Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.53 of 2000 =========================================================== Ajay Kumar Prasad, son of Jagdish Prasad, resident Of village-Mau, P.S.-Tekari in the district of Gaya .... .... Appellant Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-08-2012 Appellant has been found guilty and convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No.166 of 1997/369 of 1995. 2. The case has been recorded on the fardbeyan instituted by Radha Muni Devi, mother of the deceased Rina Devi. The fardbeyan discloses that Rina Devi was married and after her marriage she had returned to her mother’s house and was living with her mother for the last one year. In the night of 3.6.1995 the Informant found that her daughter was missing. She tried to locate her daughter but could not find. She suspected that her daughter had disappeared with Ajay Kumar who was forcefully trying to establish relationship with her daughter. In the morning she heard that her daughter had fallen in a well and that some persons had seen Ajay Kumar fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 3. During the trial eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.1 and P.W.6 have been declared as hostile. P.W.3, who is a formal witness, has signed in the inquest report. P.W.8 is also a formal witness like P.W.3. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2000 dt.27-08-2012 2 / 4 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based on the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5 and 7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are related to each other. P.W.5 is the father-in-law of the victim girl. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are cousin brothers of P.W.5 have supported the statement of P.W.5. 5. P.W.2 in his evidence has said that in the morning he saw both Ajay Kumar and Rina Devi were sitting together near the well. Later on, he learnt that Rina Devi had jumped into the well. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the statement of this witness that he had identified Ajay Kumar who was present near the well. 6. P.W.4 has said that he saw both Ajay and Rina Devi sitting together near the well. All of a sudden, the girl was not present at the well. At para-3 of his deposition before court, he did not say the reason as to why the girl jumped into the well. He denies to have disclosed before the investigation officer that Ajay Kumar had relationship with Rina Devi, prior to the occurrence. 7. P.W.5 in his evidence before the court has similarly stated that he saw the appellant and Rina Devi near the well. He has further stated that the girl jumped into the well. He has also admitted that a letter written by Rina Devi addressed to Ajay Kumar was recovered from the house of Ajay Kumar. The seized letter has been marked as Ext.5. At para-15 this witness has stated that he had never heard that Ajay Kumar and Rina Devi were having any sort of relationship with each other nor has he claimed to have seen them together before the date of occurrence. Apart from what has been stated aforesaid, there is nothing spectacular in the evidence of this witness. 8. P.W.7, informant of this case , has supported the prosecution case as disclosed by her in the First Information Report and said that she had heard that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2000 dt.27-08-2012 3 / 4 3 Ajay Kumar was present with her daughter near the well. She has also stated that Ajay Kumar was seen running away from the well, after the occurrence. At para- 12, she disclosed the relationship of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 with the deceased Rina Devi. From her evidence it appears that village Bhuia Toli is situated adjacent to the well and there are about 2000 houses situated in and around the well. Apart from what has been stated aforesaid, there is nothing special in the evidence before the court. 9. The investigating officer has been examined in this case. His evidence is not very helpful for the prosecution. This witness has also stated that a letter written by Rina Devi addressed to Ajay Kumar has been recovered from the pocket of Ajay Kumar in which Ajay Kumar was asked to meet her(Rina Devi) on 3.6.1995 at 8 P.M. near the well as she was in love with him. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under [STATUTE] . This Court has examined all the evidence of the witnesses but no case under [STATUTE] could be made out. In the F.I.R. the informant disclosed that she heard that her daughter had jumped into the well and that Ajay Kumar was seen running away from the said place. She did not, however, name a single villager who had seen the manner of occurrence. Therefore, it would appear to the Court that neither Ajay Kumar was present nor was seen near the place of occurrence. Even the subsequent evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 does not help the prosecution as much as P.W.2 has not stated that he had seen Ajay at the place of occurrence, whereas, P.W.5 admits that although he lives in the village near the house of Ajay, he had never heard that Ajay was in love with Rina. He claims to have seen them together near the well, before the occurrence had taken place. It is rather surprising that apart from the father-in-law Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2000 dt.27-08-2012 4 / 4 4 and his brothers who are P.Ws. 2 to 4, none of the villagers have come forward to support the evidence that Ajay and Rina were seen together near the well before the occurrence took place. It would have bee

Applicable IPC Section: 306

Statute Text:
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetting the Commission 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.