CF0000060947 IN TriE -HIGH COURT'. OF u'UDICATU.RE AT JABALPUE U,F%Sj Crlrainal Appeal No< /96 APPELIANT RE.SPONDEI'n Suraj Kumar^ . S/o Dhanlrc^i, / aged 21 years, , Occupatlon; Clerk^ R/<o 3etna Ward Dhara:tari, Thana & Tahsil Dharftari Distrlct: Raipur (^T, P. ) VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh fehroug^i S*0» Arjuni ' . APPEAI, UNDER SEC. 37 4 Gr. P. C-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 1077/1996 APPELLANT Suraj Kumar RESPONDENT Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for the appellant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PLfor the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (11 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (08.04.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 403/1995 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 4.8.1995 dead body of the deceased Navkala was found in the boiler of Bajrang Agro Industries, Sambalpur, Dhamtari which was owned by one Vijay Goyal (PW-11). According to the case ofthe prosecution telephonic information was given to the police by said Vijay Goyal vide Ex. P-7 and based on that merg intimation Ex. P-10 was recorded on that day itself. After merg inquiry conducted on 5.9.19950ffence under Section 306 IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. According to the further case of the prosecution deceased became pregnant through the accused/appellant but as he refused to marry her, she committed suicide. After completion of investigation, challan was filed bythe police on 17.10.1998 forthe said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, proseeution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of "/ 1 -2-— Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in paragraphNo.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the appellant because the ingredients of abetment as laid down under Section 107 IPC are completely missing in this case. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that as the deceased became pregnant through the appellant but he refused to marry her, she was left with ho other option but to commit suicide and that being sb, the findings of the Court below convicting the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC are just and proper. 7. Nageshwar Singh (PW-1) and Prabhuram (PW-2) are the witnesses to inquest Ex. P-2. Parma Bai (PW-3) is thewitness who was working in the same rice mill has stated in her evidence that the deceased had informed her that she was carrying pregnancy of two months through the accused/appellant. Arti Bai (PW-4) has also stated in her evidence that she was informed by Parma Bai (PW-3) that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of two months through the accused/appellant. Bhagwat (PW-5) - the watchman of the said mill has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Kumari Bai (PW-6) has stated in her evidence that she was informed by Parma Bai (PW-3) that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of two months through the accused/appellant. Uma Bai (PW-7) has stated in her evidence that she was informed by Kumari Bai (PW-6) that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of two months through the accused/appellant. Inspector Prem Kant Awasthy (PW-8) is the witness who had done part of the investigation. ASI namely B.R. Singh (PW-9) is the investigating officer who has supported the case ofthe prosecution. Dr. R.H. Mishra (PW-10) is the witness who had done post mortem examination on the ^ ^ \5— -J dead body of the deceased and gjven his report Ex. P-12 stating that the cause of death is asphyxia due to drowning. He has further stated that a query was put to him by the police whether the deceased was pregnant or not, he gave his report Ex. P-5A stating that she was not carrying pregnancy. VijayKumar Goyal (PW-11) - the proprietor ofthe Rice Mill who had given telephonic information to the police about the deathof the deceased has not stated anything specific. 8. So as to convict a person u/s 306 IPC the prosecution is obliged to prove the abetment as definedunder section 107 IPC. To have a ready reference, the said provision is reproduced as under: Section 107. A person abets the doing ofa thing, who - First. - Instigates anyperson 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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in orderto the doingof that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doingofthatthing. Explanation 1.— A person who, by willful misrepresentation, orby willful concealment ofa 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 doingofthatthing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of.the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission ofthat act.and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, issaid to aid the doing of that act." 9. Having thus discussed the entire factual aspect coupled with the evidence of the witnesses, this Court did not find even a single clue to establish the fact that the accused/appellant in any manner whatsoever had abetted the deceased to take the extreme stepof commission of suicide and that way the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. are quite amiss in this case. In this view of the matter the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 I.PC is not sustainable in the eye of Law. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal succeeds. Conviction ofthe accused/appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^