JUDGMENT : Whether conduct of the witnesses in promptly not disclosing motive of crime is a relevant fact in issue, in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act); whether the act of the accused in not searching for his missing wife can be said to be a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and as to whether such a fact casts a burden upon him, in explaining the factum of his absence from the spot of crime and his presence at another place, being a fact within his knowledge by virtue of Section 106 of the Act. Whether under Section 114 of the Act, Court can presume existence of a fact, which may likely to have happened, considering the conduct of the accused. And whether prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of the accused having abetted the commission of a crime within the ambit and scope of Section 107 of IPC necessitating presumption of certain facts in issue. These are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal. 2. (i) In short, it is the case of prosecution that accused Umesh Ch. Tripura(referred to as the accused) married to Sabirung Reang(referred to as the deceased), was allegedly having an illicit relationship with one Smt. Jyotirung Reang(hereinafter referred to as another lady). 2. (ii) During the subsistence of his first marriage, of over 30 years, accused had intended to solemnize his second marriage with this another lady, which act stood resisted by the deceased. 2. (iii) On 17th November, 2015 at about 8.30 p.m. accused came home in a drunken condition and started quarreling with the deceased and his daughter Smt. Jyotsna Debi Tripura(PW.9). Also he physically assaulted them. The cause being that the deceased not having answered his phone calls. After this incident, they all went off to sleep. In the morning, finding the deceased not to be at home, PW.9 telephonically contacted the accused who suggested to look for her in the nearby area. On searching, she found, at a little distance away from the house, dead body of the deceased lying in the field close by to the river bank. An empty bottle of poison was lying next to the body. 2. (iv) All concerned were informed. On searching, she found, at a little distance away from the house, dead body of the deceased lying in the field close by to the river bank. An empty bottle of poison was lying next to the body. 2. (iv) All concerned were informed. Also, on the basis of information of a death of a lady, Sri Arun Debbarma (PW.10), officiating as Sub Inspector of Police, reached the spot and prepared inquest report (Exbt.2), witnessed by Sri Janaram Reang (PW.4). 2. (v) Same day, i.e. on 19th November, 2015 the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was so conducted by Dr. Joydeep Chowdhury(PW.7). Prima facie, as per the report (Exbt.4), doctor opined the deceased to have died as a result of poison and viscera sent for chemical analysis/examination also corroborated such opinion. 2. (vi) Subsequently, only on 22nd November, 2015, a written complaint(Exbt.1) indicating complicity of the accused and the another lady, scribed by Charlie Reang (PW.5) and signed by the brother of the deceased, was lodged with the police, which in turn, resulted in registration of FIR No.2015 KCP 0109 dated 22nd November, 2015 at Kanchanpur Police Station under Section 302 IPC. 2. (vii) The said FIR was investigated by Sri Shakti Sadhan Jamatia (PW.11) who opined the deceased to have committed suicide, abetted by the accused but without any role ascribed to this another lady. 2. (viii) Resultantly, with the presentation of challan only against the accused, he was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and tried as such. 3. It is a matter of record that to establish the charge, beyond reasonable doubt, Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Significantly, in such a statement accused admitted to have rebuked the deceased and his daughter for not answering his phone call, but denied any act of assault or abetment. 4. On all counts, trial court (Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar) convicted the accused vide impugned judgment dated 29th March, 2017 passed in Case No.S.T(Type-2) 12/2016 titled as The State of Tripura Vs. Umesh Chandra subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 5. 4. On all counts, trial court (Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar) convicted the accused vide impugned judgment dated 29th March, 2017 passed in Case No.S.T(Type-2) 12/2016 titled as The State of Tripura Vs. Umesh Chandra subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 5. The trial court found the prosecution to have established the charges through the testimonies of material witnesses namely, Sri Judharam Reang(PW.1), Smt. Kakali Reang (PW.2), Sri Ashamanjoy Reang (PW.3), Sri Janaram Reang (PW.4), Smt. Jyotsna Debi Tripura(PW.9), and Sri Shakti Sadhan Jamatia(PW.11). After examining the entire evidence led by the prosecution i.e. the ocular evidence of 12 witnesses and the documentary evidence, Exbts.1 to 10 so proven by them, it framed the following points for determination : “(i) Whether accused Umesh Ch. Tripura is the lawful husband of Sabirung Reang? (ii) Whether on 17-11-2015 in the night at any time till the noon of 18-11-2015 Sabirung Reang committed suicide? (iii) Whether on 17-11-2015 at any time in the night at his house accused Umesh Ch. Tripura assaulted Sabirung Reang? (iv) Whether on 17-11-2015 at any time in the night at his house accused Umesh Ch. Tripura abetted the commission of suicide by Sabirung Reang? (v) Whether accused person is liable to be convicted u/s 306 of IPC?” 6. Point No.1 was answered on the basis of ocular version of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 9. 7. Point No.2 was answered in the affirmative on the basis of testimony of the doctor (PW.7), who proved Exbt.4 and report of the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory (TSFSL), Exbt.9. The court found the death to be neither homicidal nor accidental, but as a result of an act of suicide with the consumption of poison, which would have been in the night intervening 17-18th November, 2015 sometime between 12.45 to 1.45 a.m. and the place of suicide being the vegetable fields on the bank of Deo river. The court found the deceased Sabirung Reang to be the legally wedded wife of accused Umesh Ch. Tripura. 8. (i) The trial court considered points No.3 & 4 together and answered as such. While doing so, it took note of the statutory provisions of Section 107 & 306 IPC. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. Tripura. 8. (i) The trial court considered points No.3 & 4 together and answered as such. While doing so, it took note of the statutory provisions of Section 107 & 306 IPC. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another; 2012 (9) SCC 734 (2 Judge Bench) it stands observed and held, that inference for finding nexus to an act of suicide can be drawn from the circumstances established on the record. Also, conduct of the accused prior to or subsequent to an act of commission of crime can be considered for drawing such inference and presumption. 8. (ii) Notwithstanding the factum of witnesses PWs.1, 2 and 3 being close relatives, and not eye-witnesses to the incident leading to the act/commission of crime, yet, through their testimonies prosecution was able to establish the factum of, (a) accused Sri Umesh Ch. Tripura having illicit relationship with the another lady and (b) on the night of the incident the accused having given blows in a drunken condition both to the deceased and his daughter PW.9. 8. (iii) While arriving at the former conclusion, (a) court presumed certain state of affairs and that being the cause of extra-marital relationship as observed (Para-44) in the following terms: “……….. The proof of the fact that victim was assaulted by accused on the relevant night, also made the existence of the fact that he frequently made the quarrel with victim on this issue and she had unhappiness, highly probable to believe this fact of this extra marital relationship with Jatirung..…….” (b) That mere omission or non-reference of a relevant fact, of illicit relationship, in the previous statement of witnesses being close relatives, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would be of no consequence, in view of deposition of such fact in the court. (c) Also, the court presumed, by using the expression “reasonably believed” the intent of the accused to solemnize his second marriage. 8. (iv) The daughter, Smt. Jyotsna Debi Tripura(PW.9) not to have supported the prosecution only for the reason that she was fully dependent on the accused for maintenance and upkeep and that PWs.1, 2 and 3 “would” “not” “have” “falsely implicated” the accused. 8. (v) The defence set up by the accused of the deceased having taken away her life as a result of ailment not to have been probablized at all. 8. 8. (v) The defence set up by the accused of the deceased having taken away her life as a result of ailment not to have been probablized at all. 8. (vi) The act of the accused in not searching for the whereabouts of the deceased, in the morning of 18th November, 2015, in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act was a fact relevant for consideration in holding the accused guilty and for the accused having failed to discharge the burden, as to what prompted the deceased to have committed the crime. 8. (vii) Further, in Para-54 the court presumed the mental state of the victim in reporting the matter to police after a gap of four days in the following terms: “ ……….. It is a common phenomena that after an incident of unnatural death the near relatives will be under mental shock, grief and will be ordinarily busy in the cremation and funeral works of deceased and in doing so they will hardly opt to make any complaint or lodge ejahar immediately. So, in my considered view the 4 days delay in lodging the ejahar has been satisfactorily explained by prosecution in the ejahar by Exbt.1/1 as well as by PW.6 in his evidence and non-making of complaint to the I.O. of U.D case is not fatal. So, no adverse inference can be drawn to disbelieve the prosecution case……..” 9. Submissions made by Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Samrat Ghosh, learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-state, stand considered and dealt with. 10. The factum of marriage inter se the accused and the deceased is not in dispute. Prior to the date of the incident, they were married for more than thirty(30) years. It has come on record that from the said wedlock, five(5) children were born. It is a matter of record that only one of them stand examined in court, who, has not supported the prosecution. It is also a matter of record that during investigation, police did not associate any one of other children for unearthing the truth, leading to the occurrence of the incident. Why so? is not clear. But then, this fact has not weighed with the court and reference being only to highlight the approach adopted by the investigator in conducting the investigation. Why so? is not clear. But then, this fact has not weighed with the court and reference being only to highlight the approach adopted by the investigator in conducting the investigation. In fact, at the first instance itself, with the preparation of an inquest report, FIR ought to have been registered. 