lll1\N“||||||||||\lll|1“NH“ CFOGO Bib 3Q RE; HQ 1‘3 ' Cx-J'm inal Aggé a1 NO ° pijé l lent Pw‘EEp KUMARJgQwEK (Eng. Jail} (BoudF1iSaht}/’ aged abeut 2,3 J<23ars, /) Sk'o’ Jhadu Ram RantekeKMahar r/é Villawa =u half“ P D.» Mw‘w‘uya, Twhb L1 m Balsa. Distt‘ Dung uPJ'. ‘VEE}US R Rauspsnde n‘c ' a 5 t ate a f: M adhy aaPraéééh, ‘ through = Town-DI ‘apccto “g, P L3 a u hahanaya. Tamil a Balaé‘ Distt. Jinx-g ap), g h; ( (M ? M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Criminal Apgeal No.1280 of 1996 Pradeep Kumar Baudhisht versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for g -7~2011 1 a R.S SH suége A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma 9i Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 1996 Pradeep Kumar Baudhisht, aged 23 years, S/o Jhaduram Mahar, R/o Village Bital, P.S. Mahamaya, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) Appellant VerSUS State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Respondent (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.) Present: Shri V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the appellant. Shri RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on g July, 201 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.183/95. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of the lndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/—, in default to further undergo imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under: Deceased Neerabai alias Mohini was married to the accused/appellant Pradeep Kumar Baudhisht sometime in the year 1993‘and out of their wedlock, one.female child Savitri was born. The appellant used to suspect some illicit relationship between deceased Neerabai and one Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat, a‘boy aged about 15 years. The prosecution alleged that the appellant used to mal—treat Neerabai on account of the above suspected relationship. in the above background, Neerabai committed suicide on 31.01.1995 by pouring kerosene and set her on fire. Kasturabai (PW-2 ~ mother of the deceased) Iodged Dehati Na/isi (Ex-P/1) on 02.021995. The investigation ofhcer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (EX—P/4) on the dead body of the deceased. :w L ’3ead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Chiklakasa. The post mortem examination was conducted by a team of two doctors, nameiy, Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-5) and Dr. LL. Markandeya, who prepared post mortem report (Ex-P/7). They opined that mode of death was asphyxia, the cause being extensive superficial ante mortem dry burn and death was suicidal ih nature. Regular FIR (Ex—R/Q) was lodged on 02.02.95 at Police Station Mahamaya, District Durg. :39 After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under / Section 306 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, District Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Durg, I from where, it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 4. Shri V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that prosecution witnesses Ramsheela Bai (PW—1) and Kasturabai (PW-2) are aunt and mother of the deceased and both are highly interested witnesses. Kasturabai (PW-2) did not mention in the Dehati Nalisi lodged by her that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by pouring kerosene K . on her, whereas she has deposed before the trial Court that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased. Kasturabai (PW-2) has improved her statement, therefore, her testimony is not reliable. Moreover, the prosecution was not abie to estabiish illicit relationship between the deceased and Sanat Kum‘ar alias Bhagat. The prosecution has also utterly failed to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC, therefore, the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and s» _ J‘he appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 5. On the other hand, Shri R.R.Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment. He argued that the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses. Their testimonies are wholly reliable and the prosecution has proved the offence beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as also the evidence available on record. Conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions JUdge is based upon the testimonies of Ramsheela Bai (PW—1) and Kasturabai (PW—2). 7. Ramsheela Bai (PW—1) has deposed that when the deceased had visited her village (maternal home) on the occasion of Teeja festival, she had ;o::n‘ ‘ 74 A\ told her that the appellant used to maltreat her on a suspicion that she had illicit relationship with Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat. Kasturabai (PW-2) has deposed that the deceased had died in the house of the appellant 8 months (prior to the date of her deposition before the trial Court). The appellant had committed murder of the deceased on account of the suspicion of illicit relationship of the deceased with Bhanja (the son of the sister of the appellant, namely, Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat). She has further stated that e » lvhen she was staying at the house of the appellant, she had witnessed the \L”: appellant making allegation on the deceased that she had illicit relationship with Bhanja Bhagat and giving the deceased fist blows. 8. To establish offence under Section 306 of the IPC, it needs to be a establis‘hed that— (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted, or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly; and (ii) the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 9. In the instant case, only Ramsheela Bai (PW-1) and Kasturabai (PW-2) have stated that the appellant had the suspicion that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW-3), but Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW-3) has denied all the allegations and has not supported the case ofthe prosecution. Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW-‘3) has stated that relationship ‘between the deceased and the appeiiant.was cordial. Nothing wrong was there in their reiationship. Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW—3) was declared to be hostile witness. ln the cross~examination, Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW-3) has denied that he was not making correct 0' t - statement to save the appellant as he is his maternal uncle. 10. Except the evidence of Ramsheela Bai (PW-1) and Kasturabai (PW—2) that the appellant had the suspicion about the illicit relationship of the deceased with Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW—3) and the appellant had maltreated the deceased, there is no other legal evidence on record to connect the appellant with the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 751‘1. 1 ‘ There is no dependable evidence on record in regard to illicit relationship of the deceased with Sanat Kumar alias Bhagat (PW-3) and on this basis maltreatment of the deceased by the appellant; in this situation, the appellant cannot be convicted only on the basis of the testimonies of Ramsheela Bai (PW-1) and Kasturabai (PW-2). There appears to be absolutely no legal evidence against the appellant in this case and the conviction based upon only the above evidence of the aunt and the mother is liable to be set aside. 12. The criminal appeal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellantiunder Section 306 of the /‘, a \ i l \q IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the chargeframed thereunder. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. 5d]. ' 7:“ ' l i l R.s,SHARMA = i Suége I Bini/Gopal