Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 631 (PAT)

Binod Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-22

SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2005
Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2003 passed by Sri Binod Mohan Prasad, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court II, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 23/01/211/86 (S.J.) whereby all the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Besides that, appellant no. 2 Pramod Kumar has also been convicted under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Out of three appellants, appellants Binod Kumar and Pramod Kumar have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 306 of the I.RC. whereas appellant Sheo Barati Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 306 of the I.P.C. All the three appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A of the I.P.C. whereas appellant Pramod Kumar has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 of the I.RC. The learned trial court has further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as per the Fardbeyan of informant Anant Kumar (P.W. 4) recorded by S.I. R.J. Singh of Civil Lines RS. on 27.6.1985 at 12 hours at Civil Lines P.S., District Gaya, in brief, is that deceased Karuna Devi, daughter of Prem Narayan Singh, was his cousin sister. She was married to appellant no. 1 Binod Kumar, son of Late Jag Narain Mahto of village Khaneta, RS. Belaganj District Gaya about four years ago. After two years of the said marriage, Gauna was performed and deceased Karuna Devi went to her Sasural but thereafter appellant Binod Kumar started making the demand of Rs. 7,000/- cash on the pretext that the said money is required for getting employment for him. It is alleged that he gave threat that in case of nonpayment of the amount he would not keep Karuna Devi with him. There is further allegation that due to non-payment of the aforesaid amount by the informants uncle, appellant Binod Kumar, his father, his younger brother Pramod Kumar (appellant no. 2) started assaulting Karuna Devi. It is further said that about one year ago, the abovenamed persons assaulted Karuna Devi resulting in fracture of Iter arms and thereafter they forced her to board on a Tata bound Bus where the informants uncle (father of Karuna Devi) was residing. 2) started assaulting Karuna Devi. It is further said that about one year ago, the abovenamed persons assaulted Karuna Devi resulting in fracture of Iter arms and thereafter they forced her to board on a Tata bound Bus where the informants uncle (father of Karuna Devi) was residing. Thereafter the informants uncle got Karuna Devi treated at Jamshedpur by a physician and after treatment of Karuna Devi and after everything becoming normal, the informants uncle brought Karuna Devi to her Sasurai about a month ago and since then Karuna Devi was living in her Sasurai. Further allegation is that on 26.6.1985 in the morning one person of village Khaneta came to the house of the informant and told him that in the previous night Jag Narain Mahto, his two sons Binod Kumar, Pramod Kumar and other members of the family of Jag Narain Mahto including female members had killed Karuna Devi by setting her on fire. He also told the informant that they had taken away the dead body from the village to Gaya for its cremation silently. Further allegation is that on getting the said information, the informant alongwith Gopal Singh, Mohan Singh and others went to Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya but they did not find Karuna Devi there and then he along with others went to Magah Medical Hospital, Gaya and again they did not find any trace of Karuan Devi there. It is further said that thereafter the informant alongwith the abovenamed persons went to cremation Ghat Gaya. He saw a funeral pyre burning in the Ghat where Jag Narain. Prasad, Pramod and one Devendra Kumar were present. On enquiry made by the informant, Jag Narain Mahto told him that Karuna Devi died of burn injuries but when the informant asked Jay Narain Mahto as to why he had performed cremation in so haste, he did not give any reply. It is further said that Karuna Devi had written several letters earlier regarding the demand of money by her inlaws and ill-treatment meted out to her by them due to non-fulfilment of the demand and also regarding the threats of killing her. The informant after making enquiry from the father in law of his deceased sister went to Civil Lines Police Station and gave his fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I., R.J. Singh of the said RS. The informant after making enquiry from the father in law of his deceased sister went to Civil Lines Police Station and gave his fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I., R.J. Singh of the said RS. After recording of the fardbeyan the same was sent to Belganj RS. for institution of the case where on receipt of the fardbeyan, Belaganj P.S. Case No. 66/85 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation was started. However, after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted under sections 498A, 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. against the appellants and two others, namely, Jag Marain Mahto and Savitri Devi but as Jag Narain land letter wMahto and Savitri Devi died during the pendency of the case, as such proceeding against them was dropped and all the three appellants were put on trial and were convicted and sentenced to undergo vigorous imprisonment, as stated above. 3. From perusal of the lower courts rscord, it appears that all the three appellants were charged under Sections 498A, 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. The appellants- had denied the charge and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial proceeded. It further transpires that in support of the charge, the prosecution has adduced altogether six witnesses, namely, Gopal Singh (P.W. 1), Awadhesh Kumar (P.W. 2), Prem Narain Singh (P.W. 3), Anant Kumar (P.W. 4), Kapurwa Devi (P.W. 5) and Hari Charan Mahto (P.W. 6). In addition to the oral evidence, the prosecution has also brought some papers on record which have been marked as exhibits. Ext. 1 is the prescription of Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad of jamshedpur in the name of deceased Karuna Devi. Ext. 2 is an Inland letter addressed to appellant Binod Kumar in the handwriting of one Pradip Narayan Singh. Ext. 2/1 is another Inritten by deceased Karuna Devi addressed to her father Prem Narain Singh. Ext. 2/2 is a letter dated 2.12.1981 written by appellant Binod Kumar to P.W.2 Awadhesh Kumar. Ext. 3 is a telegram sent by informant Anant Kumar to the father of the deceased. Ext. 4 is X-ray report of Radiologist Dr. K.N.Sharma of Jamshedpur. Exts. 5, 5/1 and 5/2 are the signatures of the informant and witnesses Gopal Singh and Mohan prasad respectively on the fardbeyan. 4. Ext. 3 is a telegram sent by informant Anant Kumar to the father of the deceased. Ext. 4 is X-ray report of Radiologist Dr. K.N.Sharma of Jamshedpur. Exts. 5, 5/1 and 5/2 are the signatures of the informant and witnesses Gopal Singh and Mohan prasad respectively on the fardbeyan. 4. The defence, as it appears from the trend of the cross-examination and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case but in support of this contention, the defence has not adduced any oral evidence. However, the defence has brought the certified copy of the ordersheet dated 28.3.87 passed in Title Suit No. 164/78 (Ext. A) and the certified copy of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 164/78 (Ext.B) in order to establish enmity with P.W 6. 5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the court below found that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and so, he elaborately enumerated all the circumstances appearing against the accused. According to him, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the following circumstances appeared against the accused persons. (1) That the death of Karuna Devi took place in her Sasural. (2) That Karuna Devis in-laws demanded dowry from her parents. (3) That Karuna Devi was tortured in her Sasural by her in-laws. (4) That Karuna Devi-wrote a letter (Ext. 2/1) to her father soon before her death about the torture to her and her mental state. (5) That one Pradip Kumar Singh wrote a letter to accused Binod Kumar soon before the occurrence informing him about the settlement of his marriage with another girl. (6) That Karuna Devi committed suicide in her Sasural by setting her on fire. (7) That the cremation of the dead body of Karuna Devi was performed with undue haste without informing her parents. (8) That Karuna Devis father-in-law Jag Narain Mahto and Devar Pramod Kumar were present at the cremation Ghat near funeral pyre of Karuna Devi. 6. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the learned Judge examined all the circumstances appearing against the accused in detail and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established all the abovementioned circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. 7. 6. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the learned Judge examined all the circumstances appearing against the accused in detail and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established all the abovementioned circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. 7. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that the judgment and order passed by the learned court below is bad in law as well as on facts. It is also based on conjectures and surmises and against the rule of prudence. Further contention is that the [earned Additional Judge has not applied his mind judiciously while passing the impugned judgment and order and has not analysed the evidence on record properly. Further contention is that the learned trial court did not consider this aspect that P.Ws. 1 to 4 being the father, full brother and close relatives are highly interested witnesses and as such, their evidence should be scrutinised with care and proper caution. He also did not consider that RW. 6 was on inimical terms with the appellants. Further contention is that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the appellants had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide by Karuna Devi rather there is specific case of the prosecution that Karuna Devi had been killed by the appellants by burning on account of non-payment of demand of Rs. 7000/- and as such, the conviction of the appellants under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and must be set aside. His further contention is that there is no direct evidence on record to establish that Karuna Devi was tortured in her Sasural due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 7000/- and the judgment of the trial court in this regard is based on mere conjectures and surmises. On the basis of the above submissions, the learned defence counsel has prayed to set aside the judgment and order of the trial court. 