Tripura High Court
Convict vs The State Of Tripura on 29 July, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A. No.10 of 2023
Sri Saikat Debnath,
S/O - Sunil Debnath,
R/O : Vill. Kulai, P.S. - Ambassa,
Dist.- Dhalai, Tripura
------Convict-appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. K. Biswas, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Adv,
Mr. Pujan Biswas, Adv,
Mr. Chinfru Mog, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing : 18.07.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 29.07.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
08.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2023 delivered
by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura,
Agartala in connection with S.T.(T-II) No.25 of 2017 whereby
and whereunder the convict-appellant has been convicted and
sentenced to suffer R.I for 3 years and to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- in default, to suffer RI for further 2 months.
2. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. K. Biswas assisted
by Learned Counsel Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Learned Counsel Mr.
Pujan Biswas and Learned Counsel Mr. Chinfru Mog
representing the appellant and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. Raju
Datta for the State-respondent.
3. Before coming to the conclusion let us discuss about
the subject matter of the prosecution filed before the Learned
Court below.
4. The case of the prosecution in short, was that on
10.10.2015 one Krishna Majumder(Nama) lodged a complaint
to the East Agartala Women Police Station alleging inter alia
that on 09.10.2015 at about 10.30-11.30 hours the sister of the
complainant/informant namely Sujata Majumder committed
suicide due to mental torture upon her by the accused Saikat
Debnath. On the basis of that, O/C of the concerned P.S.
registered East Agartala women P.S. case no.2015/WEA/067
under Section 306 of IPC and the case was endorsed to IO for
investigation and on completion of investigation being prima
facie satisfied, I.O laid charge-sheet against the accused-
appellant under Section 306 of IPC. Before the Court of
sessions, formal charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed
against the accused-appellant and the same was explained to
him in Bengal to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Hence, the trial commenced.
5. During trial, to substantiate the charge prosecution has
adduced in total 16 nos. of witnesses and the prosecution also
tendered and relied upon some documentary evidence which
were marked as exhibits in this case. The defence case of the
appellant was that of total denial and as such during
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant
desired his willingness to adduce witnesses in support of his
defence and accordingly, two witnesses on behalf of the
accused were adduced by the defence side and finally, on
conclusion of trial, Learned Court below found the accused-
appellant to be guilty and convicted him accordingly.
Challenging that judgment, the present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
6. To substantiate the charge, Learned Court below
determined the following point for decision:
Whether accused Sri Saikat Debnath abetted the
commission of suicide by deceased Sujata
Majumder?
In this regard, now let us discuss the evidence on
record of the prosecution and the defence adduced before the
Learned Court below during trial of the appellant.
7. PW-1, Sri Gopan Datta, PW-2, Sri Nani Gopal Saha and
PW-3, Sri Hiralal Das in course of their examination-in-chief
only deposed that the deceased committed suicide but they
could not say anything furthermore about the case of the
prosecution.
8. PW-4, Smt. Barnali Bhowmik deposed that in the year
2015 she was prosecuting her study at Acharja Prafulla Chandra
School in Class-XI at Gurkhabasti, Agartala and Sujata
Majumder was studying with her. Subsequently, she heard that
she died by committing suicide but she could not say anything
furthermore about this case.
9. PW-5, Smt. Papi Debnath deposed that at the time of
incident Sujata was continuing her study with her in Class-XII in
Acharjee Prafulla Chandra Roy Smriti Vidya Mandir and she
heard that she died but she could not say how she died. Before
her death, the deceased used to tell that one Saikat Debnath
was disturbing her and infact she heard that the said fact from
another student but not from Sujata.
During cross-examination, she stated that she did not
hear the fact from Sujata that Saikat was troubling her and
further stated that she never seen Saikat Debnath.
10. PW-6, Smt. Krishna Majumder is the informant of this
case. She deposed that Sujata Majumder was her younger
sister. On 09.10.2015 around 10:30 am she committed suicide
by hanging in the house. She was prosecuting her study at
Indranagar High School, Agartala. The house of the aunt of
accused Saikat Debnath is situated near by Indranagar High
School. He frequently used to visit his aunt‟s house at
Indranagar and during that time her sister gradually developed
friendship with Saikat. Ultimately that friendship turned into a
love affair. Subsequently, her sister came to know that nature
and character of Saikat was not good. Then she tried to cut off
the relation but Saikat often used to make disturbance to her
over telephone. Once they tried to make understand Saikat not
to do such act but he did not pay any interest to their advise.
Then Saikat threatened Sujata if she does not continue her
relation with Saikat, he would spread her indecent photographs
in social media. He also threatened that he can do anything as
he is a journalist and is working in a newspaper namely
"Pratibadi Kalam" and gradually, on his continuous disturbance
her sister went into a depression. Before her death she did not
like to talk with anybody. As a result, she committed suicide by
hanging and on this issue, she lodged a complaint at East
Agartala Women P.S. on 10.10.2015. Her complaint was written
by one police personnel. Then she signed as informant and it
was written as per her narration. She identified her signature
which was marked as Exhibit-1. Further deposed that during
investigation she was examined by police and she stated
everything to police.
During cross-examination, she admitted that on
09.10.2015 i.e. on the day of incident, she gave a written
information to the O/C, East Agartala women PS on the basis of
which one UD case No.22/15 was registered. She identified her
signature on the same which was marked as Exhibit-A and the
contents of written information which was marked as Exhibit-
A/1. She further stated that in her first written information, she
did not raise any allegation against anybody and further
admitted that her mother and sister put their signatures in
inquest report. She also stated that during investigation police
seized certain pages of diary written by Sujata by her own
handwriting.
11. PW-7, Smt. Chandra Majumder deposed that on
09.10.2015 her sister Sujata committed suicide. When she was
prosecuting her study at Indranagar H.S(+2) School one Saikat
Debnath always used to disturb her on her way to School.
House of the aunts of Saikat is situated just behind Indranagar
H.S(+2) School. He frequently used to visit his aunt‟s house
and on that occasion always used to cause disturbance to
Sujata. He proposed Sujata for love with him and he introduced
himself as a reporter of "Pratibadi Kalam" a daily newspaper. At
that time, her sister was in Class-IX, she agreed with the
proposal of Saikat. Subsequently, as soon as Sujata realized
that Saikat was not a good man and always used to make his
profession to influence others. So, her sister tried to come out
from the relation but Saikat was not ready for that. Always
Saikat used to follow her and disturb her whenever she used to
go to her School or to the house of private tutor and due to
such disturbance, the people used to laugh on her relation with
Saikat. Then she gradually confined herself in the house. She
did not used to speak too much with others. Over telephone
Saikat used to ask her to die by committing suicide. They asked
her as to why she confined herself in the house and did not
speak to others then the victim told the entire facts to them.
