Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 665 (JHR)

Ratni Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-09

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and accordingly both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in their respective cases. 3. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15th December, 2011 and order of sentence dated 20th December, 2011 passed by the Court of learned Additional Judicial commissioner-I, Khunti (Ranchi) in S.T. Case No. 651 of 2005/S.T. Case No. 102 of 2006, whereby the appellants have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each and in case of default of payment of fine further directed to undergo simple Imprisonment for four months. 4. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of Krishna Sahu, P.W.-4 which was recorded by S.I. Nageshwar Prasad Singh of Khunti P.S. on 21.05.2005 at 15:00 hrs. at village Badabirhu. In the said fardbeyan Krishna Sahu stated that on 21.05.2005 at 10:00 A.M. he was inside his house and his son Raj Kumar Sahu who was studying in Ranchi informed on telephone that his sister Rita Devi had been killed in Sasural. On this information the informant along with his wife Rukamani Devi and cousin son-in-law Rainu Mahato and neighbours proceeded towards the village, Badabirhu and went to the house of the informant’s son-in-law i.e. Sakindar (the appellant of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012) and all of them found that Rita Devi was laying on bed (Palang) and there was red and black mark on her neck. The persons of the house told that Rita Devi had closed the door in the morning and when the house mates asked Rita Devi to open the door and finding that Rita Devi was not answering they broke the door and opened and found her lying dead. The persons of the house told that Rita Devi had closed the door in the morning and when the house mates asked Rita Devi to open the door and finding that Rita Devi was not answering they broke the door and opened and found her lying dead. The informant in his fardbeyan further stated that his daughter Rita Devi was married to Sakindar Kashyap of village Badabirhu on 30.03.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage his son-in-law had demanded motorcycle as dowry. Rita Devi had gone to her Sasural and as she was a student she used to come to her Naiher and go to Sasural off and on and once when Rita Devi came back from Sasural she told the informant and other members of her family that Sakindar Kashyap used to assault her by saying that she loved some another person and Sakindar threatened to kill and had also abused her by saying that her father could not give a motorcycle in dowry and Ratni Devi (mother-in-law), Raj Kappoor Kachyap, (Bhaisur) also abused her by saying that she was a 420 (commonly known, as fraud) and used to assault her. The informant further stated in his fardbeyan that on 07.05.2005 his son-in-law’s elder brother Raju Kaschyap came to his house and asked to send off Rita Devi. The informant and his wife alleged that in Sasural her daughter was being assaulted on the pretext of false allegation. On repeated request by Raju, the informant sent off his daughter Rita Devi to Sasural. The informant further stated that on 18.05.2005 the marriage ceremony of Dilip Ohdar, the nephew of informant was fixed and in that marriage ceremony Sakindar and informant’s daughter had gone wherein Rita Devi again alleged that her husband Sakindar, Bhaisur, Raju Kachyap and Mother-in-law assaulted her by alleging that she (Rita Devi) had got illicit connection with another persons and after marriage the son-in-law, Sakindar Kachyap took Rita Devi to his house and thereafter committed this occurrence. Police lodged Khunti P.S. Case No. 62 dated 21.05.2005 for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet bearing No. 38/05 dated 19.07.2005 for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Sakinder Kachyap and Raju Kachyap and continued investigation against Ratni Devi. Police submitted subsequent charge-sheet No 156 dated 31.12.2005 under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Ratni Devi and after cognizance being taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Further the learned A.J.C.-I Khunti after framing charge on 14.09.2006 against appellant Sakindar Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012 under Sections 498(A) and 304(B)(2) of the Indian Penal Code and against the appellants Ratni Devi and Raju Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 686 of 2011 under Sections 498(A)/34 and 304(B)(2)/34 of the Indian Penal Code conducted the full-fledged trial and after conclusion of the trial all the three appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B(2) of the Indian Penal Code, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge. Arguments advanced on behalf of appellants- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the aforesaid appeals have submitted that the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are not reliable and trustworthy in view of the fact that the charges of causing harassment and cruelty for want of fulfilment of dowry has not been proved and therefore all the three appellants have been acquitted from the charges of dowry death under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and despite absence of any kind of abetment and several other glaring infirmities in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court without applying the proper judicial mind convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment to commit suicide. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased has committed suicide but in the entire depositions of the parents of the deceased namely; P.W.-3, Rukamani Devi, mother and P.W.-4, Krishna Sahu, the father, there is not a single word utterance about any kind of either demand of dowry or harassment or causing cruelty or torture by making false allegations of alleged illicit relationship with another person or for want of fulfilment of demand of dowry or any sort of instigation by the appellants for committing the suicide. Further it has also been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the learned trial court has come to a wrong findings on whim and caprice in absence of iota of evidence that there had been allegations by the appellants that the deceased was having illicit relationship and therefore the deceased was being maligned and had been humiliated by alleging about her illicit relationship with some other person by the appellants and thereby she has committed the suicide but these facts have also not been substantiated either by the parents including P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 nor the independent witness (neighbour) P.W.-5, who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Further, it has also been pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the learned Court below has miserably failed to appreciate Exhibit-B, which is an admitted document of the prosecution i.e. suicide note written on the marriage card Ext.6 and from the perusal of the said suicide note it is apparent that it is the categorical statement of the deceased that nobody should be blamed for her death and she had committed suicide because of her mental tension and in this view of the matter even the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved in absence any kind of instigation by any one of the appellants for abetment of suicide and as such the learned Trial Court has committed gross error in holding the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is bad in law and is fit to be set aside. In support of contentions the learned defence counsel has relied upon the rulings of Hon’ble Apex court as under: a) Kashibai & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka as reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 309; b) Amalendu Pal @ JHANTU vs. State of West Bengal as reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State- 6. On the other hand the learned counsels APPs appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and found from the depositions of the witnesses particularly P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 that the appellants had been damaging and imputing the character of the deceased by alleging that she had connection and affairs with some other boy. Further the learned Trial Court has also relied upon the documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-B, filed on behalf of the defence, said to be in the writing of the deceased as per the evidence of P.W.-5, Surekha Devi, which also corroborates the harassment to the deceased by imputing her character and she was by this reason under mental tension created by the accused persons, she (deceased) had committed suicide and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is totally based on the legal evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and therefore, both the appeals are fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. APPRAISAL & FINDINGS 7. Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including the Lower Court Records. 8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants the prosecution has been able to examine altogether seven witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Rainu Mahto, P.W.-2, Ram Kumar Sahu, P.W.-3, Rukamani Devi i.e. the wife of the informant, P.W.-4, Krishna Sahu, i.e informant, P.W.-5, Surekha Devi, P.W.-6, Dr. Lalita Verma and P.W.-7, Nageshwar Prasad Singh, I.O of this case. Apart from oral evidence some documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of the prosecution as under: i. Exhibit-1-Signature of Ram Kumar Sahu which is on the fardbeyan; ii. Exhibit-1/1- Signature of Krishna Sahu which is on the fardbeyan; iii. Exhibit-2-Post-mortem report of Rita Kumari iv. Exhibit-3- Fardbeyan v. Exhibit-4- Formal F.I.R. vi. Exhibit-5-Seizure list. vii. Exhibit-6-Marriage card viii. Exhibit-7- production cum seizure list ix. Exhibit-8- carbon copy of inquest report x. Exhibit-7/1-Signature of Fulman Herenj on production cum seizure list xi. Exhibit-1/1- Signature of Krishna Sahu which is on the fardbeyan; iii. Exhibit-2-Post-mortem report of Rita Kumari iv. Exhibit-3- Fardbeyan v. Exhibit-4- Formal F.I.R. vi. Exhibit-5-Seizure list. vii. Exhibit-6-Marriage card viii. Exhibit-7- production cum seizure list ix. Exhibit-8- carbon copy of inquest report x. Exhibit-7/1-Signature of Fulman Herenj on production cum seizure list xi. Exhibit-7/2- Signature of Mahendra Mahato on production cum seizure list On the other hand two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellants whose evidences have also been adduced to defend themselves who are as under; D.W.