Alam (PW-10), who is a typist
and typed the complaint petition.
6. In support of his case, the defence has
examined one witness, namely, Haresh Kumar Ojha as DW-1.
7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution
has also proved the following documents in order to substantiate
the charges:-
Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. List of documents
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of complainant on
complaint petition.
2. Exhibit-2 Postmortem report.
3. Exhibit-3 Signature and writing of
Regional Director on FSL
report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
4. Exhibit-4 Signature of Manjoor Alam
on typed copy of complaint
petition.
5. Exhibit-5 A copy of the judgment
passed by learned A.D.J.-6 in
6. Exhibit-A Signature of Gopal Rai on
formal FIR, who has
ascribed the formal FIR.
7. Exhibit-B Formal FIR.
8. The statement of the appellant-accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating him
incriminating evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the
trial, which he denied and shows his complete innocence and
further stated that he was implicated falsely.
9. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court
after acquitting co-accused Dinesh Singh from all charges,
convicted the appellant-accused Pintu Kumar Singh for the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Against which,
the appellant-convict has preferred this appeal, which was
admitted and now the same is taken on board for final hearing.
10. Hence, the present appeal.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of appellant/accused that prior to lodging the
complaint case regarding present occurrence, which is the basis
of FIR in issue, an U.D. Case No.4 of 1998 was instituted on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
written report of Gopal Rai, who is father of the deceased Babita
Devi and husband of the complainant/informant/PW-5. The said
U.D. report was lodged on 03.05.1998 wherein it has been
stated that on 28.04.1998, he along with his wife (complainant)
had gone to village-Dhabauli in the district of Vaishali to attend
a marriage ceremony, where her daughter remained alone in the
house and when they returned on 30th April, 1998 at about 1:45
pm, they found her daughter Babita Devi dead. It is suspected
on his part that out of anger, possibly the deceased had taken
poison/pesticides, which is generally used for killing rat. It is
further submitted that while the said U.D. case was under
investigation, the complaint was lodged before learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate by the mother of the deceased. It is
submitted by learned counsel that the said complaint was lodged
after a lapse of two and half months without having any
explanation for such inordinate delay. It is submitted that the
informant of the U.D. case i.e. Gopal Rai did not examine
during the course of trial, where complainant/informant/PW-5
came up with a new story of rape and murder as committed by
appellant/accused.
11.1. It is also submitted by learned counsel that
PW-4, who is the brother of the deceased-victim and PW-5, who
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
is informant/complainant and mother of the deceased only
supported the complaint petition rather rest of the witnesses
supported the version as mentioned in the U.D. case. It is
submitted that there are material contradictions in the deposition
of PW-4 and PW-5, which is sufficient to suggest that the
complaint was lodged with oblique motive as to implicate the
appellant/accused falsely. It is also pointed out that the doctor
who examined as PW-6 did not find any injury as to suggest that
rape was committed upon her. Even the trial court did not
believed the version of administering poison and on the basis of
presumption and hypothetical ground convicted the
appellant/accused under Section 306 of the IPC, which is
apparently bad in eyes of law and a perverse finding.
11.2. It is further submitted that during the entire
trial, nothing surfaced out of deposition of any prosecution
witnesses, which may suggest that act of appellant/convict can
be said such active or direct act, which forced the deceased to
commit suicide, being left with no option and in support of his
submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurucharan Singh vs.
State of Punjab as reported in (2016) SCC Online SC 1415. It
is also submitted that there is nothing surfaced during the trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
which may establish the conduct of appellant/accused which
disrobe deceased to commit suicide, is a sine qua non in case of
abatement for suicide and in support of his submission, learned
counsel for the appellant relied upon a legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Raj Khatta vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh as reported in (2019) 9 SCC 248. It is
further submitted by learned counsel that without a positive act
on the part of the accused/appellant to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, the conviction cannot be sustained. In
support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal
report of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gangula
Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh as reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 750.
12. Learned APP while supporting the judgment
of conviction submitted that from the testimony of PW-4 and
PW-5, it is clear that appellant/accused worked in nearby garage
of house of the victim and teased her on several occasions and
out of said frustration, the deceased committed suicide.
13. I have perused the lower court records
carefully and gone through the evidences available on record as
also considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
14. As to appreciate the evidences while disposing
the present appeal, it is apposite to discuss the evidences
available on the record, which are as under:-
15. PW-1 is Md. Saibunisa, who stated in her
examination-in-chief that victim arrived at her home at about
3.00 pm through rickshaw. She was not appearing in her self.