She also told them that due to disturbance of Saikat peoples
were laughing on her and she was not feeling well. Thereafter,
the witness and her husband met with Saikat and asked him as
to why he was disturbing Sujata frequently and whether he
intends to marry her or not but Saikat completely denied the
facts. Her mother also met Saikat but he denied the fact. He
also threatened that he is a reporter of a daily dainik namely
"Pratibadi Kalam" and he has just passed his time by relation
with Sujata and will not marry her. Being compelled about three
or four months prior to her death once she lodged a complaint
against Saikat at East Agartala Women P.S. Police called him
and in their presence he apologized for his conduct and assured
that in future he would not do any such conduct to Sujata. Then
they withdraw the case out of fear and to avoid social stigma.
Then Saikat increased the volume of his disturbance and told
that he will spread the photographs of Sujata in social media.
Ultimately, as the disturbance of Saikat become unbearable to
her she committed suicide by hanging. Just previous day of her
death, Sujata told her and her husband that she was unable to
bear any further disturbance of Saikat and not feeling well. On
the following day, she committed suicide by hanging. On
14.10.2015 police seized one black colour micromax mobile
phone along with one memory card(32 GB) of Sujata at PS
complex. She herself and her husband brought the aforesaid
articles at PS. She signed in the seizure list as witness and
identified her signature which was marked as Exhibit-2. She
further deposed that on 11.10.2015 police seized one page of
diary with some writings of Sujata, one diary of 2009 and one
CD cassette at PS complex. She herself and her husband
brought those articles at P.S. She signed as witness in the said
seizure list and identified her signature which was marked as
Exhibit-3.
During her cross-examination, she stated that she was
living with her husband in her matrimonial home at Jagatpur.
The distance between her matrimonial house and her parent‟s
house is about 10 minutes walking distance. At the time of
incident, she was at her matrimonial home. At about 10:30/11
am she got the information. Within 20 minutes she arrived at
her parent‟s house. She found her husband, mother and some
neighbouring people of adjacent house. From one of her
maternal aunt of adjacent house and later on also from her
mother she came to know that Sujata entered into bathroom
and closed the door. As she was getting late and was not
responding from inside, door was broken and she was found
hanging in bathroom. Just immediately after her arrival, police
arrived at PO. Her elder sister Krishna Majumder was staying at
Charilam and she arrived in the house around 1 pm. Further
stated that after coming of Krishna, one written information was
given to police and again volunteered that as soon as police
arrived to PO, her husband and mother verbally lodged
complaint to police. In presence of her, her husband and
mother, police prepared surathal report on the dead body of her
deceased sister and all of them put their signatures as witness
in that report. Again stated that frequently she visited her
parent‟s house. Again stated for about 4/5 days after the
incident police regularly visited their house but her statement
was recorded by police on 14.10.2015. Again admitted that her
mother and her younger sister Sujata used to live in their
parent‟s house prior to incident. Again stated that sometimes
her mother used to rebuke her due to her relation with Saikat.
Again stated that in her statement she did not disclose as to
when and by whom alleged CD was prepared.
12. PW-8, Sri Pabitra Roy was declared hostile by the
prosecution and his portion of statement was marked as
Exhibit-4 (subject to confirmation by IO).
13. PW-9, Smt. Sima Biswas deposed that on 10.10.2015
she was posted at East Agartala Women PS in the capacity of
Officer-in-charge. On that day she received one written ejahar
from one Krishna Majumder Nama and on the basis of said
written ejahar registered East Agartala Women PS FIR
No.2015/WEA/067/15 dated 10.10.2015 under Section 306 of
IPC against Sri Saikat Debnath and endorsed the case to ASI
Sandhya Debbarma for investigation. She identified
endorsement on the body of ejahar which was marked as
Exhibit-1/1 and the printed FIR form was marked as Exhibit-5.
Prior to that, on 09.10.2015 Krishna Majumder Nama lodged a
written information about the suicide of her younger daughter
Sujata Majumder. On the basis of said information being O/C of
East Agartala Women, she registered one UD case No.22/15
under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. She identified her endorsement on
the body of said written information dated 09.10.2015(Ext.A)
which was marked as Exhibit-6 and identified the FIR in
reference to UD case No.22/2015 which was marked as Exhibit-
7. Further stated that ASI Sandhya Debbarma was endorsed to
investigate the UD case registered on the information of suicide.
During cross-examination, she was declined to cross-
examine by the appellant.
14. PW-10, Smt. Purnima Majumder deposed that deceased
Sujata is her daughter. On 09.10.2015 in the morning at about
10:30/11 a.m. she died by hanging. At that time she was
prosecuting her study in Class-XII at Acharya Prafulla Chandra
School. When she was prosecuting her study in class-IX that
time she was a student of Indranagar Class-XII School. One
Saikat Debnath of Ambassa, used to reside at the same time in
his aunt‟s house at Indranagar. Saikat Denbath used to work in
"Pratibadi Kalam" and his father‟s name is Sunil Debnath. When
Sujata was in Class-IX Saikat proposed her for love and she
agreed. Saikat used to disturb her all the time even on
telephone also. Then Sujata decided to get rid of from that
relation of love with Saikat. Once she lodged a complaint
against Saikat at East Agartala Women PS and in her presence
one Woman Police officer called Saikat and asked him not to
disturb Sujata. After sometimes, he again started disturbing her
daughter. He told Sujata that he would spread her photographs
in Facebook unless she continues her relation with Saikat. She
was also asked to die by Saikat. Sujata ultimately used to keep
her mobile switched off. Then Saikat used to call her in her
mobile and told slang languages about Sujata. She was
extremely depressed and told her that she has no will to live
further due to disturbance of Saikat. Before 6/7 months of her
death once she called Saikat and personally told him not to
disturb Sujata. Ultimately, on the day of fateful incident she
went to Latrine. After sometimes when there was no response
then after breaking the door of latrine she was found hanging.
She also stated that Saikat was responsible for her death.
During cross-examination, she stated that police
personnel prepared surathal report over the dead body of
Sujata in her presence and she signed as a witness. Again
stated that after the incident police seized diary/khata of Sujata
and she was not aware about the contents of diary. Again
stated that Saikat used to maintain relation with another girl
namely Piyali. Again volunteered that at the same time he used
to continue relation with two girls. She again admitted that she
visited the house of piyali. Further stated that Siddharta Roy
Choudhury is the husband of her daughter namely Chandra
Majumder. She denied the suggestion made by the defence that
Siddharta used to take Sujata in their house for stay due to her
assault. At that time, witness volunteered that every parents
rebuke their child and sometimes she also used to rebuke
Sujata as mother.
15. PW-11, Sri Siddharta Roy Choudhury deposed that on
11.10.2015 police seized one page of diary, one complete diary
of 2009 and one CD cassette in connection with this case.