8. On the other hand, the contention of the learned State Counsel is that the judgment and order of the trial court are based on the materials available on record and the trial court has elaborately dealt with all the circumstances which had come on record which were essential for establishing the guilt of the appellants and so, he prayed to confirm the judgment. 9. 9. On the basis of the rival contentions, following points arose for consideration in this appeal. (i) Whether there is any legal evidence on record to hold that appellant Binod Kumar had made any unlawful demand from his father-in-law (RW. 3) for payment of Rs. 7000/-? (ii) Whether due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 7000/- appellant Binod Kumar and the in-laws of Karuna Devi used to torture her? (iii) Whether due to ill-treatment and torture, Karuna Devi committed suicide and thereby the appellants abetted the commission of offence of suicide by Karuna Devi? (iv) Whether the appellant Pramod Kumar did cause the evidence of urnatural death of Karuna Devi to disappear by disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi in haste in order to screen himself from legal punishment? 10. Point No. (i) The prosecution case is that deceased Karuna Devi was married to appellant Binod , Kumar about 4 years back since the date of institution of the case i.e. in the year 1981 but the evidence has come that she was married in the year 1979 and after two years of her marriage i.e. in the year, 1981 her Gauna had taken place. The defence has not challenged this averment of the prosecution in the cross-examination of the witnesses. So, this fact appears to be admitted fact and on that basis it can be safely held that deceased Karuna Devi was married to appellant Binod Kumar in the year, 1979 and after two years of her marriage i.e. in the year, 1981 her Gauna had taken place and she started living in her Sasural. 11. ft is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry but after Gauna appellant Binod Kumar started making demand of Rs. 7000/- on the pretext of getting employment for him. in this connection I find oral as well as documentary evidence on record. First of all, I would like to deal with the oral evidence available on record. P.W. 2, who is the own brother of the deceased, at paragraph 3 has deposed that his brotherin-law appellant Binod Kumar had written a letter to his father at his Tata address in which he had made a demand of Rs. 7000/- on the pretext of getting some employment for him. P.W. 2, who is the own brother of the deceased, at paragraph 3 has deposed that his brotherin-law appellant Binod Kumar had written a letter to his father at his Tata address in which he had made a demand of Rs. 7000/- on the pretext of getting some employment for him. He had also given threat that in case of non-fulfilment of demand, he would kill his sister. He has further deposed that his father had sent the said letter of Binod Kumar to Binods father. 12. Corroborating the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, who is the father of the deceased, has deposed in paragraph 1 that appellant Binod Kumar had sent a letter to him in which he had demanded Rs. 7000/-. He has further deposed that as he was not in a position to meet the demand, as such he sent the said letter of Binod Kumar to his father in a separate envelope. He has further deposed that when Binod Kumar came to know that his said letter was sent to his father he became very angry and wrote another letter which was addressed to his son i.e. P.W. 2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh in which Binod Kumar had abused his father and had stated that he would not keep any relation with the deceased Karuna Devi. He has further deposed that he had handed over the said letter of appellant Binod Kumar to Dy. S.P. and when the same was placed before him by the State Counsel, he identified the said letter which was marked Ext. 2/2. 13. P.W. 4, who is the informant in this case and who happens to be the cousin brother of the deceased, has de posed at para-3 that after Gauna appellant Binod Kumar had made demand of Ps. 7000/- from his uncle Prem Narain Singh, father of deceased Karuna Devi. The above evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 finds corroboration from Ext. 2/2 which is a letter written by appellant Binod Kumar addressed to P.W. 2. The contents of Ext. 2/2 shows that the appellant Binod Kumar was very much annoyed with the action of his fatherin-law (P.W. 3) as he had sent his previous letter to his father. The above evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 finds corroboration from Ext. 2/2 which is a letter written by appellant Binod Kumar addressed to P.W. 2. The contents of Ext. 2/2 shows that the appellant Binod Kumar was very much annoyed with the action of his fatherin-law (P.W. 3) as he had sent his previous letter to his father. The contents of the letter further shows that appellant Binod Kumar had used abusive language against his own father and had given threat to P.W. 2 that in future he would not keep any relation with his sister Karuna. The above evidence coupled with the letter of appellant Binod Kumar (Ext. 2/2) establishes that appellant Binod Kumar had made demand of Rs. 7000/- from the parents of deceased Karuna Devi and in case of nonfulfilment he had threatened that he would not keep any relation with Karuna Devi. 14. It has been argued on behalf of the State counsel that all the three witnesses have accepted in their crossexamination that no such demand of Rs. 7000/- was made by appellant Binod Kumar in their presence. He has submitted that since the prosecution witnesses have admitted that no such demand was made by appellant Binod Kumar in their presence, as such the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that appellant Binod had made demand of Rs. 7000/- from the parents of deceased Karuna Devi is inadmissible in law. It is true that the prosecution witnesses have admitted that appellant Binod Kumar had never demanded any money from the parents of Karuna Devi in their presence but since the above statement of the witnesses regarding the demand of Rs. 7000/- by appellant Binod. Kumar is based on documentary evidence i.e. a letter written by appellant Binod Kumar addressed to his brother-in-law (P.W. 2) in which he has in directly admitted of making demand of Rs. 7000/- by giving a reference of his earlier letter, written to P.W. 3 so the evidence of P.W. 3 that Binod Kumar had demanded Rs. 7000/- from him becomes admissible in the eye of law. Likewise the evidence of RW. 2 that by writing a letter to his father Binod had demanded Rs.7000/- from his father also becomes admissible as the statement of RW. 2 is based on the basis of the contents of the letter (Ext. 2/2) written by appellant Binod Singh to P.W. 2. Likewise the evidence of RW. 2 that by writing a letter to his father Binod had demanded Rs.7000/- from his father also becomes admissible as the statement of RW. 2 is based on the basis of the contents of the letter (Ext. 2/2) written by appellant Binod Singh to P.W. 2. Thus, hld that there is overwhelming evidence on record to hold that appellant Binod Kumar had made demand of Rs. 7000/- from the parents of deceased Karuna Devi on the pretext of getting employment for him. 15. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that mere demand of Rs. 7000/- by appellant Binod Kumar from the father-in-law cannot be termed to be a dowry demand. In reply to this argument, the State Counsel has. argued that the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 304B of the I.P.C. He further submitted that either Section 498A or Sectioh 306 of the I.P.C. does not talk about the demand of dowry rather Section 498A of the I.P.C. talks about "unlawful demand" which is not necessary to be related with dowry demand only. In my view, the argument advanced on behalf of the State Counsel is correct. To support my view, I would like to quote Section 498A of the I.P.C. "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any "unlawful demand" for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." Thus, from the language of Section 498A of the I.P.C. it appears that Section 498A talks about the unlawful demand made by the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman and does not specifically talk about the dowry demand. I am, therefore, of the view that even simple demand of Rs. I am, therefore, of the view that even simple demand of Rs. 7000/- by appellant Binod Kumar from the parents of deceased Karuna Devi is unlawful demand as for fulfilment of demand, he started pressurising Karuna Devi as well as the parents of Karuna Devi. Point No. 2 16. The next point for consideration is whether due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.7000/- Karuna Devi was subjected to torture by appellant Binod Kumar and her in-laws. In this regard there is evidence of RW. 2 that after Gauna when her sister came back from her Sasural she told him that her father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her in her Sasural and used to beat her. They also used to force her to work in the field. In paragraph 6 he has deposed that the in-laws of his sister assaulted her, broke her hands and feet and thereafter they sent her to Tata alone by a bus. RW. 2 at para-12 has further deposed that only two days before the alleged occurrence he had received a letter written by his sister in which his sister had given the detailed description of torture done by her husband and her in-laws. 17. P.W. 3, who is the father of the deceased Karuna Devi, has deposed that he had received a letter from his son-in-law in which he had made a demand of Rs. 7000/- and as he was not in a position to fulfil the demand, as such he sent the said letter to his Samadhi (father of appellant Binod Kumar). He has further deposed that when appellant Binod Kumar came to know that his letter had been sent to his father he became very angry and wrote another letter (Ext. 2/2) in which he used abusive language against his own father and also gave threa that he would not keep any relation with Karuna Devi in future. At para-2, he has further deposed that after writing the said letter appellant Binod Kumar never took care of her. He has further deposed that in the year 1983 he sent Karuna Devi (to her Sasural alongwith his son. On that occasion the in-laws of Karuna Devi raised objection and they also gave threat that they did not want to keep any relation with Karuna Devi. They also told his son that they had planned to do second marriage of Binod Kumar. On that