JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. These appeals are tied together for disposing by a common judgment and order on consideration that both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-2-2005 as passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in ST 61/(WT/ A) of 2003 by convicting and sentencing Kishore Debnath, the appellant No. 3 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005, Jatindra Debnath alias Jatan Debnath, the appellant No. 1 in the Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005, Kanailal Debnath, the appellant No. 2 in Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, in the payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 1 year each under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment and order, Smti. Bhabani Debnath, the appellant No. 1 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 and Smti. Aparna Debnath, the appellant No. 2 in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 are convicted under Section 305 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, in the payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 1 year. 2. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 14 of 2005 and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 15 of 2005 contended in unison that the judgment of conviction is not based on any legal evidence and the findings those are returned are palpably wrong and perverse. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted further that if the evidence as led by the prosecution be revisited, it would be apparent that the finding of conviction as returned be at once set aside on acquitting the appellants from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Mr. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted further that if the evidence as led by the prosecution be revisited, it would be apparent that the finding of conviction as returned be at once set aside on acquitting the appellants from the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional PP representing the State while resisting such submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants stated that there are some evidence against the appellants but in his usual fairness submitted that the materials to establish the charge under Section 306 of the IPC may not be available as required to return a finding under Section 306 of the IPC without reasonable doubt. 4. Irrespective of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it needs that the relevant facts be noticed and the evidence as led by the prosecution be appreciated afresh to examine the challenge. 5. The prosecution was launched against the appellants on the basis of a complaint filed by one Kalidas Debnath (P.W. 1) who stated in his written ejahar that Parbati Debnath daughter of Late Harendra Debnath, aged about 18 years was his niece. She knew how to read and write and for about four months she was in love with Kishore Debnath son of Jatindra Debnath of village-Aralia and they all knew Kishore would marry Parbati. Kishore Debnath used to come to Parvati's house very often and Parvati also used to visit Kishore Debnath's house very often. Kishore took his niece Parvati to his house in the evening of 18-8-2002 and no sooner had she been taken to his house, Kishore's father Jatindra Debnath, uncle Balailal Debnath, Kishore's mother and sister all assaulted Parvati and cropped her locks. At that time, Kishore was also present there but he did not raise any protest and having sustained injuries as a result of their assault, Parvati declined to return home stating that she would commit suicide. She was then persuaded and thus brought home and at about 9 O'clock in the morning of 19-8-2002, she set herself ablaze being unable to bear the insult and injury resulting from their assault. Her entire body was burnt. She was admitted to G.B.P. Hospital and on 19-8-2002 in the afternoon she died in the said hospital. She was then persuaded and thus brought home and at about 9 O'clock in the morning of 19-8-2002, she set herself ablaze being unable to bear the insult and injury resulting from their assault. Her entire body was burnt. She was admitted to G.B.P. Hospital and on 19-8-2002 in the afternoon she died in the said hospital. It was on account of being unable to bear the insult inflicted by her fiance and the members of his family in their house and on yielding to the instigation to commit suicide, his niece Parvati has committed suicide by setting fire to her person. 6. On the basis of the said ejahar, East Agartala PS Case No. 164 of 2002 was registered under Sections 306/ 34 of IPC and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 7. On taking cognizance, the said case was committed to the Court of Session as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The case being ST 61 (WT/A) of 2003 was transferred to the Court of the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 1 and the charge was framed against the appellants as under : That on the 19th August, 2002 morning at about 09.00 hours at village North Jogendranagar under East Agartala Police Station, one Parbati Debnath daughter of Lt. Harendra Debnath committed suicide by setting fire on her body by spreading K. Oil over her body and that you all in furtherance of common intention abetted the commission of the said suicide by causing hurt to and also outrage the modesty of the said Parbati Debnath when she went to your house at village Aralia on 18-8-02 evening at about 20.00 hours with accused Kishore Debnath and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code read with 34 of IPC and within my cognizance. To which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The Prosecution to draw the charge home, examined as many as 12 witnesses including the complainant and the investigating officer. The complainant deposed before the Court as the P.W. 1 and stated that Kishore Debnath assured Parvati his niece to marry as they were passionately in love. On 18-8-2002, he did not find Parvati in his house. 