Mobile discussion between Sujata and Saikat was recorded in
the said CD cassette. He signed as a witness in the seizure list
which was marked as Exhibit-3/1. Sujata died on 09.10.2015.
On 14.10.2015 police seized one mobile and memory card of
Sujata. He signed as witness in the seizure list and identified
the same which was marked as Exhibit-2/1. He further deposed
that he caused to transfer the mobile discussion in between
Sujata and Saikat from memory card into CD on 11.10.2015.
Police prepared surathal report on the dead body of Sujata in
his presence and he identified his signature which was marked
as Exhibit-8. Then the witness stated that when Sujata was
prosecuting her study in Class-IX, love affair developed in
between Saikat and Sujata. Subseqently, when Sujata realized
that Saikat is not a good man at all, she tried to come out from
that relationship. Then Saikat started to disturb her. Even on
mobile phone also often Saikat used to disturb Sujata. She
informed the matter to them. They called Saikat and tried to
make him understand not to disturb Sujata in future. But again
Saikat started disturbing Sujata frequently. Then the matter
was informed to police. Saikat was called at East Agartala
Women PS and was asked not to make disturbance to Sujata.
Even thereafter, again Saikat started disturbing and he told
Sujata that unless she build up her relation with him he would
spread his naked photographs in facebook, whatsapp, etc. At
that point of time she looked very upset and was very
depressed. They enquired the matter from Sujata when she
replied that she was defamed in her friend‟s area by Saikat and
he was continuously disturbing her and ultimately, on
09.10.2015 she committed suicide.
During cross-examination, he deposed that on
11.10.2015 his wife Chandra Majumder produced the page of
diary at PS which was seized by police. He did not go through
the contents of diary to know as to whether there is any
allegation against Saikat or not in that diary. He further stated
at the time of producing CD to police his wife did not produce
the memory card and the mobile phone to police at the same
time and admitted that he used to visit his in-laws house
frequently. He was confronted with the statement that he
stated to police that he knew everything from Sujata whatever
he stated before the Court was also learnt from Sujata but that
portion of statement was not found in his statement recorded
by IO. Again stated that they never arranged for treatment of
Sujata by doctor due to her depression.
16. PW-12, Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty deposed that on
16.11.2015 he was posted as Deputy Director in SFSL. On that
day his office received one sealed packet from Dy.SP(CAW),
Agartala, containing exhibits in connection with East Agartala
Women PS case no.67/15 which was endorsed to him for
examination and opinion. There were five exhibits marked as
Exhibit-A to E. The exhibit A to C examined in toxicology
division and D and E examined in Bio/Sera Division. The
exhibits were examined in toxicology division from 14.03.2016
to 22.03.2016 and on examination the exhibits were negative
for the presence of common group of pesticides. The remnants
has been returned under separate sealed cover and the report
was marked Exhibit-9 as a whole and the forwarding report of
director was marked as Exhibit-9/1.
17. PW-13, Sri Shyam Gopal Josohara deposed that mother
of Sujata is his maternal sister and by that relation Sujata is his
neice. On 09.10.2015 Sujata committed suicide by hanging in
their house. Whenever Sujata used to meet with him she
disclosed that one Saikat Debnath always disturbing her on the
way to school as well as on the way to her private tutor. He
used to give proposal of love to her. She also told him that
Saikat used to disturb her by mobile phone also. One day in his
presence Saikat slapped Sujata. He tried to make him
understand when he was also threatened by Saikat and
identified the appellant in the Court. Further stated that Saikat
used to work in Pratibadi Kalam, a local daily newspaper. He
always used to threat Sujata over telephone by telling that her
pictures shall be uploaded in media. About one week back to
her death Sujata told him that Saikat threatened her by telling
that she has no other alternative but to die. As a result, Sujata
committed suicide.
During cross-examination, he stated that with effect
from 09.10.2015 to 18.10.2015, he was available in his house
at Agartala. He visited the house of Sujata during that period
and met police. He further stated that he had no idea about the
fact that inspite of knowing his affair with piyali, Sujata used to
disturb Saikat to engage with her.
18. PW-14, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath deposed that in between
08.12.2015 to 25.02.2016 he being the Sr. Scientific Officer-
cum-Assistant-Chemical Examiner examined blood sample
which was marked as Exhibit-D and a page of diary stained with
blood marked as Exhibit-E being received on 16.11.2015 from
the Toxicology division. On examination, he opined that blood
stain of human origin could be detected in the exhibit which was
marked as Exhibit-E but its group also could not be determined.
And blood group of Exhibit-D could not be determined.
Subsequently, he prepared the report dated 03.03.2016 and
signed by him and the report on identification marked as
Exhibit-10.
19. PW-15, Dr. Prasenjit Das deposed that on 09.10.2015
being the Junior Resident, Department of FMT, AGMC and GBP
Hospital accompanied with Junior Resident Dr. Anamika Das,
they conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of
deceased Sujata Majumder, identified by ASI Sandhya Rani
Debbarma. After examination they opined that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to hanging. He identified the report
which was marked as Exhibit-11. According to this witness,
after receipt of report from the Toxicology department, TSFSL,
they prepared the report dated 03.04.2016 containing final
opinion and identified the final report which was marked as
Exhibit-12. According to him, the toxicological analysis report
were negative for presence of common organo Choloro,
organophosphorus and carbamate group of pesticides. There
was also no concomitant poisoning.
During cross-examination by the appellant, he deposed
that during postmortem examination, no external antemortem
injury was seen over the dead body except the multiple scratch
marks, 17 nos. ranging in measurement from 0.2 x 1 cm upto
0.5 cm x 0.1 cm which were present in on the dorsum of left
hand over an area of 8 cm x 6 cm, over dorsum of right hand
over an area of 6 cm x 4 cm and over some part of forehead
and tip of nose. The injuries found on the dead body may be
caused due to scuffling.