The rickshaw puller opened the lock of the door and after
putting her inside, went away. She did not came outside and
subsequently, after two days, her mother and brother came and
opened the door where she found Babita Kumari dead. It is
stated by her that deceased was a lady of easy virtue and
therefore, the house owner was not willing to keep her as a
tenant. She further deposed that appellant/accused were also
residing in nearby garage next after the two house.
15.1. Upon cross-examination, she stated that she
has no idea that what happened with Babita Kumari and as to
how and when it was happened.
16. PW-2 is Shatrughan Gupta, who stated in
examination-in-chief that murder of Babita Devi was committed
prior to three years. It was committed in night. The deceased
was living with her mother and father as a tenant in the house of
one Kedar Sah. At the time of occurrence, mother and father of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
deceased Babita Devi were outside and they came after two
days and when opened the door, found Babita dead.
16.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that
they were living as a tenant in the house of Kedar Sah.
17. PW-3 is Ali Hassan who stated in his
examination-in-chief that occurrence is of 30.04.1998. It was
evening when a crowd gathered in front of the house of Babita
Devi and people were crying over there, he came to know that
the daughter of Meera Devi (PW-5), was killed by administering
poison when they were outside house. It was stated that at that
time, no suspicion was raised on their part. He also said to saw
the dead body of Babita (deceased).
17.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that at the
time of occurrence, father and mother of deceased Babita was
not available at house. They went outside 1-2 days prior to the
occurrence and Babita was alone at her house.
18. PW-4 is Pankaj Kumar, who is the brother
of the deceased, stated in his examination-in-chief that it was
night when he and his sister were sleeping in a room, the
accused/appellant Pintu Singh entered into the room and
climbed over her. He inserted one injection to her and after that,
his sister raised alarm and by that time, her mother also came
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
from the roof of the house. It was said to be stated by her sister
that Pintu Singh (appellant) fled away after administering her
injection and, thereafter, her sister died.
18.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that
her sister was married but she was living with them. She was
unemployed. It was stated that accused/appellant, namely, Pintu
came at his residence on that very day for the first time and he
was equipped with syringe. He did not ask anything to his sister.
He also stated that initially no alarm was raised by his sister but,
she raised her alarm only after injection was given to her. It was
deposed that no any persons from colony turned up. It was also
stated that her mother came down from the roof but, she also not
made any alarm. She also did not call anyone. They did not
admit his sister to hospital. The matter was reported to police
station but, no one turned up in night. They taken away the dead
body but, no inquiry was made from them. The dead body was
returned to him on next day. He did not disclose the occurrence
to his father but mother narrated about the occurrence to him
after three days. Thereafter, he again went to police station after
which, the Police Inspector arrived and made inquiry, where he
stated that Pintu gave her injection. He also stated that he made
statement before the police that they were outside and when
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
returned, found dead body of her sister but, subsequently, he
denied the suggestion that he was not available at the house on
the date and time of occurrence. He denied the suggestion to
depose falsely.
19. PW-5 is Meera Devi, who is mother of the
deceased and informant of this case stated in her examination-
in-chief that occurrence is of 29.04.1998 of about 9:00 pm and
by that time, she was on the roof of her house. It was stated that
the wife of house-owner was also along with her at roof. It was
stated that the house is of one Kedar Sah. She further stated that
she came down to room on the alarm raised by her daughter
Babita, where she found her dead and son Pankaj there and saw
that Pintu (appellant/accused) after removing clothes of her
daughter, climbed on her body. When she hold him,
appellant/accused administering her injection and fled away.
Consequently, her daughter died. It was stated by her that she
was informed by her daughter about injection. She further stated
that she died at about 3:00 am. She identified her signature over
complaint petition, which on her identification, exhibited as
Exhibit-1. She also stated that while her daughter was going to
school for learning sewing, Pintu (appellant/accused) usually
teased/outraged her.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
19.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by her
that Pintu Singh never came to her house prior to the
occurrence. She never saw Pintu Kumar Singh to talk with her
deceased daughter. She stated that at that time Pintu Singh was
running a grocery shop. It was stated by her that on the date of
occurrence, her husband was not available at home and he came
on the next day when she narrated entire events of occurrence to
him. When it was asked by her husband that how their daughter
died. She kept mum as her brain was not functioning out of fear.
She also stated that people of colony did not came to know
about the death of her daughter. It was also stated by her that the
body was brought outside the room by police, which was called
up by her husband. It was stated that Police Inspector did not
ask anything that how her daughter died and she also not stated
anything to him about her death. The Police Inspector did not
turned after that. She received the dead body after postmortem
at about 5:00 pm. She further stated that 3-4 persons of colony
accompanied her while performing the last rites of her daughter.
