Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1322 (JHR)

Satyajeet Aich Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-26

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 and Order of sentence dated 26.11.2005 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.431 of 2001 whereby and where under, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant is that the deceased-Arpana Sen Gupta married the appellant-accused no.1- Satyajeet Aich Roy on 12.03.1999 and as per the demand from the groom side, cash, clothes and jewelry etc. were presented. After the marriage of the deceased with the appellant no.1, he used to visit the house of the informant who is the father of the deceased with the appellant-accused-Surjeet Aich Roy, who is the younger brother of the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy. About six months after the marriage, the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy made a dowry demand of scooter and T.V. When the informant expressed his inability to meet the said demand, the deceased used to remain unhappy and used to tell that she was being tortured in connection of demand of dowry. Once the deceased intimated the informant that there is threat to her life and the informant brought her to his house and later on he sent the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy to go to his house. On 08.08.2000, the appellant-accused-Surjit Aich Roy @ Bulli intimated the informant over the phone of his neighbor namely Sujeet Kesri that his mother is seriously ill and getting that information on next day at about 07:00 A.M., the informant and others went to the house of the appellant-accused persons situated at Harmu and on reaching there they got the information that the deceased-Arpana Sen Gupta was missing from their house since about 08:00 P.M., the previous evening. By 12:00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found from a well and claiming that the appellant-accused persons by torturing has abated the commission of suicide by the deceased- Arpana Sen Gupta, the informant approached the police. By 12:00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found from a well and claiming that the appellant-accused persons by torturing has abated the commission of suicide by the deceased- Arpana Sen Gupta, the informant approached the police. Police recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, basing upon which Doranda P.S. Case No. 162 of 2000 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted final form against the appellant-accused persons. Upon commitment of the case to the court of session charge for the offence punishable under section 306/34 was framed against the appellant-accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. Upon which the appellant-accused persons were put to trial. In support of its case, prosecution altogether examined 14 witnesses. The prosecution also proved the documents. In their defence, the appellant-accused persons examined one witness and also proved the letter dated 08.08.2000, written in the post card by the informant which was marked as Ext. A. 5. Out of 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1-Archana Sen Gupta and P.W.2-Bharti Sen Gupta are the sisters of the deceased. They stated that the occurrence took place on 10.08.2000. They also stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused person no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy and at the time of marriage, on the demand of the groom side Rs.30,000/- cash, clothes, gold jewelry etc. were presented. The deceased was happy for six months in her in-law’s house. After that, the appellant-accused persons made the dowry demand of scooter and colour T.V. which their father could not meet because of his poor financial condition. The appellant-accused persons dropped the deceased in the house of her father and after two months, the deceased again went to the house of the appellant-accused persons. The deceased used to tell the P.W.s that because of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, the appellant-accused persons used to assault her. On 08.08.2000 at 11:30 P.M. Surjit Roy Choudhary intimated over the phone of their neighbor namely Sujeet Kesri that the mother of the appellant-accused persons was ill, hence requested these two P.W.s to come to their house. On 09.08.2000, they reached the house of the appellants and found that the mother of the appellants was hale and hearty but their sister was missing. On being asked, the appellant-accused- Surjit Aich Roy disclosed that the deceased was missing from 08.08.2000. On 09.08.2000, they reached the house of the appellants and found that the mother of the appellants was hale and hearty but their sister was missing. On being asked, the appellant-accused- Surjit Aich Roy disclosed that the deceased was missing from 08.08.2000. On 10.08.2000 at about 12:00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found from a well in the colony. These witnesses went near the well and police also reached there and the dead body was brought out from the well. In her cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated before the police that the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy never behaved like husband and wife with the deceased and the deceased was deprived of her happiness due from her husband and used to remain unhappy. The deceased used to tell her that the deceased and her husband were not having physical relationship which a married couple normally have and for that reason the deceased used to remain mentally depressed and she was also being treated by a psychiatrist. On being confronted to her, she admitted the letter written by her father which was marked Ext. A. P.W.1 has further stated that she was angry because her brother-in-law was not able to give sexual pleasure to the deceased. In her cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that 3 to 4 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased did not write any letter. The deceased used to remain unhappy because she was deprived from sexual pleasure from her husband and from the conduct of the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy a doubt was created that he was impotent. 6. P.W.3 –Rampado Sen Gupta is the informant of the case. He has stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy and about the demand of scooter and money by the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy. He also stated that because of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the deceased frequently used to complain about being assaulted. He has further stated that the three appellant-accused persons together assaulted the deceased and after murdering her threw her dead body in the well and the dead body was recovered from the well. On being identified by him, the signature of the P.W.3 on the fardbeyan was marked Ext.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not remember when Satyajeet Aich Roy demanded money and scooter. On being identified by him, the signature of the P.W.3 on the fardbeyan was marked Ext.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not remember when Satyajeet Aich Roy demanded money and scooter. He cannot say the date when the deceased was assaulted but he possess the letters of the deceased where there is mention about the assault upon her. P.W.3 has also stated that the appellant-accused Satyajeet Aich Roy was not having relationship of husband and wife with the deceased and the appellant-accused no.1 - Satyajeet Aich Roy was impotent. 7. P.W.4 –Sheodas Verma has stated about the marriage of the deceased with Satyajeet Aich Roy and that the deceased used to tell her friends that her husband was not behaving with her as his wife. She used to tell that she was tortured in her in-laws house. In his cross-examination, he has stated that from ladies he came to know that the marital life of the deceased was not good as her husband was impotent. 8. P.W.5-Sujeet Keshari is the neighbor of the informant to whose house the phone call was first made by the appellant-accused persons. He has stated that after receiving the phone call, Bharti Sen Gupta, who is the P.W.2, told him that the deceased- Arpana Sen Gupta was not present in her house. Hence, the phone call was made. On the next day, he got the information that Arpana Sen Gupta has been murdered and her dead body has been thrown in the well. He has also stated that the deceased used to remain sad and on being asked, she used to tell that she was being tortured in connection with demand of dowry. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in his presence, the deceased was never tortured. 9. P.W.6-Parveen Kumar Keshari has stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant no.1 and he came to know that the deceased was tortured in connection with demand of dowry. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has heard about the deceased being tortured. 10. P.W.7- Gulab Chand Razak is an inquest witness. On being proved by him, the inquest report has been marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he heard that Satyajeet is impotent. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has heard about the deceased being tortured. 10. P.W.7- Gulab Chand Razak is an inquest witness. On being proved by him, the inquest report has been marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he heard that Satyajeet is impotent. To a question from court, he has stated that the deceased along with appellant-accused were residing in L.I.G. 125 Quarter in front of his house. 11. P.W.8-Dr. Shambhu Saran on 11.08.2000 at 16.30 hours conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Arpana Sen Gupta. He found the following injuries:- (i) There is no evidence of any mechanical injury either external or internal. (ii) The chest cavity contained blood tinged fluid 100 ml on each side. (iii) Both the lungs were edematous and voluminous. The stomach contains party materials and fluid 100 gm. (iv) Urinary bladder empty. Uterus normal and non-pregnant. (v) A cotton tape is tied loose around the neck. The knot is present on the right side of the neck. and opined as follows:- (i) Regarding cause of death he kept his opinion reserved, pending chemical examination report for which viscera has been preserved and was to be sent to F.S.L. as soon as a request would be made. (ii) Time since death between approximately two to four days from the time of postmortem examination. 12. P.W.9-Tripti Roy is the sister of the deceased. She has stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused person no.1 as per Hindu customs and rites. She also stated that the deceased was happy for six months but after six months of marriage, she used to remain unhappy as her in-laws were demanding one scooter and T.V. In her cross-examination, she stated that she has stated before the police that the deceased and the appellant-accused no.1-Satyajeet Aich Roy were not having the relationship of husband and wife as the appellant-Satyajeet Aich Roy was impotent. 13. P.W.10-Madan Mohan Roy is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He also stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1 and that the appellant- accused persons used to torture her in connection with demand of dowry of T.V., scooter and money. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say on which date the demands were made and when the deceased got assaulted. 