20. PW-16, Smt. Mamataj Hasina deposed that on
13.10.2015 she was posted at East Agartala Women PS as WSI
of police. On that day as per order of SP, West, she took up the
investigation of this case. During investigation on perusal of the
record, she found that the FIR was filled up by Inspector of
Police, OC East Agartala Women PS and she knows her
handwriting and signature. Initially the investigation of this case
was endorsed to ASI Sandhya Debbarma but she died about
5/6 years back. Sandhya Debbarma prepared inquest report
over the dead body of deceased Sujata Majumder. She
identified the inquest report which was marked as Exhibit-8/1
as a whole and identified the signature of Sandhya Debbarma
on the said inquest report which was marked as Exhibit-8/2. On
11.10.2015 at 18:05 hours at East Agartala Women PS
Sandhya Rani Debbarma seized one diary by preparing seizure
list. She identified the said seizure list which was marked as
Exhibit-3/2 as whole and her signature on the said seizure list
which was marked as Exhibit-3/4. On 11.10.2015 Sandhya Rani
Debbarma visited the PO, prepared handsketch map and index
and identified handsketch map and index which were marked as
Ext.13 as a whole in 2 sheets and these are her signatures on
the said hand sketch map and index which were marked as
Exhibit-13/1 and Exhibit-13/2 respectively. On 10.10.2015
Sandhya Debbarma examined four witnesses namely Krishna
Majumder, Hiralal Das, Sibendra Roy and Siddharth Roy. On
09.10.2015 at 16:35 hours Sandhya Debbarma seized viscera,
stomach, small intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood sample
by preparing seizure list. She identified the seizure list which
was marked as Exhibit-14 as a whole and identified her
signature on the said seizure list which was marked as Exhibit-
14/1. On 13.10.2015 Sandhya Debbarma handed over this case
to her for investigation as per order of SP, West. On 13.10.2015
she visited PO and examined witnesses namely Purnima
Majumder, Gopen Datta and Nanigopal Saha. On 14.10.2015 at
about 10:05 hours at East Agartala Women PS she seized one
black colour micromax mobile and memory card of 32 GB by
preparing seizure list and identified the seizure list which was
marked as Exhibit-2/2 as a whole. She identified her signature
on the said seizure list which was marked as Exhibit-2/3. On
14.10.2015 she examined witnesses namely Siddhart Roy
Choudhury, Chandra Majumder and Pabitra Roy. On 15.10.2015
she examined witnesses namely Priyanka Das and Papi
Debnath. On 16.10.2015 she examined witnesses namely
Shyam Gopal Jasura and Barnali Bhowmik. On 16.11.2015 she
sent seized articles to the SFSL for examination and on
25.07.2016 she received SFSL report. After completion of
investigation she laid charge-sheet against the appellant. She
further deposed that PW-8, Pabitra Roy stated her that on
09.10.2015 one Siddharth Roy came to his shop and asked him
to transfer the material of memory card into a CD and
accordingly he made CD and identified the statement which was
marked as Exhibit-4.
During cross-examination, she stated that she cannot
remember the name of the person of the house where she
conducted raid in search of accused and the same was also not
mentioned in CD and she has not examined any person of the
house where she conducted raid. During investigation, it was
revealed that a previous complaint was filed by victim against
accused Saikat Debnath at East Agartala Women PS. She has
not seized the complaint and has not sent the seized mobile to
the SFSL and she cannot say whether there was any
incriminating material against the accused in the seized mobile
as the same was not reflected in the case diary. She did not
send the CD to SFSL and there was no mentioning in the CD
whether any incriminating material was found in the CD or not.
On 13.10.2015 she examined Purnima Majumder. As per
postmortem report, there was no other antemortem injuries
over the body except the multiple scratch marks 17 in number
ranging in measurement from 0.2 x 1 cm upto 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm
which were present on the dorsem of left hand over an area of
8 cm x 6 cm over dorsum of right hand over an area of 6 cm x
4 cm over some part of forehead and tip of nose. The ligature
mentioned are fresh in duration and all other injuries mentioned
are 1 to 2 days old at the time of death. She had sent the diary
to the SFSL for examination along with suicide note and as per
report of SFSL, the handwriting of diary and suicide note are of
the same handwriting. The seized diary belongs to deceased.
Suicide note is one of the pages of the said diary. In the diary
and in the suicide note, there was no allegation against the
accused Saikat Debnath. In the diary, it was written by
deceased that she was reading in Class X and she was proposed
by many boys but nobody loves her and whether she would get
any good boy at any point of time. OC Sima Biswas on
09.10.2015 at about 13:05 hours registered a UD case at East
Agartala Women PS vide UD case No.22 of 2015 under Section
174 of Cr.P.C. against the written complaint filed by Krishna
Majumder and subsequently the said Krishna Majumder filed
the FIR of this case on 10.10.2015 at 16:15 hours. In the case
diary, there was no mentioning about the reason of delay
examination of Chandra Majumder and they have not taken any
certificate as per Section 65C and 65B of the Evidence Act from
PW-8 Pabitra Roy.
21. It is to be noted here that the appellant in course of his
examination also desired to adduce witness in support of his
defence and accordingly, two witnesses was adduced.
DW-1, one Smt. Piyali Debnath deposed that she know
Sujata Majumder. She was her school friend and classmate. She
was studying in Indranagar High School. She further stated that
her parental house is situated adjacent to Indranagar High
School. Sujata was a good student and friend and she was very
arrogant and also caused bodily injury to her out of anger. She
could knew from Sujata that her mother was also arrogant and
also assaulted her by broom. She could not say the name of
mother of Sujata but she met her before Kharchi Puja in the
year 2015 and when she scolded her as well as her mother as
she was in talking term with her husband Saikat. Sujata used to
tell her that she would liking for Saikat and when she used to
talk with Saikat, at that time she felt jealous. She knew Saikat
since Class-VII/VIII and he used to reside his aunty‟s house and
his aunt‟s house is situated nearby their house. She further
stated that she had a love affair with Saikat prior to marriage.
During cross-examination, she stated that she got
married in the year 2019 with Saikat. She appeared in the
Madhyamik examination in the year 2013 and Sujata also
appeared in Madhyamik examination in the same year. She
never visited the house of Sujata situated at 79 tilla. Also stated
that the house of Saikat is at Ambassa (Kolai) but she could not
say the name of her aunt and Saikat used to reside in his aunt‟s
house. She further stated that in the year 2015 Sujata
committed suicide.
22. DW-2, Sri Bikash Dhanuk deposed that he knew
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury who is his neighbour. In the year
2015-16, he called Siddhartha Roy Choudhury at Agartala town
hall and told him that Sujata used to disturb Saikat by sending
SMS and phone call and accordingly, he told Siddhartha Roy
Choudhury that Sujata must not disturb Saikat as Siddhartha
Roy Chowdhury is the elder brother-in-law of Sujata.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, he stated
that he knew Saikat since 2014. The house of Saikat is at
Ambassa. Sujata used to visit the house of Siddhartha Roy
Chowdhury. He also knew the mother of Sujata. He also stated
the fact to the mother of Sujata and saw the SMS send by
Sujata to Saikat. He told Saikat to hand over the SMS to police
and also denied the assertions of prosecution that the
statement made by him in his examination-in-chief was false.
23. In course of hearing of argument, Learned Senior
Counsel Mr. P. K. Biswas for the appellant first of all drawn the
attention of the Court that the alleged incident took place on
09.10.2015. On that day, one FIR was made by Krishna
Majumder, who is the sister of the deceased. In the said FIR
which was marked as Exhibit-6, there was no indication
involving the appellant with the alleged crime but later on, on
10.10.2015, another FIR was laid wherein some story was
manufactured against the appellant. There was no explanation
from the side of prosecution as to why the said initial FIR was
silent showing involvement of the appellant with the alleged
commission of offence. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn
the attention of this Court that PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not in
any manner supported the prosecution story and those
witnesses were also not declared hostile by the prosecution.