She did not say about the occurrence to the residents of colony
out of fear. It is further stated that after two days of last
rites/funeral of her daughter, Police Inspector came to her and
on that day also, she did not state anything to him. Even, no one
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
turned up from colony. The Police Inspector inquired about the
occurrence from the people of colony. It is stated that she
becomes normal after two months and thereafter, she lodged
complaint and stated entire events to Police Inspector. It is
further stated that when she inquired from her husband whether
he lodged any case. He replied in negative. She shows her
ignorance that any case was lodged by her husband in police
station. It was further stated by her that the wife of house owner
who was with her at roof of the house did not came down to
room along with her. She found Pintu (appellant/accused)
committing rape upon her daughter having syringe in hand and
when she saw her, he came down. She stated that
appellant/accused also entered with a hot exchange of dialogue
with her but, prior to that, her daughter was injected. She did not
saw appellant while injecting her daughter. She denied the
defence suggestion regarding false implication.
20. PW-6 Dr. Sanat Kumar Singh, who has
stated in his examination-in-chief that on 30.04.1998, he was
posted at Sadar Hospital, Chapra on the post of CAS, Sadar
Hospital, Chapra and on the same day at 5:40 pm, he has
conducted the postmortem examination on the person of the
deceased Babita Devi and found the following antemortem
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
findings:-
"(i) No external injury on her body.
(ii) On dissection internal organs were intact
and congested."
In his opinion, the cause of death could
not be ascertained however, following viscera
have been preserved for chemical analysis-
(iii) viscera - heart, piece of lungs, piece of
liver, piece of kydney, piece of spleen and
stomach with its content were preserved.
PW-6 has further stated that he has prepared the
postmortem report with his own pen and signature and upon his
identification, the same was exhibited as Exhibit-2. He has
submitted the FSL report in the court and same is before him.
He further stated that time elapsed since death was between 18
to 36 hours as per postmortem report.
21. PW-7 is Animesh Kumar Singh, who is the
Investigating Officer of this case, stated only to send the
preserved viscera of deceased Babita to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Muzaffarpur and submitted charge-sheet finding
case true against appellant/accused. He stated to submit viscera
report in court.
21.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by
him that he did not record the statement of any witness.
22. PW-8 is Mohan Ram. He is also one of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
Investigating Officer of this case and recorded the re-statement
of informant/complainant, namely, Meena Devi (PW-5). He also
recorded the statement of Pankaj Kumar (PW-4) and visited the
place of occurrence.
22.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him
that he did not record the statement of Gopal Rai. It was stated
by him that informant is the second wife of Gopal Rai, where
the deceased is the daughter of his first wife, who left him. It
was also stated by him that in present case after taking note of
U.D. case, the position of this case becomes very doubtful.
23. PW-9 is Dr. Sharda Nand Singh, who
appeared in court and identified the report of Forensic Science
Laboratory, which on his identification, exhibited as Exhibit-3.
It was stated by him that in the said viscera report of the victim,
zinc phosphate was found, which is a poisonous substance and
is a type of pesticides, which usually used to kill rat and easily
available in the market.
23.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that by
taking these pesticides, death may be caused.
24. PW-10 is Manzoor Alam, who is ascriber of
complaint petition of informant /complainant/PW-5. It has been
stated the he has typed the complaint petition where he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
identified his signature, upon which, same was exhibited as
Exhibit-4.
24.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that he
has no personal knowledge about the occurrence.
25. The only defence witness, which was
examined in this case is Haresh Kumar Ojha as DW-1, who
identified the signature of Gopal Rai, the father of deceased on
application he signed before him while writing the said
application, which was exhibited as Exhibit-'B', which is
signature of Gopal Rai on the formal FIR.
25.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that
Gopal Rai is available and standing inside the court room. He
denied to depose falsely regarding signature of Gopal Rai on
formal FIR i.e. Exhibit-'A'.
26. From the aforesaid discussions of evidence, it
appears that PW-1 Mosmat Shaibu Nisha, saw the victim
coming alone on rickshaw to her home, which is the place of
occurrence. She saw not in her sense and for that reason, the
lock of house was opened by rickshaw puller and by him only,
she was taken inside the house and, thereafter, rickshaw puller
went away. From this deposition, it is clear that when deceased
entered into the house, no one was present there and she was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
alone and senseless. PW-2 Shatrughan Singh stated that when
door was opened after two days, Babita (deceased) found dead
inside the room. PW-3 Ali Hasan stated in his deposition that the
people of colony gathered when mother of the deceased came
from outside and did not tell regarding cause of death
immediately. He also saw the dead body of the deceased. From
the depositon of all three witnesses, it is apparent that PW-4 and
PW-5 were not available in house when occurrence took place.
