CFOOW'Wg'"^ ^~) -^-1—^—a-A. JS 'EHS HI6B CQB'BI O? B&DBEA PBAJDBSH A£ JABAI,P©B. CBJKMAL APSAI, HO. ' ; "3Gs_9oF'1$95. HaripryadSQnQfB^raPrasad - Sataan^", aged about 25 years^ resident 6f village./Koylari, PS KiiiBda,Bistrict BilaspW, ^ APPai.AiI (a J-AII.) vs. ' IHE SIAIE OFM.P. _-aH®lLLH] SSCIIQB 374(2) eS"£SE CEaMaffl!_PBOC®UBE •• / '*ts> :;llr'}»''"':lt& ^gE; ;Sia| .11 E>)»|((K laSfflB- ^ >ingle Bench : Honbi®Mr. Justiee Pritinter Oiweker Hariprasad son of Daya Prasad (In Jail) State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Shri Vivek Sharma, counse! for th®Gppellant. Shri Neeraj AAehta, Panst Laivyer for the State. CftIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTEON 374 (2) OF THE CO&E OF CRIM3 JU.be_WENT This appea! is directed against th.s impugnec judgment dated 18.2.1995 passed by Fourth Additiona! Sessions Jud.ge, Silaspur, Link Mungeli in Sessions Tnd No. 337/1992 conyicting the accused/appeiiant for the offence pun.ishabie r under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencinq him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in defauit of pa^ent of fine to furt'her undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. As per the case of the prosecution on 16.8.1991 msrg Intimation (Ex.P-6) was given by one Gaya Prasad (PW-3) to the sffect thst his daijghter-in-Saw Khakhra Bai has consuraed iison. After;./investigation challan was filed against the •• / ~ accused/appeliant Hariprasad a"?.d he was prosecuted for the ••tl- offence ounishabie under Section 306 of the Indicm Penai 3. So as t.o hold the accused/appe'lant guilty, prosecution ns mohv as 8 witnesses. Statemsnt of the dccused/appellaRt was also recorded under Section 313 of the ) 2 J1' • '^ !;i •;'^. 'iiteo''' ^.y Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied th.e charae |eye!ed against him and pleo.ded hi-s innocence cnd false implicGtion in the case. 4. After hea>"ing the part'ies the tria! Court has convicted and sentenced the accussd/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counse! for the parties and perused the materia! available on record inctuding impugned judgment. 6. Counsel for the appellojit submits that present is an unfortunate cc.se. where the wife of the appellcyit has committed suicide but there is no leqa! evidence on record warranting conyiction pf the appellmt under Section 306 of the Indicm Penal Code'. l-1e furt'her submits that even if the entire prosecution co.se is taken as it is, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out because the basis ingredients of Sectiori 306 IPC in particujar Section 107 IPC are not attracted in the present co.se. 7. On the other hand; counsel for the respondent/State support-s the impugned judgment and submits thcri' the findings recordsd by the Court' below being based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution are fully justified and no rnterference with the same is warrcmted. ^^ 8. I^h^/e hewd learned counsel for the prtiss at length dnd perused the mater'iol avaitable on record including the judgment impugned. ' 9. From the record it appsars that marrio.ge of the deceased Khakhrabai was solemnized with the apDe.llant o.bout •l., s yedrsprior to thedate of incident i.e. 16.8.1991. The oniy ^^ s •>' ,:'1 '»..,. !;to': % I t)/- piece of evidence against the appellont is the statement of Seeta Bai (PW-5) - Sister-in-iaw of the deceased who has stated that on the date of incident the appellant had assaulted the mother of the deceased. But for this eyidence, there is no other evidence ago.inst th.e appellont. Dr". M.K. Rai (PW-1) performed the post mortem of the deceased, Jhadurc (PW-2) is witness of inquest and seizure, Gayaprosad (PW-3) lodge the merg intimation (Ex.P-6), Dr. P.L. Kurre (PW-7) h.ad examined the mother of the deceased, Brajendro. Kumar (PW-8) had registered the First Infor-mation Report-. 10. Keeping in view the ingredients of Sections 306 o-nd 107 IPC, evidence as adduced by the prosecution, I am of the considered view thqt the ingredients of 'abstment' are totaliy absent in the instdht case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stond only if there is an 'abetment' for the commission of the crime. Accordingty, in the present case offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the appetiwit/accused. 11. In the resylt, the crimino! appeai succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Court be!ow convicting and sentencing the appetlant/accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penai Code is set aside. The appellant/cccused is acquitted af the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penai '. / Code, Appella>lt is repor,ted'to be on bail. His bail bonds stand si*s* ——— discharged. <;^/ Pritinker DiwaS.:er Judge