There was no explanation in this regard from the side of the
prosecution before the Learned Trial Court. Learned Senior
Counsel further stated that PWs-6, 7 and 10(the mother of the
victim), PW-11 although made some incriminating evidence
against the appellant but if their evidences are meticulously
examined, it will be seen that their statements were suffered
from infirmities which those witnesses in course of investigation
did not say anything to the IO of this case. Meaning thereby
according to Learned Senior Counsel, there was no scope to
place any reliance upon those evidences but the Learned Court
below at the time of delivery of judgment did not consider the
same. Learned defence Counsel also drawn the attention of this
Court that PW-6, Krishna Majumder, the sister of the deceased
in course of her cross-examination specifically stated that in the
first FIR, she did not raise any allegation against anybody and
also she stated that her mother and sister put their signatures
on the inquest report but those witnesses did not whisper
anything about the injury found on the person of the deceased
but from Exhibit-11, the postmortem examination report, it
appears that there were multiple scratch marks, 17 nos.
ranging in measurement from 0.2 x 1 cm upto 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm
which were present in on the dorsum of left hand over an area
of 8 cm x 6 cm, over dorsum of right hand over an area of 6 cm
x 4 cm over some part of forehand and tip of nose which was
confirmed by the concerned medical Officer PW-15, Dr.
Prasenjit Das in course of his cross-examination. Learned Senior
Counsel referring the said part of evidence drawn the attention
of the Court that although it was a case of committing suicide
by hanging but it may so happen that prior to the commission
of offence she might be mentally or physically harassed by her
family members because from the evidence of PW-10(mother of
the victim), it also appears that in course of her cross-
examination, she stated that sometimes she used to rebuke
Sujata as mother and PW-7, Chandra Majumder, another sister
of the deceased, also in course of her cross-examination stated
that her mother sometimes used to rebuke her due to her
relation with Saikat. Learned Senior Counsel further referred
the evidence of PW-16 stated that as alleged by the prosecution
the appellant used to cause harassment to the deceased
through her mobile but the IO in course of her cross-
examination stated that she did not sent the seized mobile to
the SFSL. She also admitted that she had sent the diary to the
SFSL for examination along with suicide note and as per report
of SFSL, the hand writing of diary and suicide note are of the
same hand writing and the said diary belonged to deceased and
suicide note was one of the page of the said diary of the
deceased and she further admitted that in the diary and the
suicide note, there was no allegation against the accused-
appellant rather said witness specifically stated that in the
diary, it was written by deceased that she was reading in Class-
X and she was proposed by many boys but nobody loves her
and whether she would get any boy at any point of time or not.
Regarding that part of evidence, there was no explanation from
the side of the prosecution before the Learned Trial Court in
course of hearing of argument. Even according to Learned
Senior Counsel on the day of alleged occurrence of offence,
none of the witnesses i.e. the family members of the deceased
did utter any single incriminating statement against the
appellant showing his implication with the alleged crime rather
later on, after 3/4 days, they developed and manufactured a
new story showing implication of the appellant with the alleged
commission of offence and falsely implicated him in the case
which casts a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution
story. Further Learned Senior Counsel regarding the injury of
the victim which reveals from the postmortem examination
report, prosecution did not dispute the said injury nor they
challenged the injury as to how the deceased sustained injury
on her person which also casts a doubt about the prosecution
story and in absence of explanation, there was no scope to
believe the prosecution story but the Learned Court below at
the time of delivery of judgment did not consider those relevant
points and convicted the appellant in absence of cogent
materials on record and urged for allowing this appeal by
setting aside the judgment. Learned Senior Counsel also
referred few citations.
24. On the other hand, Learned P.P. representing the
prosecution submitted that before the Learned Court below by
the trend of cross-examination of PWs-6, 7, 10 and 13, the
appellant did not raise any circumstances to disbelieve the
prosecution story, as such, the appellant is not entitled to get
any benefit in this case. Learned P.P also drawn the attention of
the Court that the appellant in support of his defence adduced
two witnesses DWs-1 and 2 but those two witnesses in course
of their examination did not submit anything regarding the
prosecution story nor they tried to make the prosecution story a
doubtful one. Even the appellant in course of his examination
under 313 of Cr.P.C. also totally remained silent and did not
submit anything challenging the prosecution story. Referring
the evidence of PW-7, wherein PW-7 in the last part of her
examination-in-chief stated that just previous day of her death,
the victim told her and her husband that she was unable to bear
any further disturbance of Saikat and not feeling at all. There
was no cross-examination from the side of the accused-
appellant denying the said allegation. So, finally Learned P.P.
representing the prosecution submitted that the Learned Court
below after considering the evidence on record rightly and
reasonably delivered the judgment finding the appellant to be
guilty and there was no contrary evidence on record from the
side of the appellant to disbelieve the prosecution story. So, he
urged for dismissal of this appeal upholding the judgment and
order of sentence and conviction delivered by Learned Court
below.
25. At the time of hearing of argument both the parties
have referred some citations.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant referred one
citation reported in AIR 2024 SC 1283 of Kumar alias Shiva
Kumar v. State of Karnataka dated 01.03.2024 wherein
Hon‟ble the Apex Court in para Nos.31, 31.1, 32, 32.1, 33,
35.1, 47, 48 and 49 observed as under:
"31. In India attempt to commit suicide is an
offence under Section 309 IPC. This section
provides that whoever attempts to commit suicide
and does any act towards the commission of such
offence, he shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year or with fine or with both. But once the suicide
is carried out i.e., the offence is complete, then
obviously such a person would be beyond the reach
of the law; question of penalising him would not
arise. In such a case, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide would be penalised
under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC reads as
under:
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 fine.
31.1 Thus, as per Section 306 of IPC, if any person
commits suicide, then 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
fine.
32. The crucial word in Section 306 of IPC is „abets‟.
„Abetment‟ is defined in Section 107 of IPC. Section
107 of IPC reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who-
First-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, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at
the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.
32.1 From a reading of Section 107 IPC what is
deducible is that a person would be abetting the
doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do
that thing or if he encourages with one or more
person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that
thing or if he intentionally aids by any act or illegal
omission doing of that thing. Explanation 1 clarifies
that even if a person by way of wilful
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact
which he is otherwise bound to disclose voluntarily
causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure
a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of
that thing. Similarly, it is clarified by way of
Explanation-2 that whoever does anything in order
to facilitate the commission of an act, either prior to
or at the time of commission of the act, is said to aid
the doing of that act.
33. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide
inasmuch as it amounts to killing of self. This Court
in M. Mohan Versus State:(2011) 3 SCC 626 went
into the meaning of the word suicide and held as
under:
37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere
defined in the Penal Code, however its
meaning and import is well known and
requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self"
and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an
act of self-killing. In short, a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
35.1 Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove
that the accused had abetted the commission of
suicide by a person, the following has to be
established:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words, deeds or wilful
omission or conduct which may even be a
wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,
words or wilful omission or conduct to make
the deceased move forward more quickly in a
forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to
provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide while acting in the manner
noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens
rea is the necessary concomitant of
instigation.
47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh
impossible to unravel the mystery of the human
mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a
woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it
may be a case of failure to achieve academic
excellence, oppressive environment in college or
hostel, particularly for students belonging to the
marginalized sections, joblessness, financial
difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage,
acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so
forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that
someone has to abet commission of suicide.
Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which
he finds himself are relevant.
48. Coming to the facts of the present case, we do
not find any evidence on the basis of which we can
hold the appellant guilty of abetting the suicide of
the deceased. While the death of a young woman is
certainly very tragic, it cannot be said with any
degree of certainty that suicide has been proved;
the other essential ingredient constituting the
offence under Section 306 IPC, viz, abetment cannot
also be said to have been proved.
49. Thus on a conjoint reading of the entire
materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that
the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of
abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. The settled legal position, the
evidence on record and the glaring omissions of the
prosecution as pointed out above, leaves no room
for doubt. We are therefore of the unhesitant view
that the conviction of the appellant is wholly
unsustainable."
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant, Mr. P. K. Biswas drawn the attention of this Court
that in the alleged case, charge was framed under Section 306
of IPC against the appellant but here in the given case, there
is/was no evidence on record from the side of prosecution that
the present appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the
victim, as such, the case of the prosecution suffers from lot of
infirmities and urged for allowing this appeal by setting aside
the judgment and order of conviction.
26. In State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh & Ors. dated
13.01.1992 reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 539, wherein in
para Nos.2 and 3 Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:
"2. The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the
sworn testimony of PW 15, Cheluvamma, an alleged
eye-witness besides the motive, namely, illicit
intimacy between PW 23, Madadevamma, the sister
of respondents 1 and 5 with the deceased prior to
and after her marriage as well which was resented
to by both the respondents. The prosecution also
relied upon the evidence of PW 6, Madaiah, and PW
14, Javariah, who deposed having seen the
deceased enter into the house of PW 15,
Cheluvamma, at about 11 p.m. on the fateful night.
The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW
25, Cheluvaraju, who had allegedly seen all the
accused-respondents carrying the dead-body of the
deceased from the house of PW 15, Cheluvamma
towards the field from where it was later on
recovered. With a view to seek conviction of the
accused-respondents, the prosecution also pressed
into aid an alleged circumstance of the absconding
of all the respondents from the village from
November 9, 1978 onwards till their arrest. Learned
counsel for the State of Karnataka has, on the basis
of this material, submitted that the order of
acquittal deserves to be reversed.
3. We have perused the evidence of all the
witnesses referred to above. They do not inspire any
confidence at all. The denial by PW 23,
Madadevamma, of having had any illicit intimacy
with the deceased coupled with the fact that PW 15,
Cheluvamma, the ace witness of the prosecution,
having not disclosed the information at the earliest
opportunity to anyone till November 10, 1978,
though the alleged murder took place on the night
of November 8, 1978, has created serious doubts
about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Since, the Sub-Inspector admitted that he had not
even visited the house of any one of the accused-
respondents on November 9, 1978 to arrest them,
the failure of the accused-respondents to appear
before the police cannot give rise to any inference
of their guilt and therefore the alleged circumstance
of absconding was not rightly used by the learned
Sessions Judge against the accused-respondents.
The conduct of PW 8, Madaiah, PW 14, Javariah, and
PW 25, Cheluvaraju, is so unnatural that it would
not be safe to place any reliance on their testimony.
No explanation, much less a satisfactory one, has
been given by the prosecution for their long
silence."
In Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan dated
07.05.2004 reported in (2004) 10 SCC 632 wherein in para
No.5, Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"5. Even according to the prosecution the only
witness to the incident in question is PW 6,
therefore, as contended by learned counsel for the
appellant, we will have to examine his evidence
carefully. If we do so then we notice that on the
date of incident he had gone to Village Upli for some
work. From there he came back by bus at about 11
o‟ clock. He then allegedly went to the village to
meet Ram Rakh where he was told by his wife that
the latter had gone to the field. It is the prosecution
case itself that the distance between the field of
Ram Rakh and the village is about 4-5 miles and PW
6 covered that distance on foot and when he
reached near the field of Ram Rakh he heard a
quarrel and when he went towards the place of
quarrel he saw the appellant attack the deceased
with an axe. It is his further case that when he
reached near the deceased, the appellant ran away.
It is at this point of time he states that he got
scared and he took a different route than the one he
took on the way and reached the village at about 4
or 4.15 p.m. It is his case that when he went to the
house of Ram Rakh he could not find him, therefore,
he came near the village square where he met PW 2
Khyali Ram. From the above evidence of PW 6 it is
apparent that though there were persons available
on his way back, he did not inform anybody about
the incident. Even when he reached the village and
met Ram Rakh‟s wife he did not inform her about
the incident and it was for the first time he informed
about this incident to PW 2 at the village square at
about 4.15 p.m. Contrary to what he stated in the
examination-in-chief that he saw only one assault
on the deceased, in the cross-examination he stated
that he saw the appellant attack the deceased twice
and both the injuries were caused in his presence. It
is also to be noticed from his cross-examination that
when he met PW 2 Khyali Ram and told him about
the incident in question, PW 2 supposedly told him
that he had already come to know of the incident
from PW 14. The prosecution has not found how PW
14 came to know of the incident. In this background
if we appreciate the evidence of PW 6 we notice the
fact that he is purely a chance witness whose
presence at the place of the incident is highly
doubtful. His conduct too seems to be unnatural in
not informing anyone else in the village until he met
Khyali Ram at the village square. We also notice
that there is unexplained delay in filing the
complaint inasmuch as according to the prosecution
the incident in question took place at about 1.30
p.m. and a complaint was lodged only at 3.15 a.m.
on 5-4.1980. Though the distance is about 30 miles
from the place of incident, the complainant had the
facility of using the tractors available in the village
and they did use the same for travelling to the
police station. In such circumstances this
unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our
mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Once we are not convinced with the evidence of PW
6 then there is no other material to base a
conviction on the appellant, hence we are of the
opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit
of doubt, therefore, this appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of
the two courts below are set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charge framed against him. From
the records we notice that the appellant is on bail. If
so, his bail bonds shall stand discharged."
In VijayBhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai
Nathubhai Patel and Ors. dated 26.03.2004 reported in
(2004) 10 SCC 583, in para Nos.3 and 4, Hon‟ble the Apex
Court observed as under:
"3. From the side of the prosecution, PW 7 and PW 4
were examined as eyewitnesses. PW 11, who gave
the FI statement deposed that he had seen the
accused persons at the place of the incident. The
High Court held that there were certain infirmities in
the prosecution case, and hence the accused
persons were not guilty of the offences charged
against them.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents
submitted that PW 7 and PW 4 who claimed to be
eyewitnesses cannot be believed for various
reasons. It was submitted that the incident
happened on 13.11.1985 but these two witnesses
were questioned by the Investigation Officer only
on 15.11.1985. No proper explanation was given by
the Investigation Officer. There is evidence to show
that the Investigation Officer had visited the house
of the deceased on the very next day. It seems that
there was an attempt by the prosecution to show
that PW 7, the widow of the deceased was
unconscious during this period and therefore, she
could not be questioned by the Police. But they
could have questioned PW 4, the son of the
deceased at least on the very next day. The delay in
questioning these witnesses by the Investigation
Officer is a serious mistake on the part of the
prosecution. We do not think that the High Court
erred in disbelieving these witnesses."
Referring the above citations, Learned Senior Counsel
drawn the attention of this Court that the alleged incident
according to the prosecution took place on 09.10.2015 but
surprisingly on that date one FIR was laid by the sister of the
victim where there was not a single whisper showing implication
of the alleged accused-appellant with the alleged crime and on
that day also, the family members of the victim were very much
present and they met IO on that day but none of them did
whisper anything showing implication of the alleged appellant
with the alleged crime showing his involvement with this
offence and the statement of all the witnesses were recorded by
IO at least after 4/5 days without any valid reason and the
prosecution before the Learned Trial Court failed to explain as
to why their evidences were recorded later on which casts a
doubt about the prosecution story.
27. Learned Senior Counsel referred another citation of
Prabhu v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police & Anr.
dated 30.01.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137
wherein in para Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 Hon‟ble
Apex Court observed as under:
"15. In a recent judgment of this Court in
Kamalakar v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal
No. 1485 of 2011 [decided on 12.10.2023], one of
us (Vikram Nath J.) explained the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC. The Court has held as follows:
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of
commission of suicide. To charge someone
under this Section, the prosecution must
prove that the accused played a role in the
suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions
must align with one of the three criteria
detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the
accused either encouraged the individual to
take their life, conspired with others to
ensure the person committed suicide, or
acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly
resulted in the person's suicide.
8.3. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh1, this Court has analysed
different meanings of "instigation". The
relevant para of the said judgment is
reproduced herein:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge
forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is
not necessary that actual words must
be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence
must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the
accused had by his acts or omission or
by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case
an instigation may have been inferred.
A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation."
8.4. The essentials of Section 306 IPC were
elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan v.
State2, as under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
[(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court
dealt with the dictionary meaning of
the word "instigation" and "goading".
The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the
latter.Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the
others.Each person has his own idea of
self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down
any straitjacket formula in dealing with
such cases. Each case has to be decided
on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
44. 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.
45. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court are 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
this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide."
8.5. The essential ingredients which are to be
meted out in order to bring a case under
Section 306 IPC were also discussed in
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal3 in the following paragraphs:
"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."
8.6. On a careful reading of the factual matrix
of the instant case and the law regarding
Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no
proximate link between the marital discord
between the deceased and the appellant and
her subsequent death by burning herself. The
appellant has not committed any positive or
direct act to instigate or aid in the
commission of suicide by the deceased."
16. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this
Court's previous judgments discussing the elements
of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
17. Where the words uttered are casual in nature
and which are often employed in the heat of the
moment between quarrelling people, and nothing
serious is expected to follow from the same, the
same would not amount to abetment of suicide.
[Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438, Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P.,
18. In order to constitute „instigation‟, it must be
shown that the accused had, by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide. The words
uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the
consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20]
19. Different individuals in the same situation react
and behave differently because of the personal
meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for
individual vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 16 SCC 605,
Paragraph 20]
20. There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The
accused must be shown to have played an active
role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act
to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu
Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707,
Paragraph 12-14]
21. The accused must have intended or known that
the deceased would commit suicide because of his
actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State
of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628]
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel further
drawn the attention of this Court that in the given case there is
no evidence on record from the side of the prosecution that the
present appellant abetted the victim to commit suicide by his
act and conduct. So, in absence of clear evidence on record,
there was no scope to presume the appellant to be guilty and
urged for acquittal of the appellant from the charge of this case.
28. Finally, Learned Senior Counsel again submitted that
the prosecution drawn the attention of the Court that the victim
was a minor at the time of death but in this regard no charge
under POCSO Act was framed against the appellant and
furthermore, there was no specific oral/documentary evidence
on record that the victim was a minor on the day of alleged
occurrence of offence. So, the submission of the prosecution in
this regard could not be accepted.
29. On the other hand, Learned P.P. in support of his
contention relied upon one citation. In Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) dated
10.08.2009 reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 wherein in para
19 and 20, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:
"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar :(2001) 9 SCC
618, where the accused by his acts or by a
continued course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide, an
"instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in
order to prove that the accused abetted commission
of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words, deeds or wilful
omission or conduct which may even be a
wilful silence until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds,
words or wilful omission or conduct to make
the deceased move forward more quickly in a
forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to
provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to
commit suicide while acting in the manner
noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens
rea is the necessary concomitant of
instigation.
20. In the background of this legal position, we may
advert to the case at hand. The question as to what
is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers
because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human
beings are complex and multifaceted. Different
individuals in the same situation react and behave
differently because of the personal meaning they
add to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's
suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective
experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-
respect. Each of these factors are crucial and
exacerbating contributor to an individual's
vulnerability to end his own life, which may either
be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism
from intolerable self."
Relying upon the same, Learned P.P. drawn the
attention of the Court that from the evidence on record, it is
clear that the present appellant during the lifetime of the
deceased made such conduct which encouraged and compelled
the victim to commit suicide. So, the Learned Court below
rightly and reasonably found the appellant to be guilty and
convicted him. Thus, Learned P.P. finally urged for dismissal of
this appeal.
30. I have heard arguments of both the sides and gone
through the record of Learned Court below including the
evidence on record and also the citations as referred by Learned
Counsel of both the sides. Admittedly, in this case, there is no
dispute on record that the victim committed suicide by hanging.
It is also on record that the victim came in contact with the
appellant, which may be due to love affair or because of
persuasion of the appellant with the victim during the relevant
period of time. In this case, the Learned Trial Court below
framed charge against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC.
For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer herein
below the relevant provision of Section 306 of IPC which
provides as under:
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 fine.
From the above provision, it is clear that in order to
prove the charges under Section 306 of IPC, prosecution should
prove that the accused abetted the victim to commit suicide.
So, it is apparently clear that to constitute „abetment‟, intention
and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of
suicide is imperative in a case.