26.1. The only witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, who are
brother and mother of the deceased are claiming themselves to
be an eye-witness of the occurrence saying that they saw the
appellant/accused to insert injection to her causing her death.
They also witness of committing rape by appellant/accused
upon the deceased. There are material contradictions between
the version of PW-4 and PW-5. PW-4 has stated that before him,
the appellant/accused entered into house, climbed upon her
deceased-sister and, thereafter, injected her and fled away. He
stated about the presence of PW-5 at the roof of the house. She
came down on the alarm of the deceased who narrated to PW-5
that appellant/accused fled away after injecting her. He stated
that his mother did not raise any alarm and also did not call
anyone. He also stated that his father went to police station and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
lodged the report. As per his deposition, his mother told about
the occurrence to his father after three days of occurrence. From
the deposition of PW-5, on contrary, it appears that when she
came down from the roof, she found her daughter and son inside
the room and appellant/accused after disrobing her daughter
climbed upon her. This material fact was not disclosed by PW-4
before whom appellant/accused entered into the house. The
presence of PW-5 is also appearing doubtful, as PW-4 stated
that immediately after giving injection, appellant/accused fled
away and thereafter, on alarm raised by his sister, his mother
(PW-5), came down to room, whereas PW-5 also stated that
appellant/accused gave injection before her to her deceased
daughter. She specifically deposed that she never saw her
deceased daughter talking with appellant/accused. It appears
highly unbelievable from her deposition that she not narrated
about the occurrence to her husband when he returned home on
next very day. It also appears doubtful that PW-4 stated that his
father went to police station and reported about the occurrence.
From the deposition of PW-5, it appears that she kept mum for
long days regarding occurrence and despite of meeting with
police personnel on several occasions, she did not disclose about
the occurrence to police. It also appears unbelievable that she
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
regained her sense after two months and, thereafter, she
disclosed to the police about the occurrence. She specifically
stated that she saw appellant/accused while committing rape
upon her daughter but, this fact was not supported by PW-4,
who also claiming to be an eye-witness of the occurrence and
before whom first time appellant/accused said to be entered into
the house.
26.2. From the deposition of doctor (PW-6), it
appears that death was caused due to poisonous substance,
which is zinc phosphate generally used for killing rat. PW-6 is
the Investigating Officer of this case stated specifically that the
investigation of this case become doubtful after perusal of the
U.D. Case.
27. From the deposition of these two eye-
witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, not a single act of instigation
appears against appellant/accused, which may forced the
daughter of complainant/informant/PW-5 to commit suicide.
The finding of abetement regarding suicide is purely appears
hypothetical and perverse while recording the judgment of
conviction.
28. In this context, it would be apposite to
reproduce Para- 16 and 17 of the legal report of Hon'ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
Supreme Court in the matter of Gurucharan Singh (supra) as
under:-
"16. The necessary ingredients for the offence
under Section 306 IPC were considered in S.S.
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 465] where explaining the concept of
abetment, Dalveer Bhandari, J. wrote as under :
(SCC p. 197, para 25)
"25. Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed
suicide."
17. While dealing with a case of abetment of
suicide in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 896] , Dr M.K. Sharma, J. writing for the
Division Bench explained the parameters of Section
306 IPC in the following terms : (SCC p. 712, paras
12-13)
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
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."
29. It would also be apposite to reproduce para-13
of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) as under:-
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1
SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has
cautioned that the court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of
each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted
out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the
life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court
that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the
society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the court should not be satisfied for
basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty".
30. Thus, from the above factual discussions on re-
appreciation of evidences in the background of legal
proposition, it appears that the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish its case during the trial as to convict the
appellant/accused under Section 306 of the IPC.
31. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2002
passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.631 of 2002 dt.09-01-2024
Chapra in Sessions Trial No.66 of 2001 arising out of Chapra
Town P.S. Case No.206 of 1998 are, hereby, set aside. The
appellant, Pintu Kumar Singh is acquitted from the aforesaid
charges levelled against him.
32. The Patna High Court, Legal Services Committee
is, hereby, directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
Only) to Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, learned Amicus Curiae in Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 631 of 2002 as consolidated fee for rendering
his valuable professional service for the disposal of present
appeal.
33. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the court below.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.01.2024
Transmission Date 31.01.2024