11. Prosecution does not allege the accused to have murdered his wife. It is a case of a suicide alone. 12. In any event, cause of death stands proven through the ocular and documentary evidence of the experts in the shape of the testimony of PW.7; Challan (Exbt.7) and report (Exbt.9) of the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory so proven by various witnesses. 13. In the instant case, motive ascribed for the accused to have abetted his wife to commit an act of suicide is his alleged extra-marital relationship with the another lady, being the cause, soon before, prompting the deceased to take away her life. Such fact is required to be proven by the prosecution, by virtue of and in terms of Chapter 2 of the Act and more specifically, Section 5 and Section 8 thereof. For establishment thereof, this Court has only to examine the testimonies of the witnesses which are categorized as under: (A) Police officials who conducted the investigation namely, S.I. Sri Arun Debbarma (PW.10) and Sri Shakti Sadhan Jamatia (PW.11). (B) Immediate family member of the deceased, Smt. Jyotsna Debi Tripura (PW.9). (C) Close relatives of the deceased namely, Sri Judharam Reang (PW.1), Smt. Kakali Reang (PW.2) and Sri Ashamanjoy Reang (PW.3). (D) Immediate neighbour and a responsible person of the locality Sri Khetramohan Reang (PW.8). 14. A conjoint reading of testimonies of all these witnesses leads to one conclusion. And that being, between the time of the incident which took place on 17th/18th November, 2015 and the time of lodging the complaint which was on 22nd November, 2015 none pointed any finger, implicating the accused to the crime or disclosing cause thereof. None disclosed any fear, apprehension or suspicion against anyone. Also the plausible cause of the act of crime. 15. Significantly, all these witnesses save, and except for PW.11, were present on 18th November, 2015 the date of recovery of the dead body from the fields, nearby the house of the accused. None disclosed any fear, apprehension or suspicion against anyone. Also the plausible cause of the act of crime. 15. Significantly, all these witnesses save, and except for PW.11, were present on 18th November, 2015 the date of recovery of the dead body from the fields, nearby the house of the accused. It has not come in the testimony of any one of the witnesses that the accused had threatened or intimidated any one of them, preventing non-disclosure of such fact. 16. In the complaint Exbt.1, 1/2, delay as per the complaint, is ascribed for “fear of possible torture/harassment upon my sister”. Significantly, who is this sister? and as to how & in what manner accused was in a position to torture/harass her? remains undisclosed by the investigation/prosecution witnesses. 17. Witnesses categorized as Category-C are adults. They are close relatives of the deceased. Their silence on this issue is conspicuous, rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful, apart from their version to be suspect, rendering their credibility and reliability questionable. The trial court believed them to be trustworthy and their testimonies inspiring in confidence. However, careful perusal, only reveals it not to be so. 18. Presumption drawn by the court in Para 54 of the judgment is misplaced and not born out from the record. It does not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 8 of the Act. To the contrary, non-disclosure is a relevant fact in issue qua the witnesses. Significantly, logic applied by the trial court, is faulty and not well unfounded. The witnesses were elderly members and had free access to the police. Also, they were under no pressure for not to have promptly disclosed the facts, truthfully and completely. The accused is also not a powerful person of the society or the state. He had no criminal background. As such, findings returned by the trial court need to be interfered with. 19. On this issue, this Court takes note of the following observations made by the Apex Court which are apt on point in case reported as Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2019) 6 SCALE 790 (2 Judge Bench), attention of which is invited by learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas. “8. With respect to the former, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court in relying on the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2019) 6 SCALE 790 (2 Judge Bench), attention of which is invited by learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas. “8. With respect to the former, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court in relying on the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased. As highlighted by the Trial Court, not only were the allegations in the FIR extremely general in nature, but also the same were never raised by the family of the deceased when they were present at the time of preparation of the inquest report or to the investigating officer. In fact, the allegation of cruelty meted out by the appellant against the deceased appears for the first time at the time of filing the FIR, after a delay of nearly one and a half days. Further, the prosecution did not even examine any neighbor of the appellant and the deceased to substantiate the allegation that the appellant ill treated the deceased. In fact, and as the High Court also recorded, it appears from the evidence on record that the appellant treated the deceased with love and affection and provided for all her needs. In these circumstances, a reliance on the general oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, without any supporting evidence, would be misplaced. Further, as the High Court itself indicated somewhat contradictorily, reliance on the instances testified to by the witnesses would not be appropriate as the said incidents had taken place much before the deceased’s death and could not be treated as conduct which drove the deceased to commit suicide.” 20. Mere delay of four days, in filing the complaint remains unexplained, breaking the first link in the chain of circumstances required to be proven against the accused. 21. In court, PW.1 states that the cause of quarrel between the parties being illicit relationship which the accused was having with the another lady. But then, when confronted with his previous statement, one finds such fact not to have been so recorded. Similar is the position with regard to deposition PWs.2 and 3. 21. In court, PW.1 states that the cause of quarrel between the parties being illicit relationship which the accused was having with the another lady. But then, when confronted with his previous statement, one finds such fact not to have been so recorded. Similar is the position with regard to deposition PWs.2 and 3. Absence of such fact, in their previous statement, weighs with the court in arriving at the conclusion, of the depositions on this count, being nothing but exaggerations and embellishments rendering their testimonies, not worthy of credence and the witnesses to be wholly unreliable, coupled with the factum of having remained silent for more than four days. In any event, one notices that on this issue their testimonies are primarily in the nature of hearsay based on a fact disclosed by PW.9. 22. PW.11 does state that his investigation revealed the accused to have some communication with this another lady, which was lastly by way of an SMS message on 16th November, 2015. But even this testimony does not establish the factum of illicit relationship, for two reasons; (a) there is no record of exchange of telephone or messages much less, contents thereof and (b) the officer himself, during the course of investigation, had nothing to say about such relationship be the cause of crime. In fact he had himself requested for closure of the case against her. Also, in his cross-examination, the officer admits his investigation not revealing the factum of accused and the another lady having moved or stayed together in the locality. Thus, the approach adopted by the court in pre-supposing such relationship is highly presumptuous, being erroneous and illegal. 23. This next brings us to the statement of the most crucial witness i.e. the daughter of the deceased, namely, Smt. Jyotsna Debi Tripura (PW.9). In court, she states that on the night of 17th November, 2015 her father came home drunk and in a fit, scolded and abused her mother for not having received his phone call. At about 8.30 p.m., she went off to sleep when her mother was cooking food in the kitchen. The following day i.e. on 18th November, 2015 at about 5.30-6.00 a.m. her father went to a school at Damcherra. At about 8.30 p.m., she went off to sleep when her mother was cooking food in the kitchen. The following day i.e. on 18th November, 2015 at about 5.30-6.00 a.m. her father went to a school at Damcherra. Not finding her mother to be at home, she started looking for her and at about 1.30 p.m. found her dead body lying on the banks of a Deo river, which is at a distance about 100 meters from the house. A bottle of pesticide was also found lying alongside the dead body. 24. Noticeably, this witness (PW.9) did not support the prosecution only on one aspect and as such, was declared hostile. She denied having made any statement to the police that her father had slapped both her mother and herself, for not having received the phone call. It is seen that she was also confronted with her previous statement. Well, let us see that statement on which she was declared hostile. It reads as under: “......At night around 7.30 pm(he) came at home from his rented house located at Damcherra and (he) slapped me and my mother telling for what reason(we) did not receive the phone call yesterday.” 25. Accepting this statement to be her testimony, still, this Court does not find the prosecution to have established the factum of the accused having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In this statement there is no reference of any illicit relationship; accused having expressed his intent of getting married with the another lady; or the cause of quarrel being such illicit relationship. It has not come on record, in the testimony of any one of the witnesses that on the said date, there was discussion of such fact. Nor was there any such discussion in the recent past, prompting the lady to have committed suicide. The parties were married for more than 30 years and five children were born out of the wedlock. Illicit relationship, if any, had been going on for the last two years. It is not that it had aggravated, at this point in time, being the flashpoint for the deceased to have taken away her life. 26. In Rajesh Vs. The parties were married for more than 30 years and five children were born out of the wedlock. Illicit relationship, if any, had been going on for the last two years. It is not that it had aggravated, at this point in time, being the flashpoint for the deceased to have taken away her life. 26. In Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0047/2019 (2 Judge Bench) the Apex Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. The act of such abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 27. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 (3 Judge Bench) the Apex Court clarified as to what really is the meaning of the ward “abetment”. It is instigation. And 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. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 28. Further the Apex Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 (2 Judge Bench) held that “..........Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 (2 Judge Bench) held that “..........Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea………….” 29. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0047/2019 (2 Judge Bench) held that “this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action, proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause 'thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.” 30. Again, revisiting the testimonies of PWs.1, 2 and 3 one finds them to have commonly deposed and focused on the illicit relationship which the accused was having with another lady, but then, even they do not disclose the same to be the cause of quarrel for, after all, there are not spot-witnesses. They do not state that immediately prior to the occurrence or sometime soon before, the deceased had contacted, asking anyone of them, to interfere or that she had expressed her desire of taking away her life. 31. It has come in the investigation as also in the rebutted testimony of PW.9 that the accused had left for his work in the early hours of the morning of 18th November, 2015 at 5.30 a.m. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had fled away from the spot or that having learnt about the death of his wife, did not come back. He had left home in the normal course and there was no suspicion about such conduct. Hence, this Court finds the presumption of his absence drawn by the court below to be a relevant fact with regard to his conduct, to be totally misconceived in fact and law. Routinely, with a break of the day, he left his house for work at 5.30 a.m. There is nothing suspicious about his conduct. Hence, this Court finds the presumption of his absence drawn by the court below to be a relevant fact with regard to his conduct, to be totally misconceived in fact and law. Routinely, with a break of the day, he left his house for work at 5.30 a.m. There is nothing suspicious about his conduct. It is not the case of the prosecution that he misguided his daughter about the presence of the deceased. 32. It is also nobody’s case that accused had bought or brought pesticide from the market or handed it over to the deceased. The investigator is silent on this salient aspect. Perhaps, it may be lying at home to be used for agricultural purpose. But where did it come from is not clear from the record. Certainly, prosecution has not proved that it was brought by or handed over by the accused. 33. At this juncture, Court also takes note of yet another uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of an independent witness Sri Kshetramohan Reang (PW.8) having no interest in or with the accused. He is a respectable member of the community, residing in the neighborhood. He has inter alia deposed that “…………………About one year back on the following day of incident at about 9/10 a.m. in the morning I came to know in our village that Sabirung Reang died. I heard that dead body of Sabirung Reang was found lying on the opposite bank of Deo river in the field of Umesh Ch. Tripura. Hearing the incident I immediately went to the house of Umesh Ch. Tripura and I found him and his daughter Ms. Jyotsna Reang in his house. Several other villagers also gathered in his house. Then I talked with Jyotsna Reang and she told me that in the previous night her mother Sabirung Reang consumed medicine used for vegetables(pesticides). She also told me that in the previous night she along with Umesh Ch. Tripura and her mother present in the house. Jyotsna Reang did not tell me about any quarrel between her parents in the relevant previous night. Brothers and sisters of Sabirung Reang also came to the house of Umesh Ch. Tripura on the next day of the incident. I did not visit that spot where the dead body of deceased Sabirung Reang was found…………….” This uncontroverted testimony totally shatters the prosecution case of abetment to commit suicide. Brothers and sisters of Sabirung Reang also came to the house of Umesh Ch. Tripura on the next day of the incident. I did not visit that spot where the dead body of deceased Sabirung Reang was found…………….” This uncontroverted testimony totally shatters the prosecution case of abetment to commit suicide. And the trial court failed to appreciate the same in its correct perception. 34. As per the medical evidence, some wounds, fresh and anti mortem in nature, were found in the upper parts of the body of the deceased. But then, there is no contemporaneous corroborative evidence, establishing the same to have been inflicted by the accused for the only spot witness, in her alleged resiled statement, had simply stated the accused to have “slapped” on her face. She does not state that the accused had given beatings all over the body with any weapon or object. 35. The investigator has ruled out possibility of homicide. The focus being only on suicide. According to the prosecutor, medical evidence established the death to have taken place between 12.45 to 1.45 a.m. in the night intervening 17/18th November, 2015. PW.9 states that she went off to sleep at about 8.30 p.m. Now, what happened between this time and the time of the death remains undisclosed and undiscovered. The dead body was found from the vegetable fields alongside the river bank which was at a distance of about 100 meters from her house. Significantly, none heard cries/shouts either of quarrel or help. Also, no sound of any movement/activity was heard. Further, there are no tell-tale signs/marks in the shape of dragging of the body or recovery of any weapon. Significantly, the bottle containing poison was found lying next to the dead body. Accused has not been linked to such a place. 36. It is no doubt true that the deceased was dwelling with her husband, but then, they were married for more than 30 years and the statutory presumption, in the attending facts and circumstances, cannot be drawn against the accused, so as to mandate his explanation with regard to the events which took place in the night, more so when he has clarified that immediately after the quarrel he went off to sleep. 37. 37. For drawing inference, adverse in nature, of existence of a fact in issue, being a relevant circumstance, can be drawn only when a fact in issue stands established beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence in that regard has to be clear, consistent and cogent, which in the instant case is missing. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the link in the chain of events, pointing finger or hypothesis thereof, only and only towards the guilt of the accused and none else, is not complete. Only on suspicion he cannot be held guilty. 38. It has come on record that accused was present at the time when police recovered the dead body. It is nobody’s case that the accused tried to destroy any evidence. It has come on record that the accused had left for his work in the early hours of the day. Even till the middle of that day, none suspected his involvement of the accused in the crime. It is under these circumstances provisions of Section 8 of the Act, as invoked by the trial Judge, are misplaced. 39. While holding the accused guilty, trial court has also invoked the principle of last seen, but then, it lost track of the sight that he(the accused), alone was not in the house. His daughter was also there, whose involvement in the crime has not been ruled out. Of course, it may be preposterous to think that the daughter would not prompt the mother to commit suicide, but then, prosecution has not established that none else was either present or had access to the house of the deceased or could not have prompted commission of such crime. Where were the other children is not disclosed. 40. The trial court pre-supposed the cause of quarrel being the extramarital relationship. The trial court rightly took note of the provisions of Section 8 of the Evidence Act but misconstrued and misapplied the same against the accused. Even applying the said provisions, the court erred in not rejecting the testimonies of these witnesses. Application thereof, if at all, had to be against the witnesses for their conduct in not promptly reporting the matter to the police or disclosing the cause of the incident to anyone else, is relevant for judging their credibility and trustworthiness as a witness, as also judging the truthfulness of their depositions. Application thereof, if at all, had to be against the witnesses for their conduct in not promptly reporting the matter to the police or disclosing the cause of the incident to anyone else, is relevant for judging their credibility and trustworthiness as a witness, as also judging the truthfulness of their depositions. Their testimony ought to have been dealt with carefully, with greater circumspection and proper application of mind, more so, when their evidence was in the nature of hearsay. Significantly, none of these witnesses state that the conduct of the accused was found to be abnormal or suspicious in nature. That being so, then application of Section 11 of the Evidence Act, as is so misplaced in para 44 of the impugned judgment, is also misplaced and misconceived. The said provision could have been invoked only and only if prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, existence of extramarital relationship which the accused allegedly had with another lady and that the same was the cause of quarrel, repeated in nature, inter se the parties, and that such fact, itself being the cause for the deceased to have taken away her life. 41. The conduct of the witnesses in not promptly disclosing the motive of crime is a relevant fact in issue. The act of the accused for not searching his missing wife is not a fact in issue or relative fact under Section 8 of the Act. The prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of an act of abetment within the ambit and scope of Section 107 IPC, there was no corresponding obligation upon the accused to have disclosed certain facts within his knowledge by virtue of Section 106 of the Act and as such, there cannot be any presumption of existence of a fact in issue, i.e. events which may have happened or may likely have happened under Section 114 of the Act. 42. Findings returned by the trial court cannot be said to be based on proper and complete appreciation of law and facts, rendering return of faulty and erroneous findings, causing serious miscarriage of justice, apart from prejudicing the accused leading to his conviction. 43. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds merit in the present appeal which is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, the Judgment passed in Case No.S.T.(Type-2) 12 of 2016 titled as State of Tripura v. Sri Umesh Ch. 43. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds merit in the present appeal which is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, the Judgment passed in Case No.S.T.(Type-2) 12 of 2016 titled as State of Tripura v. Sri Umesh Ch. Tripura arising out of PS Case No.2015 KCP 0109 in relation to the charged offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The convict accused is, accordingly, acquitted. Bail Bond(s), if any, stand cancelled. He be set at liberty forthwith. Registry to take all consequential action in accordance with law. 44. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.