31. Here, in the case at hand, the alleged occurrence took
place on 09.10.2015. On that day, the sister of the victim
Krishna Majumder laid one FIR to O/C, East Agartala women
PS. On that day, in between 10:30 to 11:30 hours, her sister
Sujata committed suicide. There was not a single whisper
showing involvement of the appellant with the alleged
commission of offence. On the basis of that FIR, later on one
UD case No.22/15 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.
Later on, on 10.10.2015 said Krishna Majumder again laid
another FIR wherein she involved the appellant to be
responsible for the alleged commission of offence i.e.
responsible for abetment of committing suicide by his sister.
The IO after completion of investigation laid charge-sheet
against the present appellant.
32. To substantiate the charge, as already stated,
prosecution in this case, has adduced in total 16 nos. of
witnesses. As already stated, PWs-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the
prosecution, in course of their examination-in-chief before the
Court, did not whisper any single word showing involvement of
the present appellant with the alleged crime. They only stated
that the victim committed suicide. Surprisingly, prosecution did
not take any step for declaring those witnesses as hostile in this
case. There was no explanation in this regard from the side of
the prosecution.
33. Now, if we go through the evidence of PW-6, Krishna
Majumder, i.e, the informant, PW-7, Chandra Majumder, PW-
10, Purnima Majumder i.e. mother of the victim, PW-11,
Siddharta Roy Chowdhury i.e. elder brother-in-law of the
victim, it appears all those witnesses in course of their
examination made some incriminating evidence against the
appellant. As already stated, those witnesses on the day of
alleged occurrence of offence or on the following day when they
meet IO they did not whisper anything showing involvement of
the appellant with the alleged crime. Although their statements
were recorded by IO after 4/5 days, there was also no
explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why their
evidences were recorded by IO later on which casts doubt about
the prosecution story. Even if we meticulously go through their
examination-in-chief, it appears that those witnesses being the
family members of the deceased in course of their examination-
in-chief tried to implicate the appellant with the alleged crime
but from their evidence, it cannot be conclusively come to the
conclusion that the relation of the appellant with the victim
compelled her to commit suicide.
If for argument‟s sake, it is assumed that at one point
of time she(victim) tried to come out of her relation with the
appellant and for that the appellant threatened her but the IO in
course of her cross-examination before the Court recollecting
the suicide note specifically stated that in the diary and also in
the suicide note, there was no allegation against the present
appellant that he abetted or compelled the victim to commit
suicide. Prosecution in course of examination did not explain
anything in this regard before the Court.
Even if we believe the evidence of those four witnesses,
it cannot be conclusively come to conclusion that because of
threatening of the accused-appellant, the victim committed
suicide.
Even to substantiate the charge of the prosecution, the
prosecution also could not adduce any electronic evidence on
record from which it can be inferred that the appellant was
responsible for the alleged commission of offence.
34. PW-7, in course of her cross-examination could not say
as to whether there was any mark of injury on the person of
deceased or not. At the time of alleged occurrence of offence, to
the house except PW-10, no other witnesses were not present.
They appeared later on after receiving information of
commission of offence. PW-10, in course of her cross-
examination, specifically admitted that the appellant used to
maintain relation with another girl namely Piyali.
35. PW-11, in course of her cross-examination, stated that
whatever he deposed in-chief against the appellant he knew
everything from Sujata but that portion of statement was not
found in the statement recorded by IO during investigation
under 161 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that the said witness i.e.
the husband of the sister of the victim made improvement in
course of his examination before the Court.
36. PW-13, Shyam Gopal Josahara, in course of his cross-
examination, also stated that with effect from 09.10.2015 to
18.10.2015 he was available at his resident and visited the
house of Sujata and by that period he met with the police but
during that period, he did not make any statement to the
police. So, there is no scope to place any reliance upon the
evidence of said PW-13.
37. PW-15, Dr. Prasenjit Das conducted autopsy over the
dead body of deceased Sujata Majumder. According to this
witness, the toxicology analysis report was negative for the
presence of common organocholoro, organophosphorus and
carbamate group of pesticides. But during cross-examination,
he specifically stated that "No external antemortem injury was
seen over the body except the multiple sketch mark, 17 nos
ranging in measurement from 0.2 x 1 cm upto 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm
which were present in on the dorsum of left hand over an area
of 8 cm x 6 cm, over dorsum of right hand over an area of 6 cm
x 4 cm and over some part of forehead and tip of nose" but the
inquest report and the family members of the victim did not
submit anything regarding injury found upon the body of the
deceased victim. Prosecution also failed to explain anything in
this regard in course of hearing of argument before the Court.
38. Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence on record, it
also appears that in course of hearing of argument, Learned
P.P. failed to satisfy the Court the major loopholes that has
arisen from the evidence on record of the prosecution and at
the same time as already stated there is no electronic evidence
on record to sustain the charges against the appellant. In
addition to that, the family members of the deceased although
made some incriminating evidence but they only heard those
facts from the deceased victim. More so, prosecution in this
case could not prove by showing any chain as to how the
accused appellant abetted the victim to commit suicide by
giving any specific date and time. Apart from that, the IO in
course of her examination specifically stated the mobile of the
victim was not sent to SFSL for examination. Even from the
diary and suicide note of the victim, no evidence revealed
showing his implication with the alleged crime. As already
stated in the initial FIR, there was no allegation against the
appellant but later on, on the subsequent FIR, some allegation
was made against the appellant. Even on the day of alleged
crime, the family members of the deceased did not whisper
anything against the appellant showing his involvement with the
alleged crime rather their evidences were recorded almost after
4/5 days of the incident without any valid reasons. There is
evidence on record that probably the victim had love affair with
the alleged appellant but for any reason the relation did not
continue longer and it is proved as because he married another
lady later on. So, in absence of clear chain of evidence, it
appears that the Learned Trial Court below simply on the basis
of statement/evidence of the family members of the deceased
came to the finding that the accused committed the crime i.e.
abetted the victim to commit suicide and accordingly, found him
guilty which in my considered view, the Learned Court below
caused gross irregularity in imposing punishment to him.
39. The citations as referred by both the sides are very
much relevant for decision of this case but in deciding the case,
I do not find any conclusive material against the appellant that
he abetted the victim to commit suicide on the alleged day for
which the present appellant is liable to be acquitted on benefit
of doubt from the charge of this case.
40. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
allowed on contest. The appellant namely Saikat Debnath is
hereby acquitted from the charge on benefit of doubt and he is
set at liberty. The judgment dated 08.06.2023 and order of
sentence dated 09.06.2023 delivered by Learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with
S.T.(T-II) No.25 of 2017 is accordingly set aside. The surety of
the appellant also stands discharged.
Send down the LCR alongwith the copy of the
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.07.30 17:29:22 -07'00'
Deepshikha