14. He also stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1 and that the appellant- accused persons used to torture her in connection with demand of dowry of T.V., scooter and money. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say on which date the demands were made and when the deceased got assaulted. 14. P.W.11-Smt. Shankuntala Nag is the investigating officer of the case. She has stated about the investigation done by her in the case. On being proved by her, the fardbeyan of the informant was marked as Ext.4 and the signature of Archana Sen Gupta thereon was marked as Ext.4/1. The forwarding report has been marked as Ext.5. The endorsement in the F.I.R. has been marked as Ext.6 and the formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext.7. In course of investigation, she recorded the statement of witnesses and carbon copy of the inquest report on being proved by her was marked as Ext.8 and the signature of Shiv Bachan Tiwari thereon was marked as Ext.8/1. She sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and she described the place of occurrence in detail. She prepared a sketch mark of the place of occurrence which was marked as Ext.9. After completion of investigation, she submitted final form. In her cross-examination, she stated that the P.W.1 did not state before her about the demand of dowry of Rs.30,000/- but the P.W.1 stated about the doubt that the appellant-accused no.1 was impotent. P.W.2 stated before her that the deceased and her husband were not having the relationship as husband and wife and after marriage, the deceased was deprived of sexual pleasure from her husband and from the conduct of her husband, there was doubt he was impotent. 15. P.W.12 –Gopal Jee Jha is the Scientific Assistant of Forensic Science Laboratory. He has stated that he has investigated viscera of the deceased –Arpana Sen Gupta and found one type of pesticide which is usually used for agricultural purposes and which is poisonous but the exact nature of the pesticide could not be ascertained and on being proved by him, the investigation report has been marked as Ext.10. In his cross-examination, the P.W.12 has stated that consumption of pesticide will be fatal for human when it is consumed in excess of a particular quantity. 16. In his cross-examination, the P.W.12 has stated that consumption of pesticide will be fatal for human when it is consumed in excess of a particular quantity. 16. P.W.13 –Umesh Kumar Mishra has stated that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well at the backside of his house. In his cross-examination he has stated that the financial condition of the appellant-accused persons was poor after the death of their father. P.W.13 was present at the time of marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1-Satyajeet. The appellant-accused Satyajeet was suffering from mental disease. P.W.10 further stated that the deceased used to remain unhappy because of the poor financial condition of the family of the appellant-accused persons as well as because of the impotency of the appellant-accused-Satyajeet. P.W.13 has further stated that he never heard nor has seen any treatment of cruelty being meted out to the deceased. He never heard any shrieks or unnatural sound from the house of the appellant-accused persons. 17. P.W.14 –Sudha Sinha has stated that she does not know anything about the case and in her cross-examination, she repeated the same thing. 18. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused persons were recorded, and they denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. 19. From the side of the defence, D.W.1 –Pankaj Singh, son of Late B.B. Singh has proved the prescription issued by the deceased father which has been marked as Ext. B and B/1 respectively. 20. After taking into consideration the evidence in record both, oral and documentary, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused persons as already indicated above. 21. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective. It is, further, submitted that there is ample evidence in the record to show that the appellant-accused no.1- Satyajeet Aich Roy who is the husband of the deceased was impotent and for that reason the deceased used to remain unhappy and sad and there is also evidence in the record through the P.W.13 that the financial condition of the family of the appellant-accused persons was very poor after the death of their father and that was an additional reason for the deceased remaining unhappy in her in-laws house. It is, further, submitted that there is general and omnibus evidence regarding ill treatment and assault being made to the deceased by the appellant-accused persons and there is even discrepancy in the evidence regarding demand made by the appellant-accused persons as the P.W.3 being the father and informant of the case has categorically stated that the appellant-accused persons were demanding money and scooter and he has not even mentioned the amount of money demanded by the appellant-accused persons nor has stated anything about demand of any T.V.. On the other hand, the evidences of the other witnesses go to show that the appellant-accused persons were demanding scooter and T.V. and some other witnesses also added that they were demanding a Colour T.V. and money also. It is, further, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused persons that thus the evidence in respect of the alleged dowry demand made by the appellant-accused persons is not cogent at all and there is no specific evidence as to when and in what manner the deceased was ever tortured or assaulted by the appellant-accused persons or if at all she sustained any injury by any such action. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any cogent evidence regarding the alleged treatment of cruelty being meted out to the deceased, this is not a fit case where the presumption under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act can be drawn. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is evidence in record through the witnesses of the prosecution that the deceased was frequently coming to the house of the informant who is the father of the deceased and visiting the house of her sisters frequently and this incident goes to show that everything was normal with the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the Ext. B and B/1 suggest that the deceased received psychiatrist treatment even before her marriage and Ext.A, the letter written by the informant to the appellant-accused-Satyajeet dated 08.08.2000 i.e. on the alleged date of missing of the deceased from her matrimonial house do not in any manner show that anything was abnormal with the deceased or that there was any demand of dowry or any ill treatment being meted out to the deceased. It is, further, submitted that though the P.W.3 has categorically stated that he is in possession of the letter written by the deceased to him to show that the deceased was ill-treated in her matrimonial house regarding demand of dowry but the fact that the prosecution has withheld the said alleged letter from the Court by not bringing the same in the record weakens the evidence of the prosecution regarding any ill treatment or treatment of cruelty being meted out to the deceased. Further, it is submitted that there is discrepancy regarding the message conveyed to the family members of the informant by the appellant-accused persons on 08.08.2000 through the phone of the P.W.5. It is submitted that in this respect also the witnesses of the prosecution have not disclosed the facts and there is contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses as to what actually was conveyed over phone by the appellant-accused persons, as some of the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that over phone, the appellant-accused persons conveyed that the mother of the appellant-accused persons was ill and for that reason the informant and his family members were requested to come to the house of the appellant-accused persons but the P.W.5 has categorically stated that it was conveyed by the appellant-accused persons to the P.W.2 over the phone that the deceased was missing from her house and for that reason the family members of the deceased were requested to visit the house of the appellant-accused persons and hence it is submitted that in view of the discrepancy of the evidence and insufficiency of the evidence, this is a fit case where the appellant-accused persons be acquitted by at least giving them the benefit of doubt. 22. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Addl. 22. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submitted that the witnesses of the prosecution have categorically stated about the marriage of the deceased with the appellant-accused no.1 on 12.09.1999 and after six months she was treated with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry of scooter and T.V. and this is sufficient to draw the presumption under section 113 A of the Evidence Act that the suicide of the deceased was abated by her husband and the brothers of her husband who are the appellant-accused persons of the case and on the basis of the evidence in record, the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused persons, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence in record, I find that there is no specific evidence regarding any incident when in any specific manner the appellant-accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty nor there is any evidence of assault to the deceased on any specific date or occasion. The evidence in this respect is of general and omnibus nature. There is no evidence in the record to show that the informant or any of his family members has acted upon in any such information of alleged ill-treatment or cruelty to the deceased by conducting any Panchayati or reporting the matter to police or any acts of this nature. The P.W.3 in his evidence has even not stated about the fact that he ever brought the deceased at any time before her death to his house as the case made out in the F.I.R. Ext. A- the letter written by the P.W.3-informant to the appellant-accused no.1-Satyajeet do not show anything unnatural in the relation between the deceased and her husband or his family members nor there is any indication of any demand of dowry or the treatment of cruelty meted out to the deceased. P.W.3 even stated that he does not remember when the money and scooter was demanded by appellant-accused no.1-Satyajeet. The withholding of the letters allegedly written by the deceased which as per the prosecution case depicts the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased about which reference has been made both in the F.I.R. as well as in the deposition of the P.W.3 certainly creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. The withholding of the letters allegedly written by the deceased which as per the prosecution case depicts the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased about which reference has been made both in the F.I.R. as well as in the deposition of the P.W.3 certainly creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. There is no plausible reason as to why they have not produced such letters though allegedly the said letters were in their custody. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is discrepancy in the evidence regarding the demand of dowry as the P.W.3 has stated the appellant-accused persons demanded scooter and money whereas the other witnesses has stated that the appellant-accused persons were demanding scooter and T.V. 24. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the settled principle of law in respect of applicability of Section 113 A of Evidence Act. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman .The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 257 has in this respect held in paragraph -13 and 15 as under:- “13. Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Even if these facts are established the court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word “cruelty” in Section 498-A IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein this Court observed: (SCC pp. 626-27, para 12) “12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression ‘may presume’ suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to ‘all the other circumstances of the case’. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression - ‘the other circumstances of the case’ used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase ‘may presume’ used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says - ‘Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.’” 15. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 89-90, para 15) “15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court’s conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater (All ER at p. 459) has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter.” (Emphasis Supplied) In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdip Singh, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 163 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the importance of letters of the deceased written to her mother and sister and the letter written by her mother to the deceased and also the importance of examining the witnesses of the neighborhood in a case involving the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC and observed as under:- “7…. … .. .. … The only charge which has been made against the accused is under Section 306 IPC. Although the mother, the aunt and the cousin have stated about the demand of dowry and consequential ill-treatment meted out to the deceased Jyoti Bala, the letters written by Jyoti Bala to the mother and to the sister and also the letter written by the mother which have been exhibited in this case, do not indicate in any manner that Jyoti Bala had ever been taunted or humiliated on account of dowry demand. There is also no indication in the said letters that she had either been physically or mentally tortured in the house of the accused. There is also no indication in the said letters that she had either been physically or mentally tortured in the house of the accused. The letter dated 27-7-1978 written by the deceased only indicates that she felt sad and was confused as to what should be done by her because her coming to the aunt’s house or the aunt’s visiting her in-laws’ house were being objected by the accused and she solicited advice from her mother. The learned Judge in disposing of the appeal has referred to such letter and has indicated that had there been any case of maltreatment which could have induced her to commit suicide, there should have been some indication of such inducement in the letters. It appears to us that Jyoti Bala, quite young and yet to be seasoned with discord and unpleasantness in social intercourse and not yet gaining the practical wisdom and capability of adjustment against petulance and disharmony, became very sensitive and lost the normal frame of mind which might have induced her to end her life before it could fully blossom. 8. So far as PW 6 Madhuban is concerned, it appears to us that he is a chance witness and although he has stated that when the accused had been loudly giving suggestion to the deceased to commit suicide by burning or by drowning he could hear the same from his friend’s house, his evidence should not be accepted. None of the neighbours has been examined in this case. The evidence of the said chance witness without being corroborated by any other independent witness does not inspire confidence. For the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view and the appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25. Considering the evidence in record and in the light of settled principle of law as indicated above, I find that there is ample evidence in the record coming from the several witnesses of the prosecution as already mentioned above that the deceased was unhappy and perturbed because her husband being one of the appellant-accused was not able to establish normal sexual relationship with her because of his impotency. In view of the overwhelming evidence in this respect the same being the cause of her suicide cannot be ruled out. In view of the overwhelming evidence in this respect the same being the cause of her suicide cannot be ruled out. Hence I have no hesitation in holding that this is a fit case where the appellants be acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the appellants namely Satyajeet Aich Roy, Debjit Aich Roy and Surjit Aich Roy of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 and Order of sentence dated 26.11.2005 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.431 of 2001 being not sustainable in law is set aside. The appellant-accused persons are on bail. In view of their acquittal, they are discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds. 26. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of the Judgment forthwith. 27. In the result, this appeal is allowed.