occasion the in-laws of Karuna Devi raised objection and they also gave threat that they did not want to keep any relation with Karuna Devi. They also told his son that they had planned to do second marriage of Binod Kumar. At para-3 P.W. 3 has deli,posed that on 6.6.1983 he received a letter said to have been written at the instruction oi his daughter Karuna Devi in which it was mentioned that she (Karuna Devi) was assaulted by her in-laws and she had sustained injuries on her hand, as such she was unable to write letter herself. RW. 3 has further deposed thai in the said letter it was also mentioned that she (Karuna Devi) was forced to do the work inside the house as well as outside the house. At para 4 RW. 3 has deposed that after three months of the said incident appellant Binod Kumar drove out Karuna Devi from his house after assaulting her and forced her to board on a Jamshedpur bound bus and thereafter Karuna Devi alone came to Jamshedpur. He has categorically stated that he saw left hand of Karuna Devi fractured and also noticed the mark of violence on her body. He has further deposed that he got Karuna Devi treated by a Bone Specialist, namely, Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad and on his advice, he got X-Ray of left hand of Karuna Devi done. He has proved the report of X-Ray granted by Vishal X-Ray Clinic which has been marked Ext. 4 (prescription of Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad had already been marked Ext. 1). At para-7 he has deposed that on 25th or 26th June (1985), he received a letter from his daughter Karuna Devi in which she had shown apprehension that her in-laws would commit her murder. He has proved the said letter of Karuna Devi which has been marked Ext. 2/1. He has further deposed that in the said letter his daughter had given the detailed description of torture meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. 18. RW. 4 Anand Kumar, who is the informant of this case and who happens to be the cousin of the deceased Karuna Devi, has deposed at para-3 of his deposition that after Gauna of his sister, her husband Binod Kumar started making demand of Rs. 18. RW. 4 Anand Kumar, who is the informant of this case and who happens to be the cousin of the deceased Karuna Devi, has deposed at para-3 of his deposition that after Gauna of his sister, her husband Binod Kumar started making demand of Rs. 7000/- from his uncle Prem Narain Singh but his uncle was not in a position to meet his demand. At para-4 he has deposed that the in-laws of Karuna Devi were not behaving well with Karuna Devi and they used to assault her. At para5 he has deposed that in the year, 1983 Binod Kumar assaulted Karuna as a result of which her hand was fractured and then Binod forced her to board on a Jamshedpur bound bus. He has further deposed that at Jamshedpur Karuna Devi was treated by a doctor and her X-Ray was done. Plaster was also done. At para-6 he has deposed that in the year, 1985 Karuna Devi went to her Sasural but thereafter she never came back and in the meantime, one Hari Charan of village Khaneta informed him that her husband Binod Kumar, her father-in-laws, her mother-in-law, Pramod and others hadset his sister on fire. 19. RW. 6, Hari Narayan Mahto, who is a co-villager of the appellant, has deposed that Karuna Devi was married to his co-villager, namely, Binod Kumar, son of Jag Narayan Mahto. He has further deposed that Karuna Devi was killed by setting her on fire. He has further deposed that prior to her death she was leading a miserable life in her Sasural as her husband Binod Kumar, her father-in-law Jag Narayan Mahto, her mother-in-law, her sister-in-law and Pramod used to assault her. He has further deposed that he had seen Karuna Devi being carried away by rickshaw. He has further deposed that he had given information about the occurrence to the informant as well as to P.W. 1 Gopaljee. 20. From the oral evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, it is established that prior to her death Karuna Devi was subjected to torture by her husband and by her in-laws. The oral evidence of the above witnesses finds corroboration from the documentary evidence which has been brought on record. In this regard the first document is the letter of appellant Binod Kumar which has been marked Ext. 2/2. This letter was written to the brother of Karuna Devi, namely, Awadhesh (RW. The oral evidence of the above witnesses finds corroboration from the documentary evidence which has been brought on record. In this regard the first document is the letter of appellant Binod Kumar which has been marked Ext. 2/2. This letter was written to the brother of Karuna Devi, namely, Awadhesh (RW. 2) by appellant Binod Kumar. It is dated 2.12.1981. The contents of the letter shows that in his previous letter appellant Binod Kumar had demanded Rs.7000/ from the father of Karuna Devi on the pretext of getting job for him but as the father of Karuna Devi had sent the said letter to the father of Binod Kumar, as such Binod Kumar was very much angry and he had given threat to RW. 2 that in future he would have no relation with Karuna Devi. The next document in this regard is Ext. 1, the prescription of Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad of Jamshedpur and Ext. 4 which is X-Ray report prepared by Vivek Vikash X-Ray Clinic. Both these documents establish this fact that in the year 1983 Karuna Devi was