Judgment :- (1) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No. 126 of 1993 whereby the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to suffer further R.I. for four months each. (2) The fact leading to the filing of the criminal case is that on 16.12.1990 one Debaprasad Bhattacharjee lodged a written complaint with the Serarnpore P.S. against the accused persons stating therein that his son Jayanta Bhattacharjee was married with accused Rakhi Bhattacharjee in the year 1989. It is stated therein that since the marriage accused Rakhi Bhattacharjee and the other accused persons, being her parents used to misbehave with Jayanta and they used to torture him both physically as well as mentally. Series of troubles took place amongst the couple and the matrimonial relationship was very bitter. It is stated in the written complaint that on 15.12.1990 at about 7 p.m. accused Rakhi along with her father came to the house of Jayanta and quarreled with him. At that time, Rakhi threatened Jayanta . The de facto complainant was not present in the house at that time as he went to attend a marriage ceremony. After his return, the de facto complainant found that the body of Jayanta was hanging from a ceiling fan of the room. A suicidal note was recovered from the pocket of Jayanta wherein he clearly mentioned that his wife and his parents in law were responsible for his death. (3) On the basis of such F.I.R a case was started under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons for the said offence. During trial, charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. Accused persons have not examined any person in their defence. The defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statements as made under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is that of innocence and denial. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. Accused persons have not examined any person in their defence. The defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the statements as made under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is that of innocence and denial. (4) Learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence-on-record was of the opinion that the accused persons were guilty for the commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and as such he convicted and sentenced them accordingly. (5) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said finding of the learned Trial Judge, the accused persons/appellants has preferred this appeal. The point that is to be considered, so far this appeal is considered, is, as to whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in holding the accused persons guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide of Jayanta Bhattacharjee. Let us now see how far the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused persons/ appellants. I have already pointed out that it is the case of the prosecution that Jayanta Bhattacharjee, the husband of accused Rakhi Bhattacharjee, committed suicide. Prosecution has tried to establish by pointing out to a suicidal note, as allegedly recovered from the pocket of the deceased, in order to establish that it was the behaviour of the accused persons that compelled Jayanta Bhattacharjee to commit suicide. It may be mentioned here that even if we accept the suicidal note as a genuine document, then it will appear from the said document that Jayanta was suffering from mental depression due to his strain mental relation with his wife. In all the pages of that suicidal note, he has described his mental agony regarding his relationship with his wife. Even in the said suicidal note he has categorically mentioned that he wanted to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce. We must not forget that Jayanta was working as Police Sergeant and naturally we can safely presume that he has got a good physique and also good education. When such strain relationship was going on, then it is obvious for a husband to seek relief from the Court of law in order to get a decree of divorce for dissolving his marriage. That would have been the most natural conduct. When such strain relationship was going on, then it is obvious for a husband to seek relief from the Court of law in order to get a decree of divorce for dissolving his marriage. That would have been the most natural conduct. In fact, from the said suicidal note as well as from the evidence of Partha Sarathi Bose, Advocate, it appears that Jayanta was contemplating of filing a divorce suit. It is surprising that even then Jayanta preferred to commit suicide instead of taking such step. Simply because a husband has committed suicide that does not mean that the wife and her parents should be held responsible for the alleged instigation given by them to the husband for committing the suicide. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code clearly defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person 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 place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Quoted from the decision reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) page 1141 (Sanju alias Sanjoy Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh). In the said decision, the Apex Court further discussed another decision of the same Court where it was observed that mere saying "go and die" will not be sufficient to hold that there was direct instigation for committing suicide. The observation of the Court is to the effect "This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased to go and die were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide." It is further observed by the Apex Court that "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be Said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim befonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." (6) In another decision reported in 1989 C Cr LR (Cal) page 40 (Niharbala Banerjee and Anr. v. The State), the Division Bench of this Court observed that, " In the absence of proof of any direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide or a conspiracy or any act facilitating the commission of suicide it cannot be said that the appellants were guilty of abetment to commission of suicide by the deceased merely because they treated the deceased with cruelty. From the mere fact of cruelty, it cannot be inferred that the persons guilty of cruelty intended the commission of suicide and with that end in view perpetrated the acts of cruelty. Mens rea or complicity of the appellants as referred to above cannot be inferred from the mere proof of cruelty. In the absence of proof of any other facts and circumstances unerringly pointing to direct or indirect Incitement or intentional facilitation of the commission of to suicide, the mere fact of cruelty is not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code." (7) So it appears from the ratio as decided in those decisions that simply because there was matrimonial dispute going on in between the husband and wife as well as in between the two families and as a result of that husband committed suicide that cannot be a ground to hold the wife and her parents guilty for the offence of abetting of committing suicide. Learned Advocate for the State argued that from the suicidal note it is very much clear that Jayanta Bhattacharjee in the said note held Rakhi and her parents responsible for her death and according to him there is no reason to disbelieve such statement as made in the suicidal