8. The Prosecution to draw the charge home, examined as many as 12 witnesses including the complainant and the investigating officer. The complainant deposed before the Court as the P.W. 1 and stated that Kishore Debnath assured Parvati his niece to marry as they were passionately in love. On 18-8-2002, he did not find Parvati in his house. Thereafter, he sent the elder sister of Parvati namely Manju to the house of Kishore Debnath. Manju after returning to the house told that she also did not find Kishore and Parvati in his house. After that, he himself accompanied by some other villagers started to search Parvati and during search one person of Aralia namely Malu Debnath informed him that he found Parvati behind Aralia School and she was moving there in a disappointed condition. Malu took her to his house. Accordingly the P.W. 1 deposed that he went to the house of Malu Debnath and found Parvati there with injuries on her face and bodies and also some hair-cut. On being asked about her condition, she told him that Kishore brought her to his house by giving assurance to marry and after arrival in his house his father, mother and other inmates started to assault her and also cut her locks. Thereafter, he went the house of Sadhan Sutradhar, Pradhan of Aralia Panchayat and informed him the fact which he gathered from Parvati but did not take Parvati with him to his house. After that, he came to his house with his niece Parvati on that night of 18-8-2002. After arrival in their house Parvati narrated the fact of assault by parents and inmates of Kishore to his mother, Parvati's mother, sister and neighbours. When she received severe burn injury by setting fire on herself, he and some other villagers brought her to G.B.P. Hospital and on being asked she told them that as Kishore did not marry her after she was brought by him by giving assurance of marrying her and she was assaulted by parents of Kishore in his house. She was highly humiliated and out of shame, she set fire on herself. The P.W. 1 further stated that prior to the said incident, he knew Kishore Debnath but he had not seen him visiting their house. Parvati was a student of Class-XII at that time. He knew the father of Kishore also. She was highly humiliated and out of shame, she set fire on herself. The P.W. 1 further stated that prior to the said incident, he knew Kishore Debnath but he had not seen him visiting their house. Parvati was a student of Class-XII at that time. He knew the father of Kishore also. The P.W. 1 identified the appellants Kishore Debnath and Jatan Debnath in the dock. The P.W. 1 confirmed that Parvati died in the afternoon on 20-8-2002 at G.B.P. Hospital. After her death, he went to the East Agartala PS. and lodged the complaint which was written by one Police Officer on his dictation and after having been read over he put his signature in the body of the complaint. The P.W. 1 also identified the written complaint as Exbt. 1. After the written complaint was lodged, the investigating officer visited the G.B.P. Hospital and prepared inquest report of Parvati Debnath in his presence and others and he put his signature on the said inquest report (Exbt. 2). In the cross-examination, he admitted that the house of the appellants is situated within a distance of less than one kilometre from his house. When Kishore brought Parvati from his house at that time his mother, Parvati's mother and sister were present in the house but he was not present. On that day, he for the first time heard of the love affair between Parvati and Kishore. He felt bad as she left his house with Kishore on that night. His mother and sister did not raise objection when she left with Kishore from the house. His mother and sister had the knowledge about the love affairs between them had impression that Kishore would marry her. But the said fact of love and assurance of marriage was never disclosed to him by his mother and sister. He claimed to be the eldest male member of his family. On the night of 18-8-2002 at about 10.30/11 p.m. Malu Debnath informed him that Parvati was taken to his house. Malu told him that he found Parvati on the road of Aralia-Tulakuna. The said road is passing through in front of his house. The house of Malu Debnath is situated about more or less one kilometre distance from his house. The house of Malu Debnath and accused persons are situated within 150 metres. Malu told him that he found Parvati on the road of Aralia-Tulakuna. The said road is passing through in front of his house. The house of Malu Debnath is situated about more or less one kilometre distance from his house. The house of Malu Debnath and accused persons are situated within 150 metres. Later on, the P.W. 1 admitted that Malu Debnath is his relative. He is the son of his mother's sister. He admitted that he sent Manju to the house of Kishore Debnath for knowing about them and he felt bad for leaving his house on that night. He decided in mind that if Manju found them in the house of the appellants then he might go to their house and to ask them whether Kishore would actually marry her. Manju went to the house of the appellants at that night at about 8.30 p.m. and after half an hour she came back. He did not lodge any information before receiving information from Malu. Manju told him that she did not find Kishore and Parvati in the house of accused persons. He did not ask anything to Manju and she did not tell him more. He did not ask Manju whether she told anything to the parents of Kishore about Parvati. At that point, he stated that he could not recollect now whether he told to the Investigating Officer that Manju told him after arrival in his house from that house of the appellants that she did not find Kishore in their house. When attention was drawn to the previous statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it was found that no such statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer to the effect that Manju told him that she did not find Kishore in his house. He also denied the suggestion that he did not learn from his mother and sister on that night that Kishore took Parvati with him from his house by giving assurance to marry her. He further stated that he told the Investigating Officer at the time of lodging ejahar that on that night Kishore took Parvati with him giving assurance to marry her but no such statement in respect of asurance of marriage was specifically found in the ejahar and in the previous statement. He further stated that he told the Investigating Officer at the time of lodging ejahar that on that night Kishore took Parvati with him giving assurance to marry her but no such statement in respect of asurance of marriage was specifically found in the ejahar and in the previous statement. He stated that Malu Debnath told him that he kept Parvati in his house when found her on the road and said that Malu told her to go home but she did not agree to return to her house and Malu Debnath asked her the reasons of denial to return home. However, he denied the suggestion that he himself, his mother and sister used to torture Parvati prior to the said incident on suspicion that she had love affair with Kishore. He also denied the suggestion that on 18-8-2002, 3/4 times they tortured her for the suspected relation. So she left his house voluntarily. He further denied that after taking her in his house on that night, from the house of Malu Debnath, they again seriously assaulted her so she set fire on herself on the following day in the morning. He could not recollect from memory whether he told to Darogababu at the time of lodging ejahar on way of shifting her to G.B.P. Hospital and at G.B.P. Hospital Parvati told him that she set fire on herself by pouring kerosene as Kishore took her to his house giving assurance to marry her but did not marry. Moreover his parents and others assaulted her in his house. So, out of humiliation and shame she set fire on herself. While attention of the witness (P.W. 1) was drawn to the complaint and the previous statement as recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. no such specific statement was found in his complaint or in the previous statement. However, he denied the suggestion that Parvati did not tell him that she set fire on herself out of humiliation and shame. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen any injury in the body of Parvati on that night. However, he denied the suggestion that Parvati did not tell him that she set fire on herself out of humiliation and shame. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen any injury in the body of Parvati on that night. He could not recollect whether he told the Investigating Officer that he had seen any injury-mark on her face and body and no such statement was found in the statement of the witness recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. While he was given suggestion that he did not inform about Parvati and Kishore on that night to Sadhan Sutradhar on going to his house. He claimed in the cross-examination that he told the Investigating Officer that he had informed Sadhan Sutradhar about the fact but no such statement was found either in the ejahar or in the previous statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further denied the suggestion that Parvati did not tell him in the house that the accused persons cut her locks and assaulted her. One Partha Roy Chowdhury deposed in the trial Court as the PW-2 who claimed to have known Parvati and Kalidas Debnath. He stated that one day in the last part of 2002, Parvati died at G.B.P. Hospital and she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. On the alleged day of occurrence at about 3.30/4 p.m. Kalidas informed me over telephone that his niece Parvati got admission at G.B.P. Hospital with serious injury, thereafter he went to G.B.P. Hospital and found her dead. He came to know from near relatives of the informant Kalidas that somebody took Parvati with him by giving assurance to marry her to the house of that person but after arrival in the house, inmates of the said 'lover' of Parvati started to assault her so, out of humiliation and shame Parvati committed suicide by setting fire on herself. After that on that night when he went to the house of Kalidas Debnath, he knew that said person was Kishore Debnath but he did not know Kishore Debnath or his family members. At G.B.P. Hospital, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report and he put his signature as the witness thereafter. In cross-examination, he admitted that the informant and the deceased are his relatives. At G.B.P. Hospital, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report and he put his signature as the witness thereafter. In cross-examination, he admitted that the informant and the deceased are his relatives. But he denied the suggestion that he did not hear at night in the house of the informant the name of the said person who brought Parvati in his house was Kishore Debnath. He also denied the suggestion that Parvati committed suicide due to intolerable torture by the informant and the family inmates prior to the said incident. He also denied the suggestion that he did not hear said Parvati set fire out of humiliation and shame. One Monoranjan Debnath was examined as PW-3 by the prosecution. He stated that Parvati was his niece and one day about one year back he was informed by the relative Kalidas Debnath over telephone that Parvati died in the G.B.P. Hospital. Accordingly, he went to the G.B.P. Hospital and found her dead. She committed suicide by setting fire on herself. Kalidas Debnath told him that last night one boy took her from their house giving assurance to marry her but after arrival in his house the parents and inmates of the said boy assaulted Parvati for which out of humiliation and shame Parvati set fire on herself which resulted in her death. He however told that the Investigating Officer did not record his statement. He further stated that he met with Partha Roy Chowdhury, Sadhan Debnath at G.B.P. Hospital. Parvati did not tell him before her death at hospital that she liked to commit suicide out of humiliation and shame as on the last night parents and inmates of Kishore assaulted her and cut her locks in their house when she went with Kishore. The prosecution declared this witness as hostile at that stage and cross-examined and read over the statement what he stated in the previous statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination by the defence, he reiterated that the Investigating Officer never met him and he did not make any statement to the said Investigating Officer. He also stated that he did not tell that Kalidas told him at G.B.P. Hospital that one boy took Parvati from his house giving assurance of marriage but after arrival in his house parents and inmates of the said boy assaulted her so out of humiliation and shame Parvati set fire on herself which resulted in her death. One Dr. Partha Sarathi Pal was examined by the prosecution as the PW-4. He stated that on 19-08-2002 while he was performing his duties in the Surgical Unit No. 1 of G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala he made necessary arrangement for holding post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, Parvati Debnath who was 18 years at that point of time, for knowing the actual cause of death. He admitted in the evidence the requisition letter, Exbt. 4 as a whole. One Kumada Debnath, the grandmother of Parvati was examined by the prosecution as the PW-5 who stated that she knew Kishore Debnath and he used to visit to their house prior to the said occurrence and he had love affair with her said grand-daughter. Kishore came to her house on the last day evening of the occurrence and told her that he loved Parvati and will marry her and also took her granddaughter with him. At that night about 11/12 p.m. Parvati was brought from the house of her sister's son namely Malu Debnath and Parbati told her that after arrival in the house of Kishore Debnath his mother, sister and uncle assaulted her and also cut her locks and drove out from their house. However, in the examination-in-chief it was pointed out that she was embellishing her statement seriously. She stated that while her granddaughter was running from the house of Kishore Debnath at that time Malu Debnath caught her and brought her in his house. She came to know from Malu. She asserted that she made such statement to the IO that in the evening, prior to the said occurrence, Kishore came to her house and told her that he loved Parvati and would marry her and thereafter took her with him. She came to know from Malu. She asserted that she made such statement to the IO that in the evening, prior to the said occurrence, Kishore came to her house and told her that he loved Parvati and would marry her and thereafter took her with him. But no such statement was found to have been recorded by the IO in the course of investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, she denied the suggestion that Kishore did not come in the evening on the alleged night and did not tell her that he had love affair with Parbati or would marry her and did not take her to him. She also rejected the suggestion that on that night Parvati left their house voluntarily without their knowledge or brought her on the midnight and assaulted her. She denied the suggestion that on that night they assaulted her for which she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. She all through denied the suggestion that Parvati never went to the house of Kishore Debnath on that night. She asserted that she told the IO that Parvati told her that she was assaulted by the sister and uncle of Kishore and also her locks were cut. When attention was drawn to the witness, no such statement was found. However, she denied the suggestion that Parvati was assaulted by mother, sister and uncle of Kishore on her arrival in their house. Kishore and Parvati left their house and she did not find any scope to resist her. She stated further that her son Kalidas, another granddaughter i.e. sister of Parvati and other neighbours went to hospital escorting with Parvati but she did not go with her Kishore and Parvati after leaving her house she also left for searching them. However, she stated that she did not tell her son that Kishore took her for marrying. Later on witness stated that she could not recollect whether she told the same to her son or not. She denied the suggestion that on that night they assaulted her and out of shame on the subsequent day in the morning she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. But she admitted that her son Kalidas told Parvati why she left her house without informing them. She denied the suggestion that on that night they assaulted her and out of shame on the subsequent day in the morning she committed suicide by setting fire on herself. But she admitted that her son Kalidas told Parvati why she left her house without informing them. Smt. Manju Debnath, sister of the deceased was examined as the PW-6 by the prosecution who had reportedly gone for searching the deceased on the night prior to the day of suicide. She stated that she was running a beauty parlour at Jogendranagar. About 2 years back, on 19th August her sister set fire on herself by pouring kerosene in the morning at about 9 a.m. near their latrine and thereafter she was immediately taken to G.B.P. Hospital where she died on the same day. She stated she knew Kishore Debnath and Kishore had lover affair with her sister. When she left her shop for meal or other purposes keeping her sister in the shop. Kishore used to talk to sister, Parvati and one and two occasions she had seen them in her shop. When she confronted Kishore, he told her that he really loved Parvati and he would marry her. Kishore and her sister frequented to Agartala and some other places. On the evening, prior to her committing suicide i.e. on 18-08-2002, Kishore took her sister by his scooter from their house and at the time it was 7 p.m. and came to their house with Parvati at about 8 p.m. and told them that he would take Parvati with him to his house. At that time she was not in her house. On that night at about 12.00 hrs. as per information of her relative, Malu Debnath her sister was brought to their house. On being asked her sister told that after arrival in Kishore's home, his mother and sister assaulted her and cut her locks. She left that house to commit suicide and Malu Debnath saw her and escorted her. At that night, she persuaded her they would settle up the matter. She stated further that she saw her face with haematoma and a portion of locks cut. On the subsequent day in the morning Parvati set fire on herself by pouring kerosene out of shame and humiliation. The witness identified Kishore Debnath, his mother and sister in the dock. At that night, she persuaded her they would settle up the matter. She stated further that she saw her face with haematoma and a portion of locks cut. On the subsequent day in the morning Parvati set fire on herself by pouring kerosene out of shame and humiliation. The witness identified Kishore Debnath, his mother and sister in the dock. She admitted that she was witness to the seized wearing apparels of her sister (Exbt. 5), she identified the wearing apparels as Exbt. M.O.1 series. In the cross-examination, she however could not stand to her statement as made in the examination-in-chief. She stated that she told the IO that there was love affair between Kishore and Parvati and Kishore told her that he really loved Parvati but no such statement was found in the statement of the witness recorded by IO under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, she denied the suggestion that there was no love affair between Kishore and Parvati. Even her statement that Kishore used to come to her shop in her absence was not found in the previous statement. Her statement that Kishore used to frequently visit many places at Agartala but no such statement was found specifically in the previous statement. She clamed that she told the IO that while her sister was attempting to commit suicide on that night Malu Debnath found her and took her to his house but no such statement was available in his previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. No such statement was also found that she persuaded her sister on that night that she would settle up the matter. However, she stated categorically that at about 8:20/8:45 p.m. on that night she went to the house of Kishore Debnath and she did not find Kishore and Parvati in that house. She talked to the parents and sister of Kishore. Thereafter she returned to her house and found her uncle Kalidas in their house. She did not tell to the Investigating Officer that Malu Debnath took her sister to his house and she was brought from his house to their house. She also did not state anything about the statement made by her sister at the time of taking her to the G.B.P. Hospital. She admitted that she did not tell the IO that she found her locks cut and injuries on her face. She also did not state anything about the statement made by her sister at the time of taking her to the G.B.P. Hospital. She admitted that she did not tell the IO that she found her locks cut and injuries on her face. One Smt. Sadana Debnath, who is another grandmother of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as PW-7. She stated that on the night prior to setting fire on herself by pouring kerosene in her house, she was taken to G.B.P. Hospital where she died. On the night prior to the said occurrence of setting fire on herself at about 8/8:30 p.m., she came to her house and learnt from her mother that Kishore came to their house in the evening and took her daughter to their house saying that he would marry her. On that night 12/1 a.m. her daughter Parvati was brought from the house of Malu Debnath by her brother and Sadhana Debnath. Then she came to know that Malu Debnath brought her daughter to his house while she came out to the road crying from the house of Kishore. Her daughter Parvati told that uncle of Kishore Debnath assaulted her and his mother and sister cut her lock. She saw the injury on her face and the locks cut. On that night, she was persuaded but she could show her face in the society and she reacted out of humiliation and shame. She stated that she did not know Kishore but know his father and uncle. During cross-examination she categorically stated that she had not seen Kishore. She came to know about the affair of her daughter with Kishore after her death. She told the IO that while she was running out from the house of Kishore, she was intercepted by Malu Debnath on the road and he brought her to his house. No such statement is available in the previous statement as recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the IO. There is also no statement that she told the IO that on that night her daughter told her that how she could show her face in the society, out of humiliation and shame. No such statement is available in the previous statement as recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the IO. There is also no statement that she told the IO that on that night her daughter told her that how she could show her face in the society, out of humiliation and shame. Later on, she stated that she could not recollect whether she told the IO that her daughter told her on that night that she was assaulted by uncle, mother and sister of Kishore in his house but no such statement is found specifically in her previous statement recorded by IO that on that night she was told by her daughter that she was assaulted by uncle, mother and sister of Kishore. She however denied the suggestion that she stated falsely before the police and in the Court. Dr. Ranjit Kr. Das, the PW-9 who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He stated regarding the post-mortem procedure and finding thereof. The PW-10, one Shanti Bhushan Bhuiya, Sub-Inspector of police posted at the relevant time in the East Agartala PS, was examined by the prosecution who stated that he wrote the complaint as per the dictation of the PW-1 and read over the same to him and thereafter he put his signature on the body of the complaint. He also confirmed that he put the endorsement on the body of the complaint. He identified the complaint as Exbt. 7 and the signatures and stated that on the basis of that complaint East Agartala PS Case No. 164 of 2002 under Section 306/ 34 of IPC was registered on 19-08-2002. He endorsed the case for investigation to the PW-12, namely, Shri Kajal Deb, Sub-Inspector of Police at that time who was detailed at the East Agartala Police Station. The FIR form (Exbt. 8) was admitted by him. The most vital witness, who has been referred by all the prosecution witness, is the PW-11, namely, Malu Debnath who met the deceased immediately after the assault. He appeared in the Court and stated that he knew all the accused persons. He stated that "on 18-8-02 at around 10 p.m. in the night after finishing dinner when I was coming to Aralia Chowmuhani, noticed Parbati Debnath proceeding towards Chowmuhani weeping. He appeared in the Court and stated that he knew all the accused persons. He stated that "on 18-8-02 at around 10 p.m. in the night after finishing dinner when I was coming to Aralia Chowmuhani, noticed Parbati Debnath proceeding towards Chowmuhani weeping. Then a person came for her rescue and handed over her to me and I brought her in my home and after keeping her in my home I came to the house of the maternal uncle of Parbati where her mother used to reside. I informed the fact to them and they came to my home and with the help of 7/8 persons she was taken to the house of her maternal uncle. On the next day, I came to learn that Parbati herself set on fire on her body who succumbed to burnt injury at G.B. hospital, Daroga babu asked me about the incident." In the cross-examination, he stated that most probably the investigating officer asked him about the incident on the day or may be on the next day of the incident. He categorically stated that the deceased was his niece. He stated in the cross-examination that he found Parvati on 18-08-2002 in the night around 10 p.m. to proceed towards the opposite side of her house. The PW-12, namely, Kajal Deb, was the IO. He stated that he was endorsed with the case for investigation. On having been endorsed with the case he took up the charge of investigation. On 19-08-2002 he visited G.B. Hospital and noticed the dead body of deceased Parvati Debnath in the morgue of the hospital, prepared the inquest report in presence of the witness and on preparing a dead body challan, the deceased was sent for the post-mortem examination. He also recorded some statements on the day and visited the place of occurrence for preparing the hand sketched map and the same was prepared with index (Exbt. 10). He stated that he recorded the statement of all the cited witnesses. When he raided the house of the appellants they were absconding. On 22-08-2002, he recorded the statement of Malu Debnath under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Despite his attempt he could not apprehend the appellants but on 28-08-2002 he arrested Kishore Debnath and forwarded him to the Court. The post-mortem report was received by him on 01-10-2002. When he raided the house of the appellants they were absconding. On 22-08-2002, he recorded the statement of Malu Debnath under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Despite his attempt he could not apprehend the appellants but on 28-08-2002 he arrested Kishore Debnath and forwarded him to the Court. The post-mortem report was received by him on 01-10-2002. Statement of another witness namely Santanu Bhowmik was also recorded on completing the investigation. A prima facie case having been made out against the appellants under Sections 306 read with 34 of IPC, he filed the charge-sheet. In the cross-examination he narrated what he found in the complaint and confirmed that during the investigation it was also not revealed that relatives of the victim ever reported to the Medical Officer in the hospital in respect of the assault. In the inquest report, he had indicated that only the burn injuries were present in the body of the victim but no other injuries of assault were found. Except the statement of Santanu Bhowmik, he had completed the recording of statement of other witnesses by 22-09-2002. He confirmed that Kalidas Debnath did not tell him that Manju told him after arrival in his house from the house of the appellants that she did not find Kishore in their house. He confirmed that there is nothing in the FIR that accused Kishore took the victim Parvati giving her an assurance of marriage. Neither in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it was found that Parvati did tell informant that she set fire on herself out of humiliation and shame. There is nothing in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that on way of shifting of victim to G.B.P. Hospital, that she told him that she set fire on herself by pouring kerosene as Kishore took her to his house giving assurance to marry but subsequently declined and moreover his parents and others assaulted her in his house and out of humiliation she set fire on herself. In the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., there was nothing that the victim also sustained external injury of assault besides burn injuries. The PW-5 did not tell him while recording her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the victim was assaulted by the sister of Kishore and uncle and also cut her locks. In the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., there was nothing that the victim also sustained external injury of assault besides burn injuries. The PW-5 did not tell him while recording her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the victim was assaulted by the sister of Kishore and uncle and also cut her locks. The PW-6 did not tell while recording her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that there was love affairs between Kishore and Parvati and Kishore told her that he really loved Parvati. It was also not found that in her absence Kishore came to her shop and talked to her sister. There is nothing in the statement of the said witness recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that said witness told the Investigating Officer that while her sister was attempting to commit suicide on that night, at that nick of time, Malu Debnath found her and brought to his house. The PW-8. Smt. Milan Debnath in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not tell while victim was running out from the house of Kishore. she was intercepted by Malu Debnath from the road and brought her to his house and did not tell that the victim told him that she felt humiliated. 9. As relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants the decisions of the Apex Court are required to be appropriately considered for arriving at a just finding. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh as, (reported in 2002 (5) SCC 371 : AIR 2002 SC 1998 : 2002 Cri LJ 2796) the apex Court in the following passages has enunciated the law as regards the meaning of abetment vis-a-vis Section 107 of IPC. 6. Section 107, I.P.C. 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. 7. 7. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of this Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case. 8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Ann, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. 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. 9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570 : 1996 Cri LJ 894), the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. 10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107, I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 Cri LJ 4724 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3837 ) this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, this Court said (SCC p. 620) : (Para 14 of AIR, Cri LJ): A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. Acquitting the accused, this Court said (SCC p. 620) : (Para 14 of AIR, Cri LJ): 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 belonged 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. 10. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal as, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 707 : ( AIR 2010 SC 512 ) the Apex Court has further developed the law relating to 'abetment to suicide' as under : 9. At the outset, we intend to address the issue regarding the applicability of Section 306, IPC in the facts of the present case. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They read as follows : 306. Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 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. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 1. The legal position as regards Section 306, IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 : ( AIR 2004 SC 5097 : 2004 Cri LJ 4985) as follows in Paras 12 and 13 (SCC p. 134): 12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306, IPC. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal ( AIR 1994 SC 1418 : 1994 Cri LJ 2104) this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. 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 belonged 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 of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 11. 11. Further, in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. ( AIR 2007 SC 2437 ) this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107, IPC when it observed as follows in Para 6 (SCC p. 799) : 6. Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are "essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. (See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, ( AIR 2009 SC 1808 : 2009 Cri LJ 1720) (SCC p. 55 Para 13). 12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in term of Section 306, IPC is not sustainable. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in term of Section 306, IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306, IPC. 14. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107, IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107, IPC. Section 109, IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause 'thirdly' of Section 107, IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107, IPC. 11. It appears from those decisions as cited that the charge of abetment can be held as proved when it has been established in the evidence that the deceased was said to abet the commission of suicide when the accused instigated the person to that thing as stated in Clause 'firstly' or to do thing as stated in the Clause 'secondly' or 'thirdly' of Section 107 of IPC. Section 109 of IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 12. Section 109 of IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 12. To dispel ambiguities that might creep in the interpretation for embracing a remote act, the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr., as reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5101 : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 806) held that: It is on this that Shri Tulsi contended that all this is absolutely absurd. If a person writes a suicide note on 4-2-2008, he had no business to send the suicide note to High Court and keep a copy thereof in the house. Learned Senior Counsel that even if all this is accepted as it is, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has committed any offence or that any offence could be spelt out from the said suicide note or the FIR much less offence under Sections 306 and 294, IPC. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306, IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters, there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. 13. In the touchstone of this decision, if the evidence, both oral and documentary is revisited, it would be apparent that there is no such allegation against the appellants in the FIR except a rhetoric statement by a hearsay witness. There is nothing in the FIR as regards the insult as alleged in the fiance' house or on yielding to the instigation to commit suicide. There is no proof of instigation in the entire evidence except the said rhetoric statement without any basis admissible in the evidence. That is perhaps the reason why for the first time in the charge, the following allegation has surfaced : Abetted the commission of the said suicide by causing hurt to and also outraged the modesty of the said Parvati Debnath when she went to the house of the accused person". The hearsay evidence of Kalidas Debnath was rebutted by the defence by registering the vital contradictions. The hearsay evidence of Kalidas Debnath was rebutted by the defence by registering the vital contradictions. His statement that the deceased told him that she had set fire on herself by pouring kerosene as one of the accused (Kishore) took her to his house giving assurance to marry her but did not marry. Moreover, his parents and others assaulted her in his house. So, out of humiliation and shame, she set herself on fire. But such statement was not found in the ejahar which he lodged to the police station. Apart that, the entire complaint is set up on the statement of one Shri Malu Debnath, a close relative of the informant. Malu Debnath, the PW-11, however did not support the contention of the informant in the ejahar nor did corroborate the oral testimony of the PW-1 (Kalidas Debnath), PW-5 (Smt. Kumuda Debnath), PW-6 (Smt. Manju Debnath), PW-7 (Smt. Sadhana Debnath) and PW-8 (Smt. Milan Debnath). All these PWs stated in unison that the deceased when was running out of the house of the accused persons was caught by Malu Debnath (PW-11). But Malu Debnath (PW-11) did not support the said statement rather he stated that the deceased was proceeding towards Aralia Chowmuhani and she was handed over by a person to him. The PW-11 is a vital witness who confronted the deceased but he did not state anything as regards her injury on her face or cutting of her locks as stated. On the contrary, his statement was that she was proceeding to the Aralia Chowmuhani alone at night weeping. This shows, that the deceased were somewhere else after the alleged occurrence in the house of the appellants. According to the statement of the PW-1 when he and other villagers started to search Parvati (the deceased) and during the search one person of Aralia, namely, Malu Debnath informed him that he found Parvati behind the Aralia school and she was moving there in a disappointed condition and that said Malu Debnath took her to his house and accordingly she went to the house of Malu Debnath. He found injury in her face, body and also some hair-cuts. The PW-1 further stated that Kishore took her to his house by giving assurance of marriage and after arrival there, his father, mother and other inmates started to assault her and cut her locks. He found injury in her face, body and also some hair-cuts. The PW-1 further stated that Kishore took her to his house by giving assurance of marriage and after arrival there, his father, mother and other inmates started to assault her and cut her locks. The statement of Malu Debnath as excerpted would indicate that the PW-1 was not stating the fact. Said Malu Debnath, the PW-11, was not disbelieved by the prosecution and that was the probable reason of not declaring him hostile and as such his statement has to be read as correct in view of the decision as rendered by the Supreme Court in Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan as, reported in 2005 (5) SCC 272 where the Supreme Court enunciated the law that when a witness was not declared hostile his evidence is binding on the prosecution. 14. It is apparent from the oral testimony of the PW-6 that at about 10.20 to 10.45 she went to the house of the appellants but none was found in that house including the deceased. Therefore, what happened from that point of time to the discovery of the deceased by said Malu Debnath was not at all explained by the prosecution and no endeavour whatsoever was taken to. It further appears that after her return to the house she freshed her by washing her face and other parts of the body and no agitation of mind was apparent to the inmates of the house and thereafter she committed suicide on the following morning in the latrine by set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that there was any instigation or deliberate omission or to directly abet her to commit suicide. Even if the allegation even though has not been proved legally of her assault on the preceding evening of her suicide, is believed in its entirety it cannot be stated an instigation as per Section 107 of IPC. Even if the allegation even though has not been proved legally of her assault on the preceding evening of her suicide, is believed in its entirety it cannot be stated an instigation as per Section 107 of IPC. From an overall scrutiny of the oral testimonies, the episodes of assault or cutting of the locks of the deceased have not been proved inasmuch as all the joints as narrated by the PW-1 (Kalidas Debnath), PW-5 (Smt. Kumuda Debnath), P.W.-6 (Smt. Manju Debnath), PW-7 (Smt. Sadhana Debnath) and PW-8 (Smt. Milan Debnath) are hearsay and those statements having no connection or having not been related to the cause of death cannot be accepted in the evidence in view of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 15. Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP for the State has rightly contended that there is no evidence of abetment in the evidence. This Court finds proof of no offence in the evidence even if some suspicious circumstances might have popped up here and there, however strong those may be, those cannot take place of the legal proof in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as, reported in AIR 1952 SCR 1091 : ( AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129), (Hanumanta Gobinda Nargundkar v. State of MR). AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973 Cri LJ 1783), (Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra), AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738), (Sharad B. Chanda Sarda v. State of Maharashtra), AIR 1991 SC 1842 : (1991 Cri LJ 2666), (Harendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar) and AIR 2001 SC 142 : (2001 Cri LJ 170), State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan). 16. So far the element of instigation/abetment is concerned that does not come within the parameters as enunciated by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh, AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 806) (supra). Accordingly, it has to be held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge under Section 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. As a corollary to this, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are set aside. For the reasons aforesaid, all the appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted from the charge and they shall be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed