Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 658 (GAU)

Jiban Das v. State of Tripura

2009-09-11

C.R.SARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This Appeal under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Code of Criminal Procedure ) is directed against the judgment and Order dated 08.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura in S.T. 89 (WT/A) of 2002. By the impugned judgment and Order, the Appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 498A and 306Indian Penal Code (herein after called "Indian Penal Code") and thereby sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (for short R.I.) for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and also to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Order of conviction and sentences, the Appellant has come up with the present appeal on the ground that the order of conviction was made without sufficient substantive evidence. 3. I have heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Public Prosecutor in-charge appearing for the State-Respondent. 4. The prosecution case in brief may be stated as follows: Smt. Putul Bardhan (herein after called the deceased) was given in marriage to Shri Jiban Das (herein after called the Appellant) in the month of June, 1998 A.D. as per social custom. On 04.06.2000, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison in her marital home. Accordingly, Shri Litan Bardhan, the elder brother of the (PW 1) deceased, on 05.06.2009, lodged a FIR with the O.C., West Tripura Police Station alleging that the Appellant, and other family members of the Appellant including his parents and married sister used to torture and ill treat the deceased demanding dowry, for which an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the Appellant, by which amount the Appellant purchased a second hand scooter. Even after payment of the said amount towards purchase of the scooter, the Appellant and other family members used to physically and mentally torture the deceased, demanding her to bring more money from her paternal house. It was further alleged, in the FIR that, having failed to stand the torture inflicted upon her, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Even after payment of the said amount towards purchase of the scooter, the Appellant and other family members used to physically and mentally torture the deceased, demanding her to bring more money from her paternal house. It was further alleged, in the FIR that, having failed to stand the torture inflicted upon her, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case under Section 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code and launched investigation into the matter. During the investigation, police prepared the inquest report of the dead body, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination and recorded the statement of the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the Appellant and four others and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. The offence under Section 306 IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellant for the offence under Section 498 A/306 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Charges on the same count were also framed against other four accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited some documents including inquest report, post mortem report etc. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record, held the Appellant guilty of the offences under Section 498 A and 306 Indian Penal Code and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The other four accused persons, who were also tried together, were acquitted on benefit of doubt. 5. Mr. P. K. Biswas, the learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that there is no substantive evidence to show that the Appellant had, in any manner, abated the deceased in committing the suicide by consuming poison and as such, the conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was not based on evidence. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond on reasonable doubt, that the Appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty in such a manner as was likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health or that she was harassed with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for dowry. 6. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P., refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty demanding dowry and that she was compelled to commit suicide due to such ill treatment. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution could establish the charges brought against the Appellant and that the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality by recording the conviction and the sentences as aforesaid. 7. On 05.06.2000, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Das, (PW 19) performed the post mortem examination, in respect of the dead body of the deceased. Upon examination, the Medical officer found the following injuries: Rigormortis present all over the major joints. Post mortem staining present over back except the pressure areas over buttocks and calves. Eyes were semi open and mouth closed. No antimortem external injury present over the body. Following post mortem injuries were found: 1. Abrassion 3cm x 1.5cm present over upper part of left side of neck. 2. Abrassion 5 cm x 1/2 cm present over left cheek. 3. Abrassion 4 cm x 2.5 cm present over the front of neck. 4. Abrassion 5 cm x 2 cm present over left axila. All the injuries were most likely caused by ants. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Exhibit No. 10. According to the medical officer, on the basis of the CFSL report in respect of the viscera as well as his findings in the autopsy, the cause of death was poisoning. In his cross-examination, he stated that as per the CFSL examination report in respect of the viscera no common poison was found, but high boiling fraction of hydro-carbon, which was available in insecticide could be detected. From the medical evidence aforesaid, it has been established that deceased died due to poisoning. There is no evidence on record to find that the said poison was administered on her. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. The stand taken by the prosecution was that the deceased was harassed and abated to commit suicide. Therefore, it is to be examined, if the prosecution could establish the said plea/version by adding cogent and substantive evidence. 8. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. The stand taken by the prosecution was that the deceased was harassed and abated to commit suicide. Therefore, it is to be examined, if the prosecution could establish the said plea/version by adding cogent and substantive evidence. 8. In order to establish the commission of offence under Section 498A, the existence of the following essential ingredients are to be proved: 1. That the victim was a married lady (or a widow). 2. That she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of her husband. 3. That such cruelty consisted of either (a) harassment of the woman with a view to coerce meeting a demand for dowry or (b) a conduct by the husband or the relative of her husband of such a nature as is likely to lead to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health. 4. Such injury aforesaid may be physical or mental. 9. For holding a person guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC, it is to be established that the deceased committed suicide on being abetted by others. 10. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 in the following manner: 107. Abetment of a thing. --A person abets the doing of a thing, who -- First -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly --Engages with one or more other person nor 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. 11. As the deceased was a married woman, being the wife of the Appellant, we are required to examine whether there was sufficient, cogent and substantive evidence in support of availability of said ingredients of Sections 498A Indian Penal Code and 306 Indian Penal Code in the present case. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and Order, I deem it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record as follows: Mr. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and Order, I deem it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record as follows: Mr. Litan Bardhan, the informant, deposing as PW 1 stated that at the time of marriage of his sister i.e. the deceased, as per agreement, they had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the bride along with gold ornaments, utensils and furniture etc. and that due to poor financial condition they could not give a Bajaj scooter in spite of demand made at the time of the marriage. This witness further stated that due to their failure to give the scooter, the Appellant and other members of his family used to utter filthy words and neglect the deceased in all manner for which he had paid the Appellant an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, for purchasing a scooter. According to this witness, even after purchased of the scooter with the said money, the in-laws of the deceased continued to assault and mal-treat her demanding more money. He also stated that, while visiting their house, the deceased told him that she was abused with filthy words and subjected to harassment and neglect. The PW 1 has exhibited the FIR lodged by him, as Exhibit 1 and his signature thereon as Exhibit 1/1. The PW 1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. His statement regarding demand of the scooter and subsequent payment of Rs. 25,000/- could not be negated. Therefore, it stood established that there was demand for providing one scooter and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the Appellant. This witness further stated that his sister was ill treated and abused in filthy words and that she was subjected to harassment demanding further amount. Though this witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, his evidence regarding harassment, ill treatment due to failure to meet the demand of dowry amount could not be demolished. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 1 it appears that the Appellant used to harass the deceased with a view to coercing her to meet the unlawful demand for money and scooter etc. But, from evidence of PW 1, nothing could be found regarding physical torture or such harassment, which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 1 it appears that the Appellant used to harass the deceased with a view to coercing her to meet the unlawful demand for money and scooter etc. But, from evidence of PW 1, nothing could be found regarding physical torture or such harassment, which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Regarding instigation or aiding to commit suicide, the PW 1 did not state anything. In my considered view, the evidence of the P W 1 regarding demand for dowry and the alleged harassment, neglect and maltreatment were not the sufficient to believe that the same amounted to instigation to commit suicide. Shri Chinta Haran Bardhan (PW 2), who was the uncle of the deceased while supporting the evidence of the P W 1 regarding payment of cash along with other articles at the time of marriage, stated that the deceased, during her visit to his house told him that her husband and parents in-laws used to utter 'un-usual' words, causing her mentally hurt, for not giving the scooter. He supported the PW 1's evidence regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards the purchase of the scooter. This witness further stated that the deceased told him that her husband and parents in-law used to put pressure on her in different manner for bringing money from her paternal home and that they used to pick up quarrel with her on such matter. According to this witness, the deceased visited his residence 2-3 days prior to her death and she told him that she was pressurized for bringing money. This witness did not state anything regarding physical torture or other harassment, which was unbearable. From the evidence of the PW 2, it appears that the Appellant had demanded money for purchasing a scooter and that the deceased was compelled to bring money from her parents. It is also revealed that she was mentally hurt by uttering un-usual words. This witness was also duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. But, nothing could be brought out to discredit his evidence regarding payment of the said amounts and ill treatment meted out to the deceased. PW 3, 4, 5 and 6 stated nothing incriminating against the accused/Appellant. PW 4, 5 and 6 were the neighbour of the Appellant. This witness was also duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. But, nothing could be brought out to discredit his evidence regarding payment of the said amounts and ill treatment meted out to the deceased. PW 3, 4, 5 and 6 stated nothing incriminating against the accused/Appellant. PW 4, 5 and 6 were the neighbour of the Appellant. As they indicated their ignorance about the occurrence, the prosecution cross-examined them and on their cross-examination also, nothing could be established against the Appellant. PW 3 was seizure list witness, in whose presence a bottle of poison was seized by the Investigating officer. Smt. Smriti Bardhan, mother of the deceased deposing as PW 7 supported the evidence of PW 1 and 2 regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- as demanded by the Appellant for purchasing a scooter. PW 7 in her evidence stated that the deceased was tortured and harassed requiring her to bring further money from her parents. She further stated that the deceased was beaten up by her husband in presence of Smt. Rakhi. Rakhi was the younger sister of the deceased. According to this witness, Rakhi reported her that the deceased's husband had told the deceased that if she could not bring money from her house then she should not survive and that she should die taking poison or by hanging. This evidence was hearsay evidence. The prosecution did not examine Rakhi Biswas to prove the said contention. Therefore, the said evidence being hearsay evidence and not being corroborated by any independent evidence, cannot be accepted as substantive evidence against the Appellant. This witness further stated that the deceased, before her death, while visiting her parent's house told her (PW 7) that she was beaten by her husband and that she was told to commit suicide. She further stated that she had taken the deceased to the house of her husband and requested the family members not to ill treat her. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that 2 to 3 days prior to her death, the deceased had visited her paternal house and she had told her mother that her husband had beaten her and asked her to commit suicide. It is also found that the deceased stayed for about 5 to 6 days in her paternal house. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that 2 to 3 days prior to her death, the deceased had visited her paternal house and she had told her mother that her husband had beaten her and asked her to commit suicide. It is also found that the deceased stayed for about 5 to 6 days in her paternal house. There is no corroboration in the evidence of the PW 7, that her daughter was beaten up or that she was asked by her husband to commit suicide. If the Appellant had said so then the PW 1, who was her brother, should have known this matter. But the silence of P W1 on this point raises doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the PW 7. That apart, failure of the prosecution to examine Smt. Rakhi makes it doubtful if the deceased was beaten and asked to take poison by her husband. Therefore, for want of corroboration, it cannot be safely believed that the deceased was beaten up and asked by her husband to commit suicide. Supporting the evidence of PW 1, 2 and 7 Mr. Adhir Chandra Choudhury, who deposed as PW 8 stated that apart from payment of Rs. 20,000/-, at the time of marriage of the deceased, another amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the Appellant for purchasing a scooter. This witness stated that prior to the payment of said Rs. 25,000/-, the deceased had told him that she was badly treated in her husband's house for nonpayment of the said amount. This witness used to visit the marital home of the deceased. He, nowhere, stated regarding other harassment or physical torture meted out to the deceased. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that there was demand for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing a scooter and that the deceased was badly (ill) treated till such payment was made. Therefore, from the said evidence of the PW 8, it does not appear that after the payment of Rs. 25,000/- also the Appellant continued to harass the deceased, coercing her to bring more money or for fulfilling any unlawful demand. 25,000/- for purchasing a scooter and that the deceased was badly (ill) treated till such payment was made. Therefore, from the said evidence of the PW 8, it does not appear that after the payment of Rs. 25,000/- also the Appellant continued to harass the deceased, coercing her to bring more money or for fulfilling any unlawful demand. From the evidence of PW 8 who had the occasion to meet the deceased, nothing is found to believe that the deceased was subjected to such harassment so as likely to drive her to commit suicide or that she was instigated in any manner to commit suicide due to the act on the part of the Appellant. PW 9, Smt. Rinku Choudhury, who was the negotiator of the marriage between the deceased and the Appellant, also supported the prosecution version regarding payment of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of the marriage and the subsequent payment of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing the scooter. This witness stated that she used to visit the in-laws' house of the deceased and that she was told by the deceased that she was badly treated for the demand of the scooter. She clearly stated that the said ill treatment and demand for scooter was made prior to payment of the said amount. Subsequent to the said payment, towards purchase of the scooter, when this witness visited the deceased in her in-laws' house she did not tell her anything in presence of the members of her in-laws. According to this witness, the members of deceased's paternal family told her that the deceased was not properly treated in her husband's house. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, during her cross-examination, she stated that she had stated before the police that the deceased told her that for not giving the scooter within 3 months of the marriage, the father, the mother and the younger brother of the Appellant had beaten her up and abused the deceased with filthy words. She further stated that Sabita and others had told her that, on 04.06.2000 in the evening, the deceased was beaten up physically. From the statement of the said witness, it appears that to her information the torture and harassment was caused prior to the payment of money for purchasing the scooter. She further stated that Sabita and others had told her that, on 04.06.2000 in the evening, the deceased was beaten up physically. From the statement of the said witness, it appears that to her information the torture and harassment was caused prior to the payment of money for purchasing the scooter. Her statement regarding physical assault caused on 04.06.2000 was based on the information receipt from Sabita and others. This being hearsay evidence cannot be used against the accused without corroboration. Smti Sabita and such other persons, who reported her were not examined as witnesses. P W 10, a police Constable supported the seizure of a bajaj scooter by the I.O. PW 11, a police Constable accompanied the dead body for post mortem examination and he identified the same. PW 12 was a seizure list witness. P W13 heard about the suicide committed by the deceased. PW 14 was tendered by the prosecution. PW 15, a sub Inspector of Police received the FIR and he registered the case. P W16 a neighbour of the Appellant stated nothing in favour of the prosecution. P W 17 stated regarding seizure of a bajaj scooter from the Appellant. He stated that the said scooter was purchased by the Appellant on 05.08.2000. PW 18 a Sub Inspector of Police has exhibited the inquest report, prepared by him as Exhibit 2. 13. Carefully considering the entire evidence on record, as discussed above, more particularly, the un-impeachable evidence of PW 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9, it is found to be established that the Appellant used to ill treat the deceased demanding dowry including a scooter from her parents. The harassment was to meet the said unlawful demand for property. All of the said witnesses corroborated each others evidence regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards purchase of the scooter and the allegation of harassment/ill treatment meted out to the deceased towards meeting such demand. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the light of the above evidence, the commission of the offence under Section 498A has been duly proved against the Appellant and as such, the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality by convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 498 A IPC. 14. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the light of the above evidence, the commission of the offence under Section 498A has been duly proved against the Appellant and as such, the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality by convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 498 A IPC. 14. Now coming to the offence alleged to be committed under Section 306 IPC, this Court is required to examine if the said harassment has likely to drive the demand to commit suicide. Except the evidence of the PW 7 i.e. the mother of the deceased there is no other evidence indicating that the deceased was physically tortured and instigated to commit suicide. If the mother of the deceased could come to know about such behaviour/act on the part of the Appellant, there was no reason as to why the PW 1 (brother) did not know about this and as to why he did not support his mother's evidence in this regard. The P W 1, nowhere stated that his sister i.e. the deceased during her stay in their house, had divulged anything regarding physical torture and instigation to commit suicide, or of such unbearable harassment. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code drew presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Admittedly, the deceased died within 4 years from the date of her marriage and the allegation of subjecting her to harassment demanding dowry has been established. Section 113 A reads as follows: 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. 15. 15. A careful reading of the said provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 indicates that when the question regarding abetting of a woman to commit suicide comes and it is shown that her husband or relatives had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide have been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Therefore, in view of the above, cruelty followed by suicide does not automatically and conclusively led to the exclusive conclusion that there was abetment by the husband or by such relative of her husband, to commit suicide. Such conclusion is required to be drawn having regard to all other circumstances of the case. Therefore, the existing circumstances of a given case, leading to the suicide are also to be considered. Such presumption is subject to the available circumstances and the fact situation of the case. In the case of Anand Kumar v. State of M.P. 2009 AIR SCW 2786 the Hon'ble Apex Court, while drawing the difference of Section 113A and113B of the Evidence Act held that in a conviction recorded under Section 306 it relates to Section113A and though the presumption against the accused has to be raised therein as well, the onus is not as heavy as in the case of a dowry death. 16. In the case of Rajbabu and Anr. v. State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 3212 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: Section 113A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word "cruelty" in Section 498A, IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattishgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein this Court observed-- 12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26.12.1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative or her husband. Parliament has charged to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is, not mandatory: it is only permissive as the employment of expression 'may presume' suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to all the other circumstances of the case. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -- 'the other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. Inspite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may presume' used in Section 113A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says - Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. 17. In the light of the above, in the present case, it is necessary to examine if the cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased was of such nature and degree that the same was sufficient to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The elder brother of the deceased as PW 1 stated about use of 'filthy words' and subjecting her to harassment and neglect for non-payment of the amount towards purchase of a scooter and subsequent assault and maltreatment, lie did not state the nature and degree of assault and mal-treatment. PW 2. whose house was usually visited by the deceased, stated regarding 'putting pressure on her in different manner' for bringing money from her parent's house. He also did not state anything about the type of pressure and regarding physical assault as well as the degree of harassment. Though the PW 7, i.e. the mother of the deceased stated about the beating and the instigation to commit suicide, there is no corroboration in support of her evidence. According to PW 8, the harassment continued till the payment of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing the scooter. This witness also did not state regarding physical torture or the nature of the harassment. The evidence of this witness suggest that the harassment came to end, after payment of Rs. 25,000/-. According to PW 8, the harassment continued till the payment of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing the scooter. This witness also did not state regarding physical torture or the nature of the harassment. The evidence of this witness suggest that the harassment came to end, after payment of Rs. 25,000/-. According to PW 9, the deceased was badly treated demanding a scooter and that such ill treatment related to the period prior to payment towards purchase of the scooter. Therefore, I find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of PW 9 and PW 8 to believe that the harassment or ill-treatment continued till the payment of money towards the purchase of the scooter. Therefore, there is no sufficient reason to believe that such ill treatment was the cause of death of the deceased, as the ill treatment did not continue after the said payment. None of the said witnesses, including the brother of the deceased, stated anything regarding physical torture or harassment of such a nature, which was unbearable and sufficient to lead to commit suicide. In view of the above evidence on record, it is quite doubtful as to whether the Appellant had abated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the attending circumstances of this case does not inspire confidence to draw statutory presumption that there was abetment in committing the suicide. It is settled law that in a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the event of availability of two inferences, one giving favour of the accused person and other in favour of the prosecution, it is always safe to give the benefit to the accused. 18. In view of the above discussion. I am inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused had committed the offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence made under Section 306 Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to stand. 19. In the light of the above, this appeal is partly allowed upholding the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 498A and setting aside the conviction and sentence made under Section 306IPC. The Appellant be set at liberty forth with from the liability of the offence under Section 306 IPC. He shall also be set at liberty if he has already served out the sentence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code as per law.