Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 188 OF 1996 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Arun Pandit @ Arun Kumar Pandit, S/o Late Sone Lal Pandit. 2. Mostt. Pavitri Devi, W/o Late Sone Lal Pandit. Both R/o Village-Dumari, P.S.-Mufassil (Singhaul), Distt.-Begusarai. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. Arbind Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. P. Mehta, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 306 and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years and three years respectively by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.Tr. No. 207/94 by a judgment dated 21.06.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the sister of the informant P.W. 3 was married to the appellant and she used to complain of maltreatment by her in-laws. On 08.06.1993 the informant learnt that his sister was dead and when he went there he was told by the accused that his sister had died of snake bite but he did not rely on the same and enquired from the neighbours who gave different version upon which the present case was instituted. The allegation was that the deceased had been assaulted after a quarrel with her 2 husband and mother-in-law, the present appellants, after which she had consumed poison. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are formal in nature. P.W. 1 is an independent villager who stated that he had seen the deceased dead with froth coming out of the mouth of the deceased. Then the last rites were performed by the appellant No. 1. He supported the fact that the deceased had died on account of snake bite. P.W. 2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased who is merely on the point that earlier the deceased used to be assaulted by her in-laws. He conceded that the appellant Arun Pandit had told them the deceased had died on account of snake bite and he had heard a rumour in the tea shop that the deceased had taken poison after assault on account of which she had died. However, no person who had given this information to this witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and therefore this part of his evidence is inadmissible in law. P.W. 3 is the informant of the case and is on the point that twenty days before the occurrence she was told by the deceased that a demand had been made for dowry. However, the allegation is missing in the fardbeyan. He further conceded that he learnt that the deceased had been assaulted by the in- laws on account of which she had taken poison. 3 However, no name of the villager who had given this information has been disclosed by the informant nor has any witness been examined on the point and, therefore, this part of the evidence is complete nullity. No medical report with regard to the opinion of death of the deceased has been brought on record since admittedly the last rites of the deceased had been performed even before the present First Information Report. Thus, this Court is left with only the oral evidence of the two witnesses who are hearsay on the point of abetment to suicide. Since the major offence has been found untrustworthy there is no question of sustaining conviction for the offence u/s 201 IPC. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 21.06.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 207/94 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 16th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-