JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2005 and order of sentence dated 27.7.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with fine. 3. The case of the prosecution, as mentioned in the fardbeyan of PW 2-Mangal Soren, is that his daughter namely Sukarmani Soren had gone to West Bengal three years prior to the occurrence for earning her livelihood. The accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi also used to work with her. They fell in love and after returning from West Bengal they used to reside in the house of Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi of village Gariyari as husband and wife, though there was no marriage solemnized between them. A few months before the occurrence, there was difference between Sukarmani and Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi. On the festival of Bandhana, Sukarmani and the accused came to the house of the informant. The informant tried to reconcile the matter between them and thereafter both of them went to the house of the accused at Gariyari. On 17.1.2003 Sukarmani Soren reached the house of her maternal grandfather-Mangal Murmu at 10:00 a.m. She was not feeling well and started vomiting. On receiving information, the informant along with his brother Budhan Soren went to village Dumaria and noticed that the condition of Sukarmani Soren was serious. Sukarmani Soren disclosed that due to behavior of the accused-appellant she has consumed poison which is used in paddy crop. The informant called one doctor namely Suresh who recommended specialized treatment for the deceased and thereafter the informant took Sukarmani to his house and started to arrange money. In the meanwhile, Sukarmani died at about 6:00 p.m. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the police registered Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2003 (G.R. No. 60 of 2003) and took up investigation of the case. 4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. and upon the accused-appellant pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined 10 witnesses besides proving 7 documents which have been marked as Exhibits. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Out of ten witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 2- Mangal Soren, who is the father and informant of the case, has stated that the occurrence took place in the year 2003. His daughter had gone to West Bengal three years before. The accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi married his daughter Sukarmani Soren. They used to live together and' used to quarrel. The accused brought Sukarmani Soren to his house at Garhariya. There was quarrel between the accused and Sukarmani Soren. The daughter of PW 2 went to her maternal uncle's place at Dumaria. The mother-in-law of PW 2 informed him about the illness of Sukarmani Soren at Dumaria. PW 2 went to Dumaria. His daughter disclosed that the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi administered medicine to her which is used in paddy. The daughter of PW 2 was examined by the doctor but she died. PW 2 put his thumb impression on the fardbeyan. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that he did not state before the police that Sukarmani Soren told him that being angered by the behavior of the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi, she took poison. PW 2 has further stated that he stated before the police that Sukarmani Soren told him that accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi administered poison to her. He did not make any complain to the police or to Mukhiya nor was any panchayati held in connection with the quarrel between his daughter and the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi. 7. PW 3-Tinku Soren has stated that Sukarmani Soren and the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi went to West Bengal to earn their livelihood and stayed there for three years and after returning from West Bengal they used to live together as husband and wife. 7. PW 3-Tinku Soren has stated that Sukarmani Soren and the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi went to West Bengal to earn their livelihood and stayed there for three years and after returning from West Bengal they used to live together as husband and wife. There was quarrel between Sukarmani Soren and Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi and Sukarmani Soren took poison. Thereafter she went to the house of her maternal uncle where she died. The police prepared the inquest report and PW 3 put his signature which was marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, PW 3 has stated that Sukarmani Soren and the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi fell in love and thereafter they got married. PW 3 went to the house of Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi about one and half years ago. No occurrence took place in his presence. He only heard about the incident. 8. PW 4-Shibu Soren did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 9. PW 5-Sona Muni Murmu, who is the mother of the deceased-Sukarmani Soren, has stated that her daughter was living with the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Sub ham Marandi. On getting information about the illness of Sukarmani Soren, PW 5 went to her mother's house and there Sukarmani Soren disclosed that Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi had administered poison to her and Sukarmani Soren died. PW 5 informed the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi but he did not come to see Sukarmani Soren. In her cross-examination, PW 5 has stated that she stated before the police that the marriage of Sukarmani Soren was solemnized with the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi. She also stated before the police that her daughter told her that the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi administered poison to her. She disclosed to the Investigating Officer that even after giving information to the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi, he did not come to see her daughter. The accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi used to quarrel and assault the daughter of PW 5 and for that a case was instituted but she could not produce any document of the case. Though she has not seen in her own eyes but she has stated whatever her daughter told her. PW 5 stated regarding the quarrel between her daughter and son-in-law and that a panchayati was held in the village. 10. Though she has not seen in her own eyes but she has stated whatever her daughter told her. PW 5 stated regarding the quarrel between her daughter and son-in-law and that a panchayati was held in the village. 10. PW 6-Mangal Murmu, who is the maternal grandfather of the deceased-Sukarmani Soren, has stated that Sukarmani Soren came to his house and died. He put his thumb impression on the inquest report. In his cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that he does not know, what the police wrote in the paper. 11. PW 7-Budhan Soren has stated that Sukarmani Soren died in the month of Maagh in village Dumaria. On getting information of the illness of Sukarmani Soren, he went to village Dumaria and saw that Sukarmani Soren was ill. She was vomiting. She was not taken to any doctor. PW 7 and others brought Sukarmani Soren to village Balwa. Sukannani Soren had taken poison. The marriage was solemnized between accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi and Sukannani Soren and both of them used to live as husband and wife. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi never quarreled in his presence. Sukannani Soren died after vomiting. 12. PW I-Dr. Debasis Rakshit is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following : "No ante-mortem or post-mortem injuries were found over the dead body of the deceased hence the viscera preserved in S.S. Saline for chemical analysis. Stomach with its content, a, piece of liver, whole spleen, kidney and a loop of small intestine was also preserved. " This witness has stated that no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours. PW 1 has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which has been marked as Ext. 1. 13. PW 10-Suresh Paswan is the Technical Officer in F.S.L., Bihar, Patna. In his examination-in-chief, he has proved the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which was marked as Ext. 7. PW 10 has further stated that according to the report, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the dark brown fluid. PW 10 being the Technical Officer has himself examined the dark brown fluid. He opined that Aluminium Phosphide can cause death if one takes or consumes it. 7. PW 10 has further stated that according to the report, Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the dark brown fluid. PW 10 being the Technical Officer has himself examined the dark brown fluid. He opined that Aluminium Phosphide can cause death if one takes or consumes it. In his cross-examination, PW 10 has stated that if plain water is kept in Jar for 10-15 days it can neither turn dark brown in colour nor it can be poisonous. 14. PW 8-Shyam Narayan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case who has partly conducted the investigation of the case. He has stated that on 18.1.2005 he was posted at Taljhari police station and he took over the case of Taljhari P.S.Case No. 13 of 2003. PW 8 has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext. 4. and the formal FIR, which was marked as Ext.4. He has further stated that he went to the place of occurrence with the Officer In-charge of Taljhari police station. On being proved by PW 8. inquest report of the dead body was prepared which was marked as Ext.5. He described the place of occurrence in detail. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and also sent the Viscera for chemical examination. On completion of the investigation. he submitted charge-sheet in the case showing the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi as absconder. In his cross-examination, PW 8 has stated that he has not recorded the statement of the independent witnesses. He has further stated that witness Mangal Soren (PW 2) has not stated before him that Sukarmani Soren told the PW 2 that, accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi administered poison to her. PW 8 has further stated that Sona Muni Murmu-PW 5 has not stated before him that accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi used to quarrel and assault Sukarmani Soren. PW 5 also did not state before PW 8 that the accused Dhiba Marandi @ Subham Marandi administered poison to Sukarmani Soren. PW 8 was recalled by the prosecution and his attention was drawn to the statement of Shibu Soren who was declared hostile by the prosecution. 15. PW 9-Girish Kumar Ambast is the Sub-Inspector of Police who has partly investigated the case. He has stated that on 18.1.2003 he recorded the statement of PW 2 and took his signature which was marked as Ext. 15. PW 9-Girish Kumar Ambast is the Sub-Inspector of Police who has partly investigated the case. He has stated that on 18.1.2003 he recorded the statement of PW 2 and took his signature which was marked as Ext. 3/1 and the fardbeyan of the informant was marked as Ext.3. In his cross-examination, PW 9 has stated that he has not recorded the statement of any of the witnesses. 16. after closure of evidences of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr PC was recorded wherein he was put questions regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and the appellant denied the allegations and expressed his ignorance about the cause of death of the deceased and pleaded innocence. 17. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 18. Mr Lukesh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Court below erred in appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and failed to take note of the fact that P.Ws. 2 and 5 being father and mother of the deceased have improved their statements vis-a-vis the jardbeyan and their statements made before the Investigating Officer. So the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 5 are highly doubtful and untrustworthy and apart from P.Ws. 2 and 5, rest of the material witnesses has no personal knowledge about the alleged occurrence except to the extent that Sukarmarni Soren was ill and she died. Hence, it is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that the evidence on record is woefully inadequate to base the conviction of the appellant for the offence under. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Amicus Curiae in order to establish that P.Ws. Hence, it is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that the evidence on record is woefully inadequate to base the conviction of the appellant for the offence under. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Amicus Curiae in order to establish that P.Ws. 2 and 5 are untrustworthy witnesses, drew the attention of this Court to the jardbeyan of PW 2 wherein he has stated that Sukarmani Soren disclosed that she herself took poison being angered with the behavior of the accused appellant whereas in the Court both the PW 2 and PW 5 have stated that Sukarmani Soren told them that the accused appellant administered poison to her and they that they stated the same before the Investigating Officer but P.W.8 has categorically denied that neither P.W 2 nor PW 5 has stated before him that the deceased Sukarmani Soren disclosed that the appellant administered poison to her. Learned Amicus Curiae also drew attention of this Court to the charge framed against the appellant wherein it has been mentioned that on 17.1.2003 at village Walwa, Sukarmani Soren committed suicide and the accused appellant abetted the commission being best friend by neglecting and torturing her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and in the charge also it has not been mentioned that the accused-appellant administered poison to the deceased. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence in the record that in any specific manner the accused appellant neglected or tortured the deceased Sukarmani Soren and the evidence on record which has come through P.Ws. 2 and 5 is that the accused appellant administered poison to the deceased Sukarmani Soren which is not the charge against the appellant. Hence, it is submitted that there being no evidence on record regarding the essential ingredients of the offence to bring home the said charge against the accused appellant hence Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted in the present case. So far as the quarrel is concerned, it is submitted that such quarrel is common in nature between any husband and wife and moreover, there is no specific evidence regarding any quarrel. So far as the quarrel is concerned, it is submitted that such quarrel is common in nature between any husband and wife and moreover, there is no specific evidence regarding any quarrel. Hence, it is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that it is a fit case where the appellant be acquitted of the charge, by at least giving him the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside. 19. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that the prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws. 2 and 5 are the rustic and illiterate witnesses, which is apparent from the thumb impression they have put on their depositions. So it is submitted that a little variance from the contents of the fardbeyan or their statements made before the Investigating Officer certainly is not a valid ground to throw out their testimonies. It is further submitted that the witnesses have stated about the quarrel between the husband and wife which indicates that the commission of suicide by the deceased Sukarmani Soren was abetted by the accused appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below does not warrant interference of this Court and the same be confirmed and the appeal being without merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find that there is exaggeration and improvement in the testimonies which are apparent from the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 5. Ext.3 is the fardbeyan of PW 2 wherein he has initially stated before the police that the deceased has herself taken poison. being angered by the behavior of the accused appellant. The other material witnesses. who had the occasion to see Sukarmani Soren before her death, have also deposed in Court likewise as was the statement made by the PW 2 in his fardbeyan. The other material witnesses, who had the occasion to see Sukarmani Soren before her death have stated that the deceased Sukarmani Soren disclosed that she has taken poison herself. who had the occasion to see Sukarmani Soren before her death, have also deposed in Court likewise as was the statement made by the PW 2 in his fardbeyan. The other material witnesses, who had the occasion to see Sukarmani Soren before her death have stated that the deceased Sukarmani Soren disclosed that she has taken poison herself. In the charge framed against the accused-appellant also, it was not mentioned that the accused-appellant administered poison to the deceased Sukarmani Soren but P.Ws. 2 and 5 in their testimonies before the Court have stated that the accused-appellant administered poison to the deceased Sukarmani Soren. Their testimony that they also stated before the police that the accused-appellant administered poison to the deceased Sukarmani Soren, is falsified by the testimony of PW 8, as the PW 8 has categorically stated that neither PW 2 nor PW 5 stated before him that the appellant administered poison to Sukarmani Soren. There is also discrepancy regarding he place of death of the deceased Sukarmani Soren. While PW 2, stated that her death took place in his house, while he was making arrangement for her better treatment, the testimony of the other material witnesses indicates that she died in the house of her maternal grandfather. Keeping in view the aforesaid evidences on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the testimonies of PWs 2 and 5 appear to be not trustworthy. 21. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 in the facts and circumstances of that case where the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased "to go and die", the Hon'ble Supreme 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. 22. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306, IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which read 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. 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 these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." The Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107, IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased and also held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 23. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 in the facts and circumstances of that case where the charge was framed and the conviction was for an offence under Section 306, IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which the deceased 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 herself on fire, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "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." 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 which was also followed in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttranchal reported in 2012 (9) SCC 734 interpreted the word 'instigation' appearing in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under : "16. ... instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. ... 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word 'goad' is 'a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction' ... to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts...." (Emphasis supplied) 25. Analyzing the evidences on record in the light of the settled principle of law as mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that except the evidence regarding the quarrel between the accused appellant and the deceased Sukarmani Soren as husband and wife, which of course is of general and omnibus in nature without even the exact words uttered by the accused-appellant or how many days prior to the occurrence the said alleged quarrel took place, there is no other specific evidence to establish the ingredient of instigation against the accused-appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this is a fit case where the appellant be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by giving him the benefit of doubt. 26. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.7.2005 and order of sentence dated 27.7.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Dumka in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004, being not sustainable in law, are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by giving him the benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is on bail, in view of his acquittal, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 27. Since the appellant is on bail, in view of his acquittal, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 27. Let the lower Court record be sent back to the Court concerned with a copy of this judgment forthwith. 28. Before parting with this judgment, I must record that I have been ably assisted by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae. I direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned Amicus Curie. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary. High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful. 29. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.