treated for injury on her hand which supports the oral evidence of the witnesses that in the year, 1983 Karuna Devi was assaulted by her husband and her in-laws and she had got her left hand fractured. The next and most important document on the point of torture is the letter which is Ext. 2/1 in this case. This letter is in the handwriting of deceased Karuna Devi and it bears the stamp of the post office dated 19.6.1985 i.e. only a few days before the death of Karuna Devi. The contents of the letter fully establishes that Karuna Devi herself wrote to her parents that she was regularly being tortured and assaulted in her Sasural and she had apprehension in her mind that she would be killed. Thus, this letter which can be termed as "dying declaration of Karuna Devi fully corroborates the oral evidence of the above said witnesses regarding ill-treatment and torture to deceased Karuna Devi by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 7000/- made by appellant Binod Kumar from P.W. 3. Point No. 3 21. The next point for consideration is whether due to ill-treatment and torture, Karuna Devi committed suicide and thereby the appellants abetted the commission of offence of suicide by Karuna Devi. 7000/- made by appellant Binod Kumar from P.W. 3. Point No. 3 21. The next point for consideration is whether due to ill-treatment and torture, Karuna Devi committed suicide and thereby the appellants abetted the commission of offence of suicide by Karuna Devi. In this regard, the initial case of the prosecution was that when the demand of Rs. 7000- made by appellant Binod Kumar was not fulfilled he and other members of his family including father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dew of deceased Karuna Devi started torturing her and ultimately, they committed murder by setting her on fire. It further transpires that initially this case was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but after investigation, the Investigating Officer found this case of suicide and not of murder, as such he submitted chargesheet under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, the appellants were put on trial for the offence of abetment of commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. From the evidence available on record it appears that most of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of 1 the prosecution that Karunna Devi had been killed by her husband and her in-laws by setting her on fire. P.W.1 has deposed that one person of village Khaneta informed him that Karuna Devi had been killed by her in-Laws by setting her on fire. P.W. 2 at para-16 has deposed that he came to know from his father and from Anand and Gopal that his sister had been burnt to death by her husband and her inlaws. P.W. 3 has deposed at para-8 that on receiving telegram about the death of Karuna Devi, he went to village Khaneta and came to know that his daughter had been burnt to death by her husband, father-in-law, Devar, mother-in-law and Nanad. P.W. 4 Anand Kumar has also given similar evidence at para-6 of his deposition. P.W. 6, Hari Charan Mahto, who is a co-villager of the appellants, has deposed at para-1 of his deposition that the husband, father-inlaw, mother-in-law, Devar (Pramod) and Nanad of Karuna Devi had killed her. At para-2 he has deposed that he had seen Karuna Devi with burn injuries while she was being taken to Gaya by a rickshaw. P.W. 6, Hari Charan Mahto, who is a co-villager of the appellants, has deposed at para-1 of his deposition that the husband, father-inlaw, mother-in-law, Devar (Pramod) and Nanad of Karuna Devi had killed her. At para-2 he has deposed that he had seen Karuna Devi with burn injuries while she was being taken to Gaya by a rickshaw. Thus, the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the witnesses have supported the initial case of the prosecution that Karuna Devi had been burnt to death by her husband and her in-laws. However, the evidence of P.W. 5, namely, Kapurwa Devi shows that Karuna Devi had committed suicide by burning herself. 22. The contention of the defence counsel is that since most of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Karuna Devi had been killed by her husband and her in-law, as such, contrary to the said evidence, it cannot be held that Karuna Devi had committed suicide and the appellants had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide. In reply to this argument, would like to say that since P.Ws. 1,2, 3, 4 and 6 are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence as to how Karuna Devi received burn injuries, as such their evidence that Karuna Devi had been killed by her husband and in-laws by setting her on fire cannot be said to be legal evidence and cannot be admissible in the eye of law. But so far as the evidence of P.W. 5 Kapurwa Devi is concerned, I am of the view that it is the only evidence available on record with regard to the manner of the occurrence as her evidence shows that in the alleged night she was present in the house of Binod Kumar for the purpose of doing the work of mid-wife or nurse as the sister of appellant Binod Kumar had delivered a child. Her evidence shows that she herself saw Karuna Devi coming out in flames from her room. She has categorically deposed that Karuna Devi had herself set her on fire. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 5, who is the sole eye-witness of the actual occurrence and who is definitely an independent witness, establishes beyond doubt that Karuna Devi had actually committed suicide. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 5, I have no hesitation in holding that Karuna Devi had actually committed suicide. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 5, who is the sole eye-witness of the actual occurrence and who is definitely an independent witness, establishes beyond doubt that Karuna Devi had actually committed suicide. Thus, on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 5, I have no hesitation in holding that Karuna Devi had actually committed suicide. It is also established from the suggestion given to P.W.s. 3 and 5 from the side of the defence that Karuna Devi had no inclination to stay in her Sasural, as such she had committed suicide. Thus, from the materials available on record it is established beyond doubt that Karuna Devi had committed suicide in her Sasural, 23. Now the next vital question is whether there is any legal evidence on record to establish that the appellants had abetted the offence of commission of suicide by Karuna Devi. The contention of the learned defence counsel of the appellants is that there is solitary evidence of P.W. 5 that Karuna Devi had herself committed suicide but she had not uttered even a single word that the appellants had abetted the offence of commission of suicide by Karuna Devi and as such, the learned trial court has committed grave error of law in convicting the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. His contention is that conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a decision reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3562 [Vilas Pandurang Patil (appellant) vs. The State of Maharashtra (respondent)]. He has referred paragraph 10 of the said decision which runs as follows:- "It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt." Paragraph 11 of the said decision runs as follows:- In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only which the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Relying upon the decision referred to above, the learned defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove all the circumstances on which it can be held that the appellants had abetted the commission of offence of suicide by Karuna Devi. However, from perusal of the judgment of the learned lower court it appears that the learned lower court has found the following circumstances against the appellants for coming to the conclusion that the appellants had committed the offence of commission of suicide by Karuna Devi. These are as follows:- (i) that appellant Binod had demanded Rs. 7000/- from the father of Karuna Devi by way of dowry and (ii) that due to non-fulfilment of demand, Karuna Devi was tortured in her Sasural by her in-laws. Karuna Devi herself told her parents regarding torture by her inlaws and also wrote a letter regarding her ill-treatment. One Pradip Kumar Singh wrote a letter to appellant Binod Kumar informing him about the settlement of his marriage with another girl. Karuna died due to burn injuries and her dead body was cremated in haste by the appellants. In my view, all these circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the trial court have been fully established by the prosecution and I have already discussed all the circumstances in the above paragraphs of my judgment and there is no need of any repetition. In my view, all these circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the trial court have been fully established by the prosecution and I have already discussed all the circumstances in the above paragraphs of my judgment and there is no need of any repetition. However, I would like to again mention some of the important circumstances which can be the basis for coming to the conclusion that the commission of offence of suicide had been abetted by these appellants. The first circumstance is the letter of appellant Binod Kumar (Ext. 2/2) addressed to P.W. 2 in which he had accepted that he had demanded Rs. 7000/- from the father of Karuna Devi. The second circumstance is that in the year, 1983 Karuna Devi came to Jamshedpur alone having injuries on her hand and for the said injury, she was treated by Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad, a Bone Specialist of Jamshedpur. This has been amply proved by bringing on record the prescription granted by Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad (Ext. 1) and the X-Ray report dated 16.9.1983 issued by Vivek Vishal X-Ray Clinic (Ext. 4). These documents are of unimpeachable character and fully corroborate the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Karuna Devi was being tortured in her Sasural by her husband and her in-laws. The third circumstance is the letter said to have been written by the Mama of appellant Binod Kumar, namely, Pradip Kumar Singh This letter is Ext. 2. This letter has been produced in support of the oral evidence that the in-laws of Karuna Devi had planned to perform second marriage of her husband with another girl and that their attitude were indifferent towards Karuna Devi. The contents of the letter shows that the in-laws of Karuna Devi had fixed second marriage with another girl which goes to prove that the relationship between the deceased and appellant Binod Kumar had reached at a breaking point and they were in search of opportunity to get rid of Karuna Devi. The last but the most vital document in this regard is the letter of the deceased Karuna Devi which was written by Karuna Devi herself just before her death. This letter has been marked Ext. 2/ 1 and according to the evidence of P.W. 3, it was delivered to him on 25th or 26th June, 1985. The last but the most vital document in this regard is the letter of the deceased Karuna Devi which was written by Karuna Devi herself just before her death. This letter has been marked Ext. 2/ 1 and according to the evidence of P.W. 3, it was delivered to him on 25th or 26th June, 1985. The contents of the letter shows that Karuna Devi was being tortured in her Sasural in different ways and due to the atrocities committed on her, she had become mentally and physically crippled. The letter further shows that she had apprehension in her mind that she would not be alive. In my view, this letter is the best evidence in support of the prosecution case that the appellants had committed so such torture on Karuna Devi that she had alternative except to commit suicide and, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that the appellants had abetted the commission of suicide by Karuna Devi. 24 The learned defence counsel has argud that as per the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian penal Code, one of the ingredients of the said section is instigation by the accused to do certain act by the victim but so far as this case is concerned, there is no evidence that the appellants had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide. It is true that there is no direct evidence on record to prove that the appellants had instigated Karuna Devi to commit suicide but then there are sufficient circumstantial evidence on record from which an inference can be gathered that the appellants had instigated Karuna Devi to commit the offence of suicide i.e. doing assault and inflicting bodily injuries to Karuna Devi, planning to perform second marriage of the husband of Karuna Devi, namely, Binod Kumar, driving out Karuna Devi alone from her Sasural to Tata are the acts of instigation which led to the commission of suicide by Karuna Devi. Point No.4 25. The next point for consideration is whether the appellant Pramod Kumar did cause the evidence of unnatural death of Karuna Devi to disappear by disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi in haste in order to screen themselves from legal punishment. In this regard the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 are relevant. According to P.Ws. The next point for consideration is whether the appellant Pramod Kumar did cause the evidence of unnatural death of Karuna Devi to disappear by disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi in haste in order to screen themselves from legal punishment. In this regard the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 are relevant. According to P.Ws. 1 and 3, on 27.6.85 they had received information that Karuna Devi had been killed by her in-laws and then they immediately rushed to Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya and from there they went to Gaya Medical College & Hospital and when they did not find Karuna Devi there they went to Ashmasan Ghat and saw a funeral pyre burning and near the funeral pyre Jag Narayan, Pramod and Yogendra Pandit were present there. Both the witnesses have further deposed that on enquiry Jag Narayan told them that Karuna Devi had died due to burn injuries and except that he did not disclose anything. P.W. 6 Hari Narayan Mahto, who is a co-villager of the appellants, has deposed that he had seen Karuna Devi being taken away on Rickshaw in burn condition. He has further deposed that he informed P.Ws. 1 and 3 about the incident. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 further shows that the appelants did not inform them about the incident and when they reached at Ashmasan Ghatthey found appellant Pramod Kumar alongwith others disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that without giving any information to the parents and relatives of Karuna Devi, the appellant Pramod Kumar alongwith others was disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi sufficient to hold that the appellant Pramod Kumar was disposing of the dead body of Karuna Devi in order to screen himself from legal punishment. 26. From the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been fully able to prove charge under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against all the appellants. I am further of the opinion that the prosecution has also been able to prove charge under section 201 of the I.P.C. against appellant Pramod Kumar and therefore, I hold that there is no need of any interference in the judgment and order of learned lower court. I am further of the opinion that the prosecution has also been able to prove charge under section 201 of the I.P.C. against appellant Pramod Kumar and therefore, I hold that there is no need of any interference in the judgment and order of learned lower court. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against all the three appellants are confirmed and upheld. As appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Pramod Kumar and Sheo Barati Devi are on bail, as such, their bail bonds are cancelled. Accordingly, they are directed to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out the remaining period of sentence.