JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2003 on 18.3.2004 is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.3000/- in default another rigorous imprisonment for one year. Adverting to the prosecution story it is to state that one Ms. Anjuma Begum of Damdua, who allegedly took poison, was admitted in the Morigaon Civil Hospital. The Officer Incharge, Morigaon Police Station, on being informed over phone, made a G.D. Entry No. 613 dated 21.11.2001 and also registered a crime being Morigaon P.S. Case No. 108/01 under Section 306 IPC. The police again received information over telephone that the said girl died and accordingly another GD Entry was made. A Miscellaneous diary was opened and on being directed by O.C. one S.I. of police rushed to the Civil Hospital and performed the inquest on the dead body and issued a requisition for post mortem examination. Thereafter the said police S.I. visited the place of occurrence. He received a written Ejahar at the place of occurrence from one Nilima Begum stating therein that since last 4/5 years there was a love affair and intimacy between her sister Anjuma Begum and accused Anarul but the accused, at the same time, had developed love and intimacy with another girl. On 21.11.2001, when the accused visited informant's house, her sister enquired from him about his love affair with another girl whereupon some hue and cry took place between them. Hearing the hue and cry, when she ran to them, she found her sister taking something and falling down on the ground. She saw the accused immediately fleeing away from the place and she brought her sister to civil hospital where she expired. The I.O. collected the post mortem report and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet under Section 306 IPC against the accused appellant. The concerned CJM committed the case to the court of Sessions, Morigaon, who, in his turn, having found prima facie case, framed charge against the appellant under Section 306 IPC which was read over and explained to him. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and desired to face the trial. 2. The concerned CJM committed the case to the court of Sessions, Morigaon, who, in his turn, having found prima facie case, framed charge against the appellant under Section 306 IPC which was read over and explained to him. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and desired to face the trial. 2. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge examined six witnesses including the MO and the I.O. The defence examined two witnesses. 3. I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. I have carefully perused the lower court record along with the evidence of the witnesses and other evidence on record. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses be appreciated first. 5. P.W. 1, Nilima Begum, informant, is the eldest sister of the deceased. She deposed that the occurrence took place on 21.11.2001 at 8 AM at the veranda of their house. She was attending tuition in a neighbouring house. She came to the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry. As per her evidence accused Anarul, taking the container at his hand showed it to her younger sister and told that Anjuma consumed poison. She is not an eye witness to the incident of taking poison by her victim sister. Police seized the container of poison, some love letters, some covers of tablets containing some tablets which are allegedly used for abortion. She put her signature on the seizure list as a witness and she proved her signatures. 6. P.W. 2, Mustt. Rejia Sultana is another sister of the victim. As per her evidence she was at home at the time of occurrence. The occurrence took place at her own house and at the time of occurrence accused was present at their house. She was asked by the accused to see what her victim sister had consumed. On reaching the place she found accused Anarul was holding a "Dibba" of Thiodine in his hand. She also saw some enzyme type liquid coming out from the mouth of her sister and the accused running away from her house. From the record, it appears that the evidence of this witness created a doubt in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge that Anarul administered the poison to the victim and as a result charge under Section 302 IPC was also added and framed. From the record, it appears that the evidence of this witness created a doubt in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge that Anarul administered the poison to the victim and as a result charge under Section 302 IPC was also added and framed. The defence was allowed to cross examine on a subsequent date. From the evidence of this witness, it cannot be said that she was an eye witness to the incident of administration of poisoning by the accused or taking of poison by the deceased herself. 7. P.W. 3, Sri Ashok Deka, is an employee of Civil Hospital Morigaon, who was on duty at the time when the victim was brought to hospital. He testified that he knew the victim Anjuma who died in the hospital. He was declared hostile as he did not support his statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. The medical officer Sri R.P. Bora, who held the autospy on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the PM report was examined as PW-4. He deposed that after performing the post mortem examination he preserved the liver, kidney, stomach etc for forensic examination to rule out the possibility of poisoning. In his opinion, the death was caused not due to any injury of the deceased. However he could not ascertain the cause of death. The defence declined to cross examine this medical officer. One Sri Enamul Haque, a co-villager of the accused was examined as P.W. 5. As per his evidence about six months prior to the occurrence he saw the mother of the accused Anarul and mother of the victim Anjuma quarrelling over the love affairs of their wards and holding out warning to each other. He could also notice that family members of Anjuma started running hurriedly towards her house and having seen it he also went to the house of Anjuma. There he was told that the victim girl took kerosene. He saw Anjuma vomitting while accused Anarul was with her. He deposed that the victim Anjuma was taken to a hospital by a scooter and after about one hour he heard that she expired due to poisoning. He also deposed that he was present at the time of arrival of the police at the place of occurrence and the police seized the container of the poison and some love letters of the accused. He also deposed that he was present at the time of arrival of the police at the place of occurrence and the police seized the container of the poison and some love letters of the accused. He signed the seizure list. In cross-examination he deposed that he did not know whether the victim herself consumed the poison or some person administered the same to her. The I.O. Sri Premananda Bhuyan was examined as P.W. 6. He testified about the information received over phone about the incident and making G.D. Entry and registration of case on receipt of the written FIR. He also testified his visit to the place of occurrence, examination of witnesses, seizure of the aforesaid articles, collection of post mortem report and preservation of viscera etc. 9. The evidence of prosecution witnesses amply proved that there was a love affair between the accused and the victim girl and the accused started loving another girl. The act and behaviour of the accused frustrated the young lady. The fact of presence of the accused at the house of the deceased where the occurrence took place has been proved. Although the elder sisters of the victim, P.Ws 1 and 2, stated in their evidence that the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, it was not supported or corroborated by the independent witness P.W. 5 inasmuch as he testified that the accused was present at the place of occurrence of the victim. 10. As per evidence of P.W. 1, elder sister of the victim, she was not present at the place of occurrence. She came to the place of occurrence only on being informed. She could see only the incriminating articles like "Dibba" of poison. She has not stated that she saw the act of taking the poison by the victim herself or administration to poison to her by the accused or anybody. The other sister of the victim, P.W. 2, as per her evidence, was no doubt present at her house where the occurrence took place but she has not stated that she, in her own eyes, saw her sister taking the poison by herself or the poison being administered by the accused or anybody. The evidence of P.W. 3 is of no assistance to the prosecution inasmuch as he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The evidence of P.W. 3 is of no assistance to the prosecution inasmuch as he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Otherwise also he is not an eye witness but only a formal witness to testify the fact that the victim was brought to the civil hospital and her death in the hospital. 11. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 IPC for committing of offence of abetment of suicide. The abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the IPC. It reads as under: 107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets 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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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. 12. The prosecution led no evidence to prove any case of abetment against the appellant of taking any action amounting to instigation compelling or urging the victim to commit the suicide. Secondly the prosecution made no attempt to prove by adducing evidence, either documentary or oral, that the appellant engaged himself with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy instigating the victim to take the extreme recourse to taking her own life. The prosecution also did not make any attempt to prove a case against the appellant that he facilitated commission of suicide by the victim. There is no evidence on record that the appellant administered thiodine or any poison on her with ill motive. Both the sisters of the victim, in their deposition stated nothing as to how the "Dibba" of thiodine was found in their house. But the fact remains that thiodine is a pesticide which might be kept in any household for killing the insects. Both the sisters of the victim, in their deposition stated nothing as to how the "Dibba" of thiodine was found in their house. But the fact remains that thiodine is a pesticide which might be kept in any household for killing the insects. Unless it is proved that the accused brought thiodine or any poison to the house of the victim on the date of occurrence or on any day prior to the occurrence, it would not be permissible to hold the view against him. 13. It may be noted that both the sisters (P.Ws 1 and 2) were present when the victim was lying on the ground. They have not stated in their deposition that victim ever told them about taking the poison being instigated or forced by the accused. There was every chance for the victim to tell the real fact before her sisters at the time while she was lying and being taken to hospital. In absence of evidence proving the above facts that the appellant procured the Dibba of thiodine or any poison and carrying the same to the house of the victim, administration of poison by force compelling the victim to take the poison or any act of instigation or conspiracy making the victim to take the poison, the accused appellant cannot be linked with the commission of suicide making him liable to punishment under Section 306 IPC. In such circumstances court has to examine the possibility of committing suicide by the victim without being instigated by the accused. The fact of developing love affair and intimacy with another girl neglecting the victim by the accused having been proved, one can easily understand the serious mental shock and depression received by the victim. In such situation, it is quite obvious and natural that the victim girl, out of frustration and depression, took the extreme course of taking her life by consuming poison in presence of her lover accused who visited her at her house. 14. In regard to commission of suicide by the victim, two possible views could be taken. I have already dealt with the two possible views; one for the guilt and other for innocence. As per existing established law when there are two possible views, the one which goes in favour of the accused and his innocence should be accepted. 14. In regard to commission of suicide by the victim, two possible views could be taken. I have already dealt with the two possible views; one for the guilt and other for innocence. As per existing established law when there are two possible views, the one which goes in favour of the accused and his innocence should be accepted. On appreciation of evidence on record, as I have done already, the accused having seen the victim consumed the poison informed her sister and helped in arranging her removal to hospital and he did not flee away from the place of occurrence. His conduct is found quite normal after the incident, he having not left the victim unattended. I find it difficult to agree with the finding and conclusion of guilt by the learned trial court and hold that the benefit of innocence under the principle of taking view of innocence of the accused in the event of two possible views. From amongst the host of decision in this regard, I would like to refer to and rely on the State of U.P. Vs. Gambhir Singh & ors; (2005) 11 SCC 271 wherein it is held by the Apex Court that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. 15. The prosecution, as could be found from the stand taken by it, put strong reliance on suspicion in getting the accused convicted and the learned trial court, very unfortunately, got influenced by it and convicted the accused, completely oblivious of the law laid down that the suspicion howsoever great cannot take the place of proof and the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the charge must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, it is considered sufficient and proper to rely on the cases of Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2005) 9 SCC 765 and Sidharth vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 545, wherein it is held that serious suspicion itself is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of offence in question. Here is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. Here is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. On consideration of the entire aspects of the matter and after due appreciation of evidence on record I find the impugned order of conviction and sentence unsustainable and accordingly, I reverse the conviction to acquittal. The impugned judgment is set aside acquitting the appellant on benefit of doubt. The appeal stands allowed. The bail bond shall be discharged. Send down the LCRs. Appeal allowed.