note. In this respect, he has relied upon the decision reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) page 434 (Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. In this respect, he has relied upon the decision reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) page 434 (Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), wherein it was observed that in view of the suicide note, offence under Section 306 was clearly proved. I have gone through the said decisions. It appears that the Honble Apex Court made such observation while hearing the petition which was filed against the order of the High Court passed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. As such, it must be presumed that the Honble Apex Court had no occasion to look into the evidence during trial. It simply considered the prima facie material and thereafter observed that since there was a suicidal note, so the prosecution case as filed against the accused persons, should not be quashed. Honble Apex Court was very much clear in this respect and in the last line of the judgment observed "we make it clear that any observation made by the High Court and by us while dismissing the present appeal shall be construed to be determinative factor in the trial." So naturally the Honble Apex Court observed that the matter should be left open for the trial Court to take appropriate view after considering the evidence on record. So far as the present case is concerned the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence and from the said evidence we are to come to a decision. If we look into the evidence- on-record, then it will appear that the main prosecution witnesses clearly observed that there was bitter matrimonial relationship, in between the Rakhi and Jayanta Bhattacharjee. It has further been observed that the relationship in between the two families was also severely bitter. I have already pointed out by citing the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as the Division of this Court that such type of bitter relationship should not be construed to be an act of abetment of committing suicide. It is really unfortunate that a young man had to commit suicide due to such bitter relationship, but that does not mean simply for that reason the wife and her parents should be held guilty for the offence of abetting. It is really unfortunate that a young man had to commit suicide due to such bitter relationship, but that does not mean simply for that reason the wife and her parents should be held guilty for the offence of abetting. (8) The learned Trial Judge, while holding the accused persons guilty for the offence of abetment did not consider all these aspects and simply relied upon the suicidal note and upon the oral evidence of some interested witnesses. In addition to that the learned Trial Judge heavily relied upon the statements made by the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and according to him since those statements were not corroborated by any evidence, so the natural conclusion would be that the claim of the prosecution should be treated to have been proved. This approach of the learned Trial Court appears to me to be not proper. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its own case by adducing sufficient reliable evidence and prosecution is not supposed to rely solely upon the statements of the accused persons made under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in order to hold the accused guilty for the offence of such nature. I have got no hesitation to hold that the approach of the learned Judge in this respect has practically caused failure of justice. (9) That apart, it is the case of the wife that the accused was in the habit of excessive drinking and he allegedly used to assault his wife. Although in order to establish this fact no evidence has been adduced by the defence, still it appears from the evidence of P.W.14 Doctor Kanchan Sarkar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, that he found smell of alcohol on the stomach of the said deceased. It necessarily means that on the. night on which Jayanta committed suicide he was under the influence of alcohol. This Doctor in his cross-examination admitted by saying, "A man under influence of liquor can do and undo anything including committing suicide." The learned Trial Judge did not pay any attention to this vital statement of this doctor. I have also perused the suicidal note very carefully wherefrom it appears clearly that the deceased was in great stress and in depressed condition. There cannot be any doubt that he was a frustrated man. I have also perused the suicidal note very carefully wherefrom it appears clearly that the deceased was in great stress and in depressed condition. There cannot be any doubt that he was a frustrated man. A plain reading of the suicide note clearly suggests that such a note is not the handy work of a man with a sound mind and sense. Coupled with these the evidence of Doctor shows that on that night of suicide, the deceased was under the influence of liquor. If such a man, having quarrel with his wife and his father-in-law, as alleged by the prosecution, commits suicide, then the responsibility cannot be attributed to the wife and to her father. From the suicidal note it further appears that the deceased himself observed therein that there was trouble on that night in between him and his wife over the possession of the minor child. As a mother, the wife Rakhi Bhattacharjee was certainly entitled to claim possession of the child and if the deceased tried to take forcible possession of the said child and in the process if there is any resistance by the wife/mother resulting in bitter quarrel in between the parties, then that cannot be termed as instigation within the meaning of Sections 306/307 of the Indian Penal Code. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge should have considered all these things before holding the accused persons guilty for the offence of abetment of committing suicide. (10) Therefore, from my above discussion, I am of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond any doubt and there is r6om for doubt regarding the claim of the prosecution that it is due to the instigation of the accused persons that the deceased committed suicide. That benefit should have been given to the accused persons and they should have been held not guilty for the offence charged with. Under such circumstances, I have got no hesitation to hold that the accused persons should be held not guilty of the offence charged with and they should be acquitted and the order of conviction as passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside. (11) In the result, the appeal and the same is allowed on contest. Under such circumstances, I have got no hesitation to hold that the accused persons should be held not guilty of the offence charged with and they should be acquitted and the order of conviction as passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside. (11) In the result, the appeal and the same is allowed on contest. The judgment and order of conviction dated 19.5.1997, as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No. 126 of 1993 is set aside. All the accused persons/appellants are held not guilty and are acquitted and are discharged from the bail bonds. (12) Send a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court record to the Court below at once for information and taking necessary action. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties.