Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 710 (GAU)

Mintu Muhuri v. State of Tripura

2011-08-25

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2011
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Heard also Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Tripura. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.03 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. S.T.85(ST)/U) of 2000 convicting and sentencing the convict Appellant No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 3 months, and also for convicting and sentencing the convict Appellant No. 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 3 months for committing offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.1.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. while Reshmi Debbarma and her younger brother Rajesh Debbarma, residents of Dhwajanagar under R.K. Pur Police Station, were returning home from the residence of their aunt Sonali Singha Roy and crossing the house of Smti. Lila Talukdar were obstructed by Mintu Muhuri and Lila Talukdar i.e. the convict Appellant No. 1 and convict Appellant No. 2 respectively. Mintu gagged and dragged Reshmi towards the back side of the dwelling hut of Lila Talukdar. Lila Talukdar detained Rajesh threatening him not to disclose the fact to anybody else. After about half an hour Resmi was released by Mintu. Then she came back to her brother and they together returned home. Out of shame and fear they could not disclose the fact to anybody instantly. In the following evening Reshmi was noticed by her mother weeping on her study table. On being enquired Rajesh disclosed to her mother the incident of sexual assault on Reshmi. Reshmi also disclosed the fact to her mother. In the following morning i.e. in the morning of 15.1.98 at about 7.30 A.M. Rekha Debbarma, mother of Reshmi accompanied by Reshmi herself, Rajesh, Sonali Singha Roy and Rakhi Debbarma visited the house of their neighbour Kanu Ghosh seeking advice and redressal. At that time Kanan Ghosh, W/o Kanu Ghosh, Mintu and Lila Talukdar were also present there. In the following morning i.e. in the morning of 15.1.98 at about 7.30 A.M. Rekha Debbarma, mother of Reshmi accompanied by Reshmi herself, Rajesh, Sonali Singha Roy and Rakhi Debbarma visited the house of their neighbour Kanu Ghosh seeking advice and redressal. At that time Kanan Ghosh, W/o Kanu Ghosh, Mintu and Lila Talukdar were also present there. In course of discussion all the neighbours blamed the victim girl and her family members since they belong to Scheduled Tribe community and all the neighbours belong to Bengali community. Reshmi charged Mintu for assaulting her sexually and remarked that if she had to die, she would die with Mintu Muhuri. With this remarks she ran away towards her residence. After a few minutes there was alarm saying fire-fire. Rekha Debbarma, Rajesh Debbarma and other relatives rushed to their residence and found smoke in their dwelling hut with doors bolted from inside. They opened the door and found Reshmi burning. Reshmi was wrapped by a quilt and the fire got extinguished. The entire body of Reshmi was found to have been burnt. She was immediately brought to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur wherefrom she was shifted to G.B. Hospital, Agartala. She died on 17.1.1998 due to 100% burn injury. A suicidal note written by Reshmi in Bengali was found by Rajesh Debbarma. It contains the fact that as Mintu S/o. Ajit Muhuri committed physical torture on her and for this reason she was ending her life urging suitable punishment for Mintu. 4. A written FIR was lodged on 16.1.98 by Rajdhan Debbarma, PW 4, father of the victim, who was serving in the police department as Head Constable at Manughat P.S. on the basis of which R.K. Pur P.S. Case No. 9/1998 was registered under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860. During investigation, the first investigating officer, Smti. Ila Deb, PW 14, seized a suicide note written in Bengali and answer script written by the deceased during her School examination from Udaipur Girls' Higher Secondary School. The charge sheet was filed by the third investigating officer Sri Paltan Laskar, PW 16, under Section 376/109/306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the matter was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, South Tripura, who made over the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Addl. The charge sheet was filed by the third investigating officer Sri Paltan Laskar, PW 16, under Section 376/109/306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the matter was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, South Tripura, who made over the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of materials collected by police framed charge under Sections 376(1) and 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused Appellant No. 1, Mintu and under Section 109 read with Section 376(1)Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Appellant No. 2, Smti. Lila Talukdar. Both of them, on being read over and explained, denied the charges. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused persons adduced 16 witnesses, but the defence adduced No. witness during trial. After conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They declined to adduce any witness in their defence. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the aforesaid accused Appellants as stated above. 5. Mr. B. Deb, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that although the convict Appellants were acquitted of charge under Section 306 and 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, the convict Appellant No. 1 was convicted and sentenced under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 while the convict Appellant No. 2 was convicted and sentenced under Section 354/109 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is not sustainable under the law, inasmuch as, there is No. cogent and reliable evidence for awarding such conviction and sentence against them. According to Mr. B. Deb, learned Counsel, the learned trial court awarded the aforesaid conviction and sentence based on the evidence of interested and related witnesses only which are not corroborated by evidence of any independent witness. He refers to the evidence of PW 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, who are father, brother, mother, uncle, aunt and sister of the victim respectively. No. villager has been examined as witness by the prosecution although the alleged incident took place in the village at around 8.30 p.m. The learned Counsel also points out that PW 1, 2, 3, are co-villagers and independent witnesses. They have given only hearsay evidence. No. villager has been examined as witness by the prosecution although the alleged incident took place in the village at around 8.30 p.m. The learned Counsel also points out that PW 1, 2, 3, are co-villagers and independent witnesses. They have given only hearsay evidence. Their evidence carries No. evidentiary value. The alleged outrage on the modesty of victim girl took place on 14.1.98 at about 8.30 p.m. and the victim girl committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire on 15.1.98 at 10 a.m., but the FIR was lodged only on 16.1.98 at about 5 p.m. without any explanation on the delay which has a vital effect on the prosecution case. Such an unexplained delay renders the prosecution story false and unbelievable. The learned Counsel further submits that PW 5, brother of the victim, who claims to be an eye witness, is not really an eye witness to the alleged sexual assault on the victim because PW 5, as per his own evidence, was detained forcefully by an unknown boy and accused/Appellant No. 2 and there was No. possibility of witnessing the incident after his sister (victim) was taken to the back side of a house. Moreover, evidence of PW 5 is full of inconsistencies and contradictions besides being uncorroborated by any witness. As for contradiction, the defence refers to the statements of PW 5 recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating officer (marked as Ext. 'A' and 'B'). The aforesaid witness was confronted with the said statements but he failed to give satisfactory reply. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Appellants argued in great force that the evidence of so called eye witnesses, particularly, PW 5 is not at all acceptable as cogent and reliable for convicting the accused/Appellants and for this reason the convict Appellants should be declared innocent and acquitted. In support of above submissions, he relies on the decisions of this Court in Sanjit Debbarma @ Khurumpui reported in (2008) 2 GLR 326 and Vijay Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 299. 6. Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. In support of above submissions, he relies on the decisions of this Court in Sanjit Debbarma @ Khurumpui reported in (2008) 2 GLR 326 and Vijay Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 299. 6. Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Tripura submits that the contradiction and/or inconsistencies as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused/Appellants are insignificant and the same can be ignored, inasmuch as, the material facts and particulars have been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence and the charges have been proved against the convict Appellants. As regards the production of the independent witnesses, he submits that there is No. law that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be accepted as a reliable piece of evidence and No. conviction can be ordered for want of evidence of independent witnesses. The charge against the present convict Appellants having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the conviction and sentence awarded by the impugned judgment and order needs No. interference and the same be upheld dismissing the appeal. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the convict Appellants, I find that the defence put up a case of total denial of the charges. It has been asserted by the defence that there was an enmity between the family of the victim and the accused persons and out of the said enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is alleged by the accused persons that the family members of the victim used to manufacture country liquor and sell it to customers in their residence and the said customers after consuming country liquor used to create nuisance in the locality for which the neighbours got annoyed. Sometimes the accused/Appellant Mintu raised objection to such illegal business for which the family members of the victim have been nourishing grudge against him and out of such grudge, accused Mintu has been falsely implicated. The defence further asserted that Smti. Rekha Debbarma, PW 6, mother of the victim used to rear ducks and the said ducks used to cause damage to fishes in the pond of Lila Talukdar (accused/Appellant No. 2) for which she used to raise objection and out of grudge she has been falsely implicated in the case. 8. The defence further asserted that Smti. Rekha Debbarma, PW 6, mother of the victim used to rear ducks and the said ducks used to cause damage to fishes in the pond of Lila Talukdar (accused/Appellant No. 2) for which she used to raise objection and out of grudge she has been falsely implicated in the case. 8. The aforesaid stand of the defence can be gathered from the question put by the defence counsel to the related witnesses, but in their statements under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the convict Appellants did not speak about the enmity between the family members of the victim and the accused/Appellants. Moreover, No. evidence has been led by the defence to prove the existence of such enmity. The allegation of enmity and false implication against the convict Appellants has not been proved. It was the burden of the defence to prove the same as the said allegation was made by the convict Appellants. The defence has failed to discharge its burden and as such the story of the defence can be disbelieved and discarded. 9. The commission of alleged suicide is a subsequent event which had taken place after the incident of sexual assault. The victim along with her mother and others met the convict Appellants and their parents demanding justice from them and when she failed to get positive response, she felt insulted and got frustrated. Before coming to the issue of commission of alleged suicide it is imperative to examine and appreciate the evidence on record to find out whether the allegation/charge of offence under Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been proved or not. The alleged incident took place on 14.1.98 at about 8.30 P.M. It was a late winter evening and it must have been cold enough and dark at that time. The incident of dragging her to the back side of the hut/house of Lila Talukdar was seen by Rajesh Debbarma, PW 5, brother of the victim. He is the only eye witness who was caught by an unknown person when Lila Talukdar put a chopper on his neck and threatened to kill him if he discloses the fact to anybody else. Behind the back side of the house what happened was not seen by Rajesh Debbarma PW 5, but he was detained till his victim sister was released. Behind the back side of the house what happened was not seen by Rajesh Debbarma PW 5, but he was detained till his victim sister was released. He saw his sister weeping when she was released. Both of them were put under threat of lives by the convict Appellants if they disclose the incident to others. The victim girl could not be examined medically to ascertain whether there was any sign of rape and mark of violence on her person because the incident could not be reported to police immediately in the evening/night of 14.1.98 out of fear. They were much afraid because they were the only tribal family in the locality. In the night of incident, after returning home, the victim was noticed by her mother crying. Her mother insisted to know the reason. On persistent insistence only, the victim disclosed the incident to her mother (PW 6) in presence of her sister Rakhi Debbarma (Das), PW 10. After knowing the said incident, Smti. Sonali Singha Roy, PW 9, was called and she was also informed about the said incident. In the following morning of the incident at about 7.30 A.M. PW 6 (mother of the victim) and PW 9, Smti. Sonali Singha Roy went to the house of Kanu Ghosh (PW 1). The convict Appellants, Mintu and Lila Talukdar were also called to the house of Kanu Ghosh and in front of all the victim told that she was ravished by Mintu. In presence of all she also declared that if she had to die, she would die with Mintu. As they were making complaint before the neighbours in the house of Kanu Ghosh all of them were insulted. Unable to bear such insult the victim girl left the place immediately for her house and after few moments there was an alarm 'Fire Fire' in the house of the victim. PW 5 and PW 6 rushed to their house. The room of the deceased which was found bolted from inside and as it was forced open she was found in flames and being burnt. She was removed to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur and thereafter shifted to G.B. Hospital, Agartala with 100% burn injuries. There is No. ocular and/or medical evidence to prove the charge of rape on the victim against the convict Appellant, Mintu. She was removed to Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur and thereafter shifted to G.B. Hospital, Agartala with 100% burn injuries. There is No. ocular and/or medical evidence to prove the charge of rape on the victim against the convict Appellant, Mintu. But the victim along with her brother (PW 5) while returning from their uncle's house were stopped near the house of convict Lila Talukdar. An unknown boy caught PW 5 and the Appellant Lila Talukdar put a chopper on his neck and at the same time Mintu, after gagging his sister's mouth by a piece of cloth dragged her behind the hut/house. Both PW 5 and the victim could not cry for help and naturally nobody could come to the place of occurrence at that point of time. Under such circumstances, No. eye witness to the said incident could be found. As already said earlier, the victim's brother also could not see whether her sister was ravished or not by the convict Mintu. There is, therefore, No. evidence to prove the charge under Section 376(I) Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charge under Section 376(I) Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the convict Appellants could not be established. But it is well established that the modesty of the victim girl was outraged, inasmuch as, she was forcibly dragged and taken towards the back side of the hut/house to be released after half an hour. The convict Appellant, Mintu was a young boy of 23 years as disclosed in his statement made under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Why should he gagged and dragged a young girl like Resmi and took her forcibly behind a hut in the winter evening without any bad intention. She confined her at least for half an hour. The natural presumption is that he outraged her modesty. With the evidence on record it is difficult to hold that the convict Appellant, Mintu is guilty under Section 376(I) Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the charge could not be proved against him beyond all reasonable doubt. He can be acquitted of the charge under Section 376(I) Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, can he escape from conviction and punishment under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860? He can be acquitted of the charge under Section 376(I) Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, can he escape from conviction and punishment under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860? The answer should be obviously in the negative as because, PW 5, brother of the victim witnessed the incident and testified convincingly that her sister was dragged and forcibly taken behind a hut/house by Mintu, No. matter, whether PW 5 could see or not as to what had happened behind the hut. The evidence is enough for coming to a conclusion that the convict Appellant, Mintu used criminal force on the victim girl with intention to outrage her modesty. To have a clear appreciation of the purport of Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is reproduced hereunder: Section 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty,---Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 10. The manner in which the victim girl was forcibly dragged clearly demonstrate the ill intent of the convict Appellant, Mintu and it requires No. further evidence that he outraged her modesty, inasmuch as, it is provided in the aforesaid section that assaults or use of criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty would be enough to convict and punish a person there under. PW 5, in his deposition narrated how his sister was forcibly dragged away. To put the same in his own words "we took our meal on the request of aunt and at around 7.30 p.m. we were returning to home crossing the house of Lila Talukdar. When both of us reached the house of Lila Talukdar I was caught by an unknown boy when Lila Talukdar put a chopper on my neck and threatened to kill me if I disclose the fact to anybody else. At that time Mintu dragged my sister Reshmi by gagging a cloth into her mouth to the back side of the hut/house of Lila Talukdar. After about half an hour my sister was released till then I was confined by Lila Talukdar and the other boy. At that time Mintu dragged my sister Reshmi by gagging a cloth into her mouth to the back side of the hut/house of Lila Talukdar. After about half an hour my sister was released till then I was confined by Lila Talukdar and the other boy. My sister was weeping when she was released by Mintu. I was threatened by Mintu with a slap that if I disclose the fact then I would be killed". 11. The evidence of forcibly taking the victim behind the hut, as I find from the deposition of PW 5, has remained unshattered. So far as the evidence on rape against the convict Mintu, it is found to be unacceptable and unsafe for conviction. However, on the basis of said evidence Court can convict and punish the accused under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Use of criminal force against the victim having been established, there is No. bar on the court to hold the accused liable for punishment under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860. This is exactly what has happened to the victim girl and the learned trial court found the convict Mintu guilty and as such the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial court is not liable to be interfered. 12. Now I come to the charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e. punishment for abetment of suicide. Before establishment of charge of abetment, the prosecution has to prove whether death occurred to a person and such death took place due to commission of suicide. Then only question of abetment would arise. In the present case, the victim was a young lady with dreams and hopes like other young girls. She was living a normal life till the incident of ravishment on her took place. Due to various obvious reasons, she was feeling ashamed and could not disclose the incident to others but due to insistence she disclosed it to her mother. Her mother with an aim to get justice came to the house of village elder Sri Kanu Ghosh, where the accused persons and other villagers were called, but the accused persons insulted them due to which the victim girl got terribly shocked in her mind that became unbearable for her. Her mother with an aim to get justice came to the house of village elder Sri Kanu Ghosh, where the accused persons and other villagers were called, but the accused persons insulted them due to which the victim girl got terribly shocked in her mind that became unbearable for her. Her complaint was not heard by other villagers and on being so insulted, she rushed to her house, bolted the door from inside and set fire on herself. The medical officer recorded 100% burn injuries and she (victim girl) succumbed to such burn injuries. There is No. allegation and/or material to the effect that she was set fire by other person while she was inside the room. The evidence is that she was alone inside the room and the door was bolted from inside. From such evidence there is No. other view that can be taken by the court except the one that the victim committed suicide by burning herself inside the room. No. further discussion is necessary as regard the proved fact of commission of suicide by her. The establishment of fact of committing suicide takes the court to another most important question that is to say, whether the convict Appellants abetted the victim to commit suicide. 13. It is an indisputable fact that the incident of sexual assault on the victim took place just in the previous night of the incident of commission of suicide by her. There is a clear evidence on record that she and her mother was insulted by the convict Appellants and other villagers at the house of Kanu Ghosh when they reported the incident of sexual assault committed by the convicts. The insulted victim girl was deeply anguished and shocked. The mental shock and hurt she received was too serious for her to tolerate and that has compelled her to take the extreme step to finish her own life. Sri Kanu Ghosh in whose house a gathering was held to discuss the alleged ravishment on the victim was examined as PW 1. What happened in the house of Kanu Ghosh and how the victim reacted can be found in the deposition of Kanu Ghosh. Sri Kanu Ghosh in whose house a gathering was held to discuss the alleged ravishment on the victim was examined as PW 1. What happened in the house of Kanu Ghosh and how the victim reacted can be found in the deposition of Kanu Ghosh. His deposition runs as follows: About four years back on certain Thursday at about 7 a.m Resmi Debbarma, her mother wife of Rajdhan Debbarma along with Mintu Mohari, Chhya Rani Das and 5/6 other relatives of Rajdhan Debbarma came to my house. Mother of Resmi told me that in the night of last Tuesday Mintu Mohari committed rape on Resmi behind the house of Lila Talukdar of Dhajanager who is my neighbour. Lila Talukdar was residing on rent in the house of Subhas Nama my neighbour. In the meantime, Mintu Mohari was sitting in my dwelling hut. Mother of Resmi asked Resmi to go inside my dwelling hut and ask Mintu to the incident of rape happened to her. Resmi entered into my dwelling hut and had certain talk with Mintu which I did not hear as I was outside the hut. After some time Resmi came out of the dwelling hut in anger telling that if she had to die she would die with Mintu. Thereafter all of them left my house. I heard that on the same day at around 8/9 a.m. Resmi set fire to her body at her residence. She was taken to the hospital with burn injuries initially at Udaipur and thereafter to G.B. Hospital, Agartala. I did not see her in injured condition. The witness identified accused Mintu Mohari and Lila Talukdar present in the court on the dock. When Resmi, her mother and other people as stated above visited my house my wife Kanan Bala Ghosh was also present in the house. 14. The wife of Kanu Ghosh, Smti Kanan Bala Ghosh, was also examined as PW 2. She has substantially corroborated the evidence of her husband by deposition as under: About four years back on certain Thursday at about 7/8 a.m. Resmi Debbarma, her mother wife of Rajdhan Debbarma and some other relatives and neighbour came to my house. One Chhyarani Das also came to my house to collect water. Mother of Resmi told me that in the evening of previous Tuesday Resmi was raped by Mintu Mohari. One Chhyarani Das also came to my house to collect water. Mother of Resmi told me that in the evening of previous Tuesday Resmi was raped by Mintu Mohari. Mintu Mohari was sitting in my dwelling hut when I was sitting on the verandah. Resmi had some talk with Mintu Mohari in the dwelling hut and came out telling that if she had to die she would die with Mintu Mohari. Thereafter all of them left my house. After 15/20 minutes of leaving my house I heard that Resmi set fire to her body at her residence. I could not go due to my illness. I heard that Resmi died due to burn injuries. The witness identified Mintu Mohari present in the court on the dock. I was also told by mother of Resmi that the incident of rape on Resmi by Mintu Mohari was committed behind the dwelling hut of Lila Talukdar. The witness also identified Lila Talukdar present in the court on the dock. 15. One more witness, namely, Smti. Chhaya Rani Das, PW 3 also deposed in similar manner corroborating the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, which are as follows: Four years back on the Ist day of Magha a Thursday at around 8 a.m. I went to the house of Kanu Ghosh at Dhajanagar to fetch water when I saw there Resmi, her mother and some of their relatives and Mintu Mohari in that house. I heard mother of Resmi to ask Mintu as to why he ravished her daughter Resmi on the previous Tuesday in the evening behind the house of Lila Talukdar. After hearing this I proceeded to collect water and I did not hear the reply of Mintu Mohari. When I was proceeding with water I saw Resmi to leave the house saying that she would die with Mintu Mohari. I heard that at around 9/9-30 a.m. on the same day Resmi set fire on her body at her residence. I did not go to see her. She ultimately died of the burn injuries. The witness identified Mintu Mohari and Lila Talukdar present in the court on the dock. 16. Above are the corroborated evidence of 3 independent witnesses. I heard that at around 9/9-30 a.m. on the same day Resmi set fire on her body at her residence. I did not go to see her. She ultimately died of the burn injuries. The witness identified Mintu Mohari and Lila Talukdar present in the court on the dock. 16. Above are the corroborated evidence of 3 independent witnesses. Supporting the evidence of related witnesses, namely, PW 5 and PW 6, brother and mother respectively of the victim who also deposed on the fact how the victim after being insulted left the house of Kanu Ghosh and ran to her house to commit suicide. The evidence on record has established that the victim along with her mother, brother and other persons came to the house of PW-1, Sri Kanu Ghosh and convict Appellants were also called to his house. The victim met the convict Appellant, Mintu in the house of PW 1 and they had a brief talk there. From the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, it appears that there was a talk between the victim and the convict Mintu and thereafter she (victim) left the house of PW 1, Kanu Ghosh telling every body present at the residence of Kanu Ghosh that if she had to die, she would die with Mintu. Just 15/20 minutes thereafter the victim committed suicide by setting fire on her body in a closed room of her residence. It is, therefore, found that the commission of suicide had a direct bearing with the incident of ravishment and her failure to get justice from the co-villagers. It could not be brought on record the contents of talk between the convict Appellant, Mintu and the victim in the house of PW 1, but it has been established that just after a brief talk with Mintu, she left the house of Kanu Ghosh with the above utterance in presence of all the persons at the house of Kanu Ghosh and just after few minutes, she did really finish her life. The fact of death and commission of suicide, thus, stood established. There is No. other plausible reason for this young lady to commit suicide, except the mental shock she received after she was insulted and denied justice by the co-villagers. 17. The recovery and seizure of suicidal note written by the victim girl has a bearing with the incident of her suicide. There is No. other plausible reason for this young lady to commit suicide, except the mental shock she received after she was insulted and denied justice by the co-villagers. 17. The recovery and seizure of suicidal note written by the victim girl has a bearing with the incident of her suicide. The evidentiary value of the said suicidal note has been questioned by the defence. I do not want to spare time for discussion on it. The question of abetment to commit suicide by the victim is not dependent on any documentary evidence, like suicide note. In my considered view, the circumstantial evidence found in this case and as discussed above has established the link between the prime incident i.e. ravishment of the girl and her failed demand for justice coupled with insult in the house of Kanu Ghosh that has immediately led the victim to commit suicide within few minutes after she met the convict Appellant, Mintu in the house of Kanu Ghosh and got insulted thereat. This circumstantial evidence goes strongly against the Appellants and it brings home the charge of abetment. The law of evidence gives higher weight to circumstantial evidence than it does to direct evidence because it is always said and accepted that man may lie but circumstances do not. For this reason it is always thought prudent to rely on sure available circumstances as against the oral evidence of witnesses. Support of this proposition of law can be found in Anant Lagu v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC 500 . In the said case medical evidence on murder by poisoning was found negative, yet on the basis of circumstantial evidence, guilt was found proved. 18. The available circumstantial evidence as narrated above speaks volumes about abetment of the Appellants in committing suicide by the victim girl. Under Section 107 Indian Penal Code, 1860, a person is said to abet commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clauses 'First' or 'secondly' or 'thirdly'. Clause 'First' of Section 107 Indian Penal Code, 1860 speaks about instigating a person to do a thing. Instigate, in simple dictionary meaning, means to make start or happen. Abet means to help or encourage to do wrong. The victim girl was instigated to take the extreme action to end her life. Clause 'First' of Section 107 Indian Penal Code, 1860 speaks about instigating a person to do a thing. Instigate, in simple dictionary meaning, means to make start or happen. Abet means to help or encourage to do wrong. The victim girl was instigated to take the extreme action to end her life. She would not have taken recourse to commit suicide if she was not denied justice and got insulted by the accused Appellants. It was the Appellants who encouraged the victim to do the wrong act of committing suicide. So, the Appellants are abettors of the wrong act. There was No. earthly reason for a normal young lady like the victim girl to do the wrong act like commission of suicide but for instigation or encouragement to do so by the convict Appellants. The instigation/encouragement to commit suicide is apparent. The Appellants acted as instigators. So, they are abettors 19. The presence of above solid circumstantial evidence, disinclines me to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial court in regard to the finding of conviction and sentence handed down on the accused Appellants. The conviction and sentence under challenge is not liable to be interfered with. It, therefore, stands upheld. The appeal naturally stands dismissed. The learned trial court shall take necessary steps to take the convict Appellants into custody to serve the sentence. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Return the LCR forthwith. Appeal dismissed.