JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State. 2. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2016 delivered in Case No.S.T.(Type-2) 04 of 2016 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, these two appeals have been preferred by the convicts, hereinafter, referred to as the appellant. By the judgment dated 10.11.2016, the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and pursuant to the said conviction they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9(nine) years and fine of Rs.20,000.00/- with default imprisonment each. 3. The genesis of the prosecution case is located in the written ejahar belatedly filed by one Sipra Das, the unfortunate mother of Debasis Das, son of Sri Dilip Das the person who has committed suicide by hanging. The informant (PW-11) have stated that the police did not accept her ejahar, even the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura, did not act on her information that the police did not register the case on the basis of the written ejahar, she filed the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. In the said complaint, what she has disclosed is that on 10.06.2015 at about 11.20 p.m., she received information that her son feel unconscious and he was being taken to Lal Bazar immediately. The informant along with Shibani Chakraborty and Gautam Chakraborty of her village rushed to the place of occurrence, the rented house of the deceased and the appellant [in Title Appeal No.09 of 2017]. On reaching there, she found the dead body of her son lying in the back seat of the vehicle which was parked infront of their house. Inside the said vehicle, the appellant In Crl.A(J)65 of 2016 was found seated. But she did not find her granddaughter in the place of occurrence. When she asked the appellant [in Crl.A(J)09 of 2017] in that regard, the said appellant replied that as she got scared in the turn of events, she was sent to her parental house. On her query, she came to know further that she along with Biswajit Singh and Rohan Sabdakar went to her parental house by the vehicle of Babu Singh. On her query, she came to know further that she along with Biswajit Singh and Rohan Sabdakar went to her parental house by the vehicle of Babu Singh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking cognizance sent the complaint for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Based on the said written complaint, the police registered a case being Dharmanagar P.S. Case No.2015 DMN 057 under Section 302/34 of the IPC and took up the investigation. 4. For purpose of reference, it is to be noted that the occurrence took place on 10.06.2018 at about 2100 hrs., whereas the written complaint was registered by the police on 19.07.2015 at about 1215 hrs. However, from the records, it surfaces that the ejahar was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.06.2015. Thus, there is a clear delay of sixteen days, though in the impugned judgment it has been referred as the delay of twenty days. The police on completing the investigation filed the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. by charge-sheeting the appellants herein. As complicity of the appellants herein was found prima facie under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the said offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the said court. In due course, the case was transferred to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar for trial in accordance with law. On 28.05.2016, the charge was framed against the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC stating that the appellant in Crl.A(J)09 of 2017 had developed an illicit relation with the other appellants. As the other appellant used to visit the house of the appellant namely Sumitra Das quite frequently in absence of the deceased, it became a bone of contention in the marital relation. On the faithful day i.e.10.06.2017 at about 09.30 p.m. the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself by a rope. The appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. 5. To substantiate the charge prosecution examined as many as 14(fourteen) witnesses including the informant (PW-1), Dr. Sandipak Roy (PW-12) and one Sumana Sharma (PW-4). Apart that, prosecution introduced in the evidence 11(eleven) documentary evidence including the written complaint (Exbt.10), the postmortem examination report (Exbt.5) and the inquest report (Exbt.6). 5. To substantiate the charge prosecution examined as many as 14(fourteen) witnesses including the informant (PW-1), Dr. Sandipak Roy (PW-12) and one Sumana Sharma (PW-4). Apart that, prosecution introduced in the evidence 11(eleven) documentary evidence including the written complaint (Exbt.10), the postmortem examination report (Exbt.5) and the inquest report (Exbt.6). Thereafter, both the appellants were examined under Section 313 to have their response in respect of the incriminating materials as surfaced in the prosecution-evidence. By appreciating the evidence, the trial court returned the finding of conviction against the appellants. This appeal, challenges the said finding of conviction fundamentally along with the sentence that followed pursuant to the conviction. 6. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred extensively the evidence as recorded in the trial and submitted that besides the element of suspicion there is no material evidence to justify the conviction as returned by the trial court. The trial court findings are not based on legal evidence, no evidence in particular has satisfied the requirement of section 107 of the IPC. In this regard, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 . In Para-7 of the said report it has been stated that : “7. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self’ and “cide” means “killing” thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.” 7. Thereafter, on dwelling on all the aspects of the “abetment” as illustrated under Section 107 of the IPC, the apex court has observed by approvingly referring the law as enunciated in Ramesh Kumar versus State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 . In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the apex court had occasion to observe and dwell upon in respect of “instigation”. In Para-20 of the said decision, the law has been enunciated: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the apex court had occasion to observe and dwell upon in respect of “instigation”. In Para-20 of the said decision, the law has been enunciated: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” [Emphasis added] 8. In the celebrated case of State of West Bengal versus Orilal Jaiswal and Another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 , the apex court had categorically observed that if it appears to the court a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life as 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. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel having referred to that decision has contended that there is no evidence that any conduct or act of the appellants can be term as “instigation” and hence, the finding of conviction having not based on the legal evidence is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 10. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP has fairly submitted that there is no evidence of instigation, it is a case of suspicion. However, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP was oblivious to mention immediately that there is some evidence of quarrel just preceding the time of the commission of offence. 10. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP has fairly submitted that there is no evidence of instigation, it is a case of suspicion. However, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP was oblivious to mention immediately that there is some evidence of quarrel just preceding the time of the commission of offence. But the nature of the said incident and its intensity whether it was instrumental to induce the person to commit suicide has not been established at all by the prosecution. A passing reference made by the appellant in Crl.A. (J) 09 of 2017 to Sri Satyabrata Das (PW-1) cannot be accepted as the foundation for sustaining the judgment of conviction. 11. For appreciating the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court has browsed through the testimonies recorded in the trial and finds that there is no explanation at all for the delay in filing the information to the court or the police. It has transpired from the records that PW-11, Shipra Das though appeared in the place of occurrence she waited for about seventeen days to inform of the said occurrence. It appears from the inquest report that father of the deceased was one of the witnesses in the inquest report. He did not disclose anything to the person who carried out the inquest procedure. On the contrary, from reading the inquest report it would appear that the deceased was suspecting his wife, the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017 of having an affair with the other appellant and there was usual quarrels. But at the same time, it has been brought in the evidence that the other appellant was a good friend of the deceased. For purpose of appreciating the grounds of challenge, let this court take a journey through the evidence as recorded in the trial. 12. PW-1, Sri Satyabrata Das was the who was reported of the occurrence within a short while. He has stated that he came to know that Babu Singh (the other appellant) is the friend of Debashish Das but he did not find any quarrel between Debashish (the deceased) and his wife, the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017. They were living peacefully. PW-1, Sri Satyabrata Das was the who was reported of the occurrence within a short while. He has stated that he came to know that Babu Singh (the other appellant) is the friend of Debashish Das but he did not find any quarrel between Debashish (the deceased) and his wife, the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017. They were living peacefully. On that night, as stated by PW-1, when he asked Smt. Sumitra Das, the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017 as to why she called Babu Singh though their house was situated very near to their rented house and why she did not call them first, she replied that Babu Singh being the friend of Debashish Das(deceased) and as he got a vehicle, he was called by her over the mobile phone. Except this part, the other part of the testimony is not very material. 13. PW-2, Smt. Suchitra Sarkar, is the wife of the land lord in whose premises the deceased used to reside. She has categorically stated that she did not notice anything untoward in their relation, even she could not identify the co-accused Babu Singh. 14. PW-3, Sri Nabendu Bhushan Deb did not state anything against the appellants. But for not supporting the case of the prosecution, PW-3 was declared hostile. 15. PW-4, Sumana Sharma has stated that she got to learn that quarrel occurred between Debashish Das (the deceased) and his wife on the issue that Babu Singh used to visit frequently the rented house of Debashish Das at Lalbazar. She advised Sumitra Das, the appellant in Crl. A.(J)09 of 2017, not to talk to Babu Singh. While she was counseling Debashish Das, his wife (Sumitra Das) and Babu Singh, at that time Sumitra uttered that she would not bear with the complaint of her illicit relationship made by Debashish Das. She was informed further by Debashish Das, the deceased that his wife was having an illicit relationship with Babu Singh. This witness has particularly stated that the main reason of their quarrel was relating to Babu Singh?s visit. But she did not state anything that on that day, there was such intense spark which could instigated the deceased to take a decision to bring an end to his life. The quarrel is rooted in the suspicion. 16. PW-5, Sibani Chakraborty she has clearly denied to have any knowledge about the said incident. 17. But she did not state anything that on that day, there was such intense spark which could instigated the deceased to take a decision to bring an end to his life. The quarrel is rooted in the suspicion. 16. PW-5, Sibani Chakraborty she has clearly denied to have any knowledge about the said incident. 17. PW-6, Smt. Jaya Rani Choudhury has stated in the trial that for some days Debashish Das and his wife resided in their house, but ten days prior to the incident of death of Debashish Das he and his wife left their rented house and went to Lalbazar area to reside. She has however stated that Debashish Das and his wife used to make quarrel with each other. To a query to the court this witness (PW-6) has categorically stated as under : “I did not see friend of Debashish Das in coming to their rented house in his absence. I do not know the reason of quarrel between Debashish and his wife.” For stating thus, at the instance of the prosecution she was also declared hostile. 18. PW-7, Smt. Laxmi Sharma has narrated in the context of her acquaintance that the main reason of their quarrel was Babu Singh. Debashish Das, the deceased, has stated her that his wife was having an illicit relation with Babu Singh. During the quarrel, he has categorically stated that Sumitra Das, the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017 had stated to Debashish “why you don?t die?” In that context, Debashish retorted that he would divorce his wife. But Sumitra Das had stated that she would never give him the divorce. Certain statements, such as threat to commit suicide etc., were not found in the previous statement as recorded by the police. 19. PW-8, Ms. Priyanka Das is the sister of the deceased. She has stated that her brother used to tell her mother that his wife was having an illicit relationship with Babu Singh, the other appellant. She did not elaborate much which can shed light on the aspect of “instigation”. 20. PW-9, Subhrangshu Bhattacharjee who scribed the complaint on dictation of Shipra Das had identified the said complaint [Exbt.4] and stated that he did not have any personal knowledge in the occurrence. The child of the deceased and the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017 were also examined. 21. PW-10, Ms. 20. PW-9, Subhrangshu Bhattacharjee who scribed the complaint on dictation of Shipra Das had identified the said complaint [Exbt.4] and stated that he did not have any personal knowledge in the occurrence. The child of the deceased and the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017 were also examined. 21. PW-10, Ms. Mousumi Das at the time of examination was only six years old. Following the process of examination the witness of tender age, viz. her understanding of duty of telling the truth before the court, the ordinary faculties she was examined and cross examined. She has stated as follows : “One uncle namely Babu used to come to our house with my father. I can identify uncle if he is shown to me. Then identifying the person in the dock who is the appellant in Crl.A.(J)65 of 2016.” 22. PW-11, Smt. Shipra Das who filed the complaint to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that her son had been murdered by the appellants. She has narrated what she had disclosed in the complaint and above all, she has also stated how she got the complaint written. She has categorically stated that prior to ten to twelve days before the occurrence, Sumitra Das started quarrelling with the deceased on the issue of illicit relation with Babu Singh and at that time she called Sumana Sharma of their village. Subsequently, Laxmi Sharma also came and saw that quarrel. Sumana Sharma and Laxmi Sharma told Babu Singh to keep away from Sumitra Das. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she did not mention in her complaint that prior to ten to twelve days of the incident Sumitra Das, Babu Singha and her son went to their Algapur house. That time Sumitra quarreled with her son, Debasish Das. She has admitted that her son Debasish Das had “slight angriness”. 23. PW-12, Dr. Sandipak Roy who carried out the postmortem examination has clearly given the opinion that the cause of death was due to suffocation or asphyxia which was caused by “hanging”. He did not find any other external injury on his dead body and the death was suicidal in nature and nobody has questioned this opinion under Section 51A of the Evidence Act. 24. PW-13, Hirendra Debbarma, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was posted at the relevant time at Dharmanagar Police Station. He did not find any other external injury on his dead body and the death was suicidal in nature and nobody has questioned this opinion under Section 51A of the Evidence Act. 24. PW-13, Hirendra Debbarma, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was posted at the relevant time at Dharmanagar Police Station. He had received one information relating to unnatural death on the very day of the occurrence i.e. 10.06.2015 filed by Sumitra Das. He found the body of Debasish Das when he visited the place of occurrence inside the vehicle. That time both Sumitra Das and Satyabrata Das (PW-1) told him that Debasish died by hanging. He prepared the Surathal report (inquest report). He has also testified in the trial court that he did not call any doctor to examine Debasish Das. He identified the said report and visited the place of occurrence but he did not find anything indicative of commission of any offence. 25. PW-14, Sukanta Karmakar, Sub-Inspector of police having received the complaint from the court, registered the case under Section 302/34 of the IPC. He has also identified the endorsement on the body of the complaint by one Sub-Inspector of police namely Ashish Kr. Das. He had continued the investigation. In the trial, he has given a brief narrative of how he had conducted the investigation including collection of the CDR (Call Detail Report). He has confirmed that witness Jaya Rani Choudhury (PW-6) had stated to him that Babu Singh used to come in the house of Debashish Das in his absence and she had suspected that his wife was having an illicit relation. In the cross examination when he was suggested that the said witness did not state in the manner as he has suggested in the trial, he denied that suggestion squarely. On examination of Surathal report, it is found that in the report it has been recorded that the appellant in Crl. A.(J)09 of 2017 made utmost effort to save life of her husband (the deceased) and she brought down her husband to the ground. But ultimately, she could not save. Section 107 of the IPC has not only defined the word abetment, but it has illustrated what action or act can be termed as „instigation?. For that purpose, Section 107 of the IPC may be extracted hereunder : “107. But ultimately, she could not save. Section 107 of the IPC has not only defined the word abetment, but it has illustrated what action or act can be termed as „instigation?. For that purpose, Section 107 of the IPC may be extracted hereunder : “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. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 26. Abetment of a thing or thing being abetted for purpose of being abetment under Section 107 of the IPC shall be from an instigation to that thing has intended or hatching conspiracy for pushing a person doing certain act with certain manner and if an act or illegal omission takes in pursuance to that takes and information to doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of the thing can be stated as abetment. The offence of abatement by instigation depends upon the instigation of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or aid as provided under Section 107 of the IPC. The offence of abatement by instigation depends upon the instigation of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has been abetted. Abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or aid as provided under Section 107 of the IPC. However, every court trying the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is supposed to keep in mind that the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation see Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 8 SCC 734 . 27. The trial court while returning the finding of abetment has relied on few decisions of the apex court in the similar line of Praveen Pradhan. But taking an aid to Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the trial court has come to an inference that the conduct of the person charged of abetment is relevant if it is deducible that the said conduct had instigated the suicide then the person may be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC. Thereafter, the trial court has recorded having referred to the testimonies of PWs-6, 8 & 11 in particular in particular that the fact of quarrel was deeply rooted in the relation of Sumitra Das and Babu Singh. Thereafter abruptly, it has been observed that Debashish Das committed suicide on the reason of extra-marital relation and that has been proved beyond doubt in the evidence. So far lodging of the complaint in a belated stage, the trial court did not give much weight to that aspect. Even the trial court did not explore why such delay occurred. The trial court has returned an observation that the explanation given by the complainant to overcome the requisite under Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. is not deficient for purpose of explanation of the delay. But not a piece of paper was produced in the trial that such complaint was filed before the police station or before the Superintendent of police. 28. But not a piece of paper was produced in the trial that such complaint was filed before the police station or before the Superintendent of police. 28. Be that as it may, this court will not place much emphasis on that aspect of the matter, but on the finding that the prosecution has established the charge beyond reasonable doubt that Sumitra Das [the appellant in Crl.A.(J)09 of 2017] and Babu Singh [the appellant in Crl.A.(J)65 of 2016] were having illicit relation, which, in the opinion of this court, is entirely without foundation of evidence. But so far the question of abetment is concerned, even if it is assumed that the appellants were having or were engaged in an illicit relation, that cannot by itself be accepted as an instigation. Instigation must be very intense and it should be intended to aid the object. These two elements are to be coupled to form the abetment in law, but there is no such evidence. On assumption of fact, such inference cannot be drawn. Even if PW-1 is believed, it is the appellant, Sumitra Das who told him that there was a bit of quarrel and she left the room. The quarrel itself cannot be an instigation. Its intensity and dimension toward the object of suicide are very material. Moreover, PW-11 has stated that her son was “slight angriness”, meaning he was venerable and he had no control over his conduct. Any act out of fit of anger may be shockingly and unfortunate but this court has to observe that the act cannot be treated as an instigation. Having observed thus, this court is of the further opinion that no doubt there exists rings of suspicion, but suspicion cannot substitute the place of legal evidence. Hence, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not wanted to in any other case. Send down the LCRs forthwith.