Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.134 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23. 03. 1998 and order of sentence dated 24. 03. 1998, passed by Shri Krishnakant Sahaya, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial 53 of 1991/131 of 1988. 1. Karu Sao, son of Late Barho Sao. 2. Fulwa Devi, wife of Karu Sao. Both resident of Village- Dhanpuri, P.S. Govindpur, District- Nawadah. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. WITH Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 182 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23. 03. 1998 and order of sentence dated 24. 03. 1998, passed by Shri Krishnakant Sahaya, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial 53 of 1991/131 of 1988. Raj Kumar Sao, son of Karu Sao. Resident of Village- Dhanpuri, P.S. Govindpur, District-Nawadah. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. For the Appellants : Mr. P. K. Verma, Advocate. Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. Two appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal no. 134 of 1998 2 and Cr. Appeal No. 182 of 1998 have heard together and being disposed by the common judgment as the two appeals arising out of same judgment and order dated 23. 03. 1998, passed by Shri Krishnakant Sahaya, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial no. 53 of 1991/131 of 1988, by which he has been convicted the appellant nos. 1 and 2 Raj Kumar Sao and Karu Sao for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant no. 3 Fulwa Devi has been convicted for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. However, all the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant (P.W. 8) that his daughter Asha Devi was married about ten years back with Raj Kumar Sao, son of Karu Sao. His daughter used to live with love and affection with his son-in-law, Raj Kumar Sao. However, some days prior to the occurrence due to some domestic 3 quarrel his daughter was sad, but she did not rebut anything to them. About three days prior to the occurrence reporting, he learnt about death of his daughter during pregnancy that his daughter died at the time of giving birth to the child. Sasural people of the daughter did not disclose about the death and learnt that his Damad and Samdhi was to go to Calcutta and on enquiry he learnt that about one week prior to the occurrence there was some quarrel with the daughter of the informant and Sasural people due to which she committed suicide by drowning in a well. However, it is stated that occurrence took place due to Sasural people vexed his daughter and he was learnt that dead body was cremated in heavy haste. His further case is that Bijay Sao who lives at Calcutta informed him about the occurrence and he learned from Raj Kumar Sao. 4. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet submitted. During trial nine witnesses were examined. The trial court taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W. 8, the informant that he has stated that his daughter committed suicide due to ill treatment and assault and due to abuse and hurt and 4 accused persons always used to abuse and assault. P.W. 5, 6 and 7 have supported the prosecution case that victim was subjected to cruelty by the appellants by abusing, assaulting and not giving food to her by which the victim committed suicide by jumping in well. Though, P.W. 4 has stated that the victim died due to quarrel between the inmates of her Sasural and trial court taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses convicted the appellants holding that prosecution has been able to prove the case of ill treatment, assault and abuse against the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants however assail the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that abatement for commitment of suicide has not been established, nor to the fact that in instigating a person to commit suicide has to be established that victim committed suicide on the instigation of the appellants. 6. However, taking into consideration the evidence and in the light of the submissions P.W. 8 the informant, P.W. 5 the wife of the informant, P.W. 6 the daughter of the informant and P.W. 7 the brother of the informant have stated in their evidence accused persons 5 used to subject the victim to cruelty by assault, abuse and not giving food to her. They have further stated in their evidence that the victim used to disclose about subjecting cruelty. However, all the witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that they had not seen assault or subjecting cruelty on the person of victim nor they have seen that victim committing suicide. P.W. 9 is the son of the informant has only proved the Fardbeyan in writing of his uncle Bijay Sao which bears L.T.I of his father which has formally been proved as Ext. 3. P.W. 1 is formal witness and P.W. 3 has turned hostile. P.W. 2 has stated that he learnt that victim died by drowning in well due to quarrel and has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. 7. Hence taking consideration the into entire evidence of witnesses it is apparent that witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that they have not seen the occurrence of subjecting cruelty by assault, abuse on the person of the victim . 8. However, witnesses have claimed that victim used to disclose about subjecting cruelty. However, this part of evidence is a development as the informant, the father of the victim and witnesses who stated that they 6 learnt from the victim about subjecting cruelty on her by accused persons are none else than wife and daughter of the informant. Had the victim had reported the subjecting cruelty, the father who is informant must have knowledge and this fact must have had been mentioned in the Fardbeyan. 9. However, the informant in his Fardbeyan has stated that marriage of the victim took place about ten years back and his daughter and son-in-law used to live with love and affection. In the said Fardbeyan matter of quarrel between them only stated to be arisen within a week and he learnt about the quarrel when he went to Sasural of the victim for enquiry about death of victim. Hence this part of evidence stands contradicted with the Fardbeyan of P.W. 8 that victim used to disclose about cruelty to P.W. 5 and 6 who are wife and daughter of the informant. Had there been any information about subjecting cruelty on the person of the victim, the informant must have had information about subjecting cruelty and must have had mentioned it in Fardbeyan, but apparently since there is averment in the Fardbeyan itself it is apparent that this part of the prosecution is a 7 development in the prosecution and hence it cannot be relied upon. 10. However, having regard to the fact that witnesses have deposed in their evidence regarding subjecting cruelty by abusing or assault suffers from contradiction and development in prosecution case in Fardbeyan hence as neither reliable nor inspire confidence to be relied upon. Once this part of evidence goes then only evidence remains that there was some quarrel between the victim and her Sasural people about a week prior to the occurrence. However there is no detail about such quarrel. Merely because there was quarrel between husband and the victim it cannot lead to inference that quarrel was as such to have driven or abated the victim to commit suicide. 11. Hence in such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt and I extent the appellants of benefit of doubt as prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 12. However, ancillary matter about Section 201 I.P.C. is concerned, once substantive charge under Section 306 I.P.C. fail offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 8 itself lost is significance and hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Patna High Court, The 13th September, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)