-1, Sunil Kumar Prasad, who prove the money order which was being sent by the husband-appellant-Sakindar Kashyap to his deceased wife as admitted by the mother of the deceased in para 11 of P.W.3 and D.W.-2, Fulman Herenj as a seizure list witness, who has proved his signature on production cum seizure list as Exhibit- 7/1 and further he has also proved the signature of another seizure list witness i.e. Mahendra Prasad, which has been marked as Exhibit-7/2 on the production cum seizure list i.e. Marriage card (Ext.-6) upon which suicide note is written in the handwriting of the deceased as proved by the P.W.5 which is Ext.B. Apart from oral evidences some documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of the accused/appellants which are as under; i. Exhibit-A-Signature of Rainu Mahto, which is on the written report; ii. Exhibit-B-Suicidal note of Rita Devi; iii. Exhibit-C-Certificate of Postal Life Insurance which is in the name of Sakinder Kashyap; iv. Exhibit-D-Receipt of money order; v. Exhibit-D/A-Receipt of money order; vi. Exhibit-E-Acknowledgement of money order; vii. Exhibit-F-Certified money order receipt list. 9. It is found that the appellant Sakindar Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012 was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B)(2) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Ratni Devi and Raju Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 686 of 2011 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 304(B)(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court after conducting the trial acquitted all the aforesaid appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The learned Trial Court after conducting the trial acquitted all the aforesaid appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. It is found from the impugned judgment of conviction that the learned Trial Court has held that the charges of dowry and harassment and assault for the fulfilment of demand of dowry against the appellants are not proved however, the learned Trial Court has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation upon the character of the deceased made by all these appellants for imputing or damaging the character of the deceased that the deceased had been in affairs/in connection with other boys and she had been moving with them and therefore, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the charges of abatement for committing suicide and accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to appraise the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties to ascertain as to whether the charges of allegations on the character of the deceased by saying that the deceased had been in affairs with other boys and thus these appellants were damaging the character of the deceased and that is why the appellants had instigated the deceased to commit the suicide and accordingly she committed suicide or not? 12. In this backdrop, it is found from the deposition of P.W.-1, Rainu Mahto, who is the cousin brother-in-law (Jijaji) of the deceased that this witness did not utter a single word in his examination-in-chief about the charges of making allegation by anyone of the appellants upon the character of the deceased that she had been in love affairs with another person and what he has uttered in examination-in-chief about the demand of dowry of Motorcycle and causing harassment and torture for want of fulfilment of demand of said dowry which has not been proved in the trial before lower Court. However, in the cross-examination vide para-30 it is found that this witness has stated that Rita had illicit relationship with some another boy and such type of allegation was being made by the in-laws people but no any specific averment has been made by this witness about anyone of the appellants as to with whom she had been in illicit relationship as uttered by the in-laws people. Neither the name of the boy has been disclosed nor any version of any one of the appellants have been disclosed as to when and also about the nature of the allegation of illicit relationship had ever been made by anyone of the appellants. Further the trustworthiness of this witness becomes doubtful when his version about the demand of dowry of Motorcycle and causing harassment and torture for want of fulfilment of demand of said dowry has not been proved in the trial before lower Court and neither supported by parents of the deceased P.W.3 and P.W.4 who even did not speak either about the allegations of illicit relationship or either demand of dowry of Motorcycle and causing harassment and torture for want of fulfilment of demand of said dowry rather mother P.W.3 clearly stated that the husband Sakindar used to send money regularly to her deceased daughter. 13. Another witness, P.W.-2, Ram Kumar Sahu is the brother of the deceased who in para-1 in the examination-in-chief stated that there was a demand of dowry and for want of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry his deceased sister was subjected to cruelty and torture which has not been proved during the course of trial. This witness has further stated that his deceased sister also used to tell him that some wrong allegations were being made about her illicit relationship by the in-law's people. This witness has also not uttered any specific allegation against anyone of the appellants about the allegation of illicit relationship. This witness has further stated that his deceased sister also used to tell him that some wrong allegations were being made about her illicit relationship by the in-law's people. This witness has also not uttered any specific allegation against anyone of the appellants about the allegation of illicit relationship. However, in the cross-examination vide para-23, he has made general statement that there had been allegation against his deceased sister that she had been moving with some another boy but he did not utter a single word as to who was the appellant making such allegation and therefore, the possibility of general allegation by some another person other than the appellants cannot be ruled out by the version of this witness vide para-23 and also from his version in examination-in-chief where this witness did not disclose about the specific role of anyone of the appellants for making illicit relationship against the deceased. 14. Further, P.W.-3, Rukamani Devi, is the mother of the deceased and she in her examination-in-chief did not utter a single word about the allegation of illicit relationship against anyone of the appellants rather, this witness has neither stated about any kind of demand of dowry nor about causing any kind of torture or cruelty for want of fulfilment of demand of dowry and thus being the mother of the deceased this witness has totally falsified any kind of allegations of illicit relationship of the deceased as ever alleged by anyone of the appellants. In this way it is found that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the categorical versions of this witness (who is the mother of the deceased) on the point of allegation of damaging the character by saying the deceased that she had been in illicit relationship with some other person/boys and as such allegation of abetment wholly gets unsubstantiated by the mother of the deceased who is most important witness in such type of offences. 15. Similarly, P.W.-4, Krishna Sahu, who is father of the deceased also did not whisper against anyone of the appellants about the charges of making allegation of illicit relationship of the deceased ever made by anyone of the appellants, rather, this witness has also neither stated about any kind of demand of dowry nor about causing any kind of torture or cruelty for want of fulfilment of demand of dowry. Thus it is found that the version of P.W.-3, Rukamani Devi and P.W.-4, Krishna Sahu being the mother and father of the deceased has completely falsified the findings of the learned Trial Court that there had been some instigation by anyone of the appellants for committing the suicide on the ground that they had been making allegations of illicit relationship of the deceased with some other person and thus damaging her character and therefore, she had committed suicide. 16. P.W.-5, Surekha Devi, is the neighbour and she appears to be an independent witness. She has categorically stated in para-7 that she had never seen any kind of quarrel or dispute between the deceased (Rita) and her husband or any member of the in-laws family and thus she has completely ruled out the allegations and charges levelled against all the three appellants. However, this witness in para-11 has stated that she was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the deceased Rita Devi as this witness had seen her studying and accordingly she has proved the handwriting and signature of the deceased on the suicide note which has been marked as Exhibit-B on the suicide note written on the marriage card which has been marked as Exhibit-6. From the perusal of Exhibit-B, it is found that the handwriting and signature of the deceased has been duly proved by the prosecution witness i.e. P.W.-5 and thus the reliability and truthfulness of the contents of the suicide note i.e. Exhibit-6 and B are not doubtful. From the perusal of Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-B it is well founded that the deceased had stated that she was committing suicide out of frustration from her life and because of mental tension. She also stated that there was no any another boy in her life except Sakindar Kashyap the appellant-husband of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012. She also categorically had written on the suicide note that no one of in-laws family member should be fastened with the responsibility of her death nor any member of her parent's house neither father, mother, brother, sister nor husband nor any member of in-laws family and thus this suicide note does not substantiate the guilt of any one of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. P.W.-6, Dr. 17. P.W.-6, Dr. Lalita Verma had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: i) Rigor Mortis was present in lower and upper limbs. External Appearance: No injury mark on the external surface of the body. Both eyes were closed. Pupils was dilates. No blood mined frothy discharge from the mouth or nostril. There was ligature mark 1 to 2 cm. width, situated on the upper part of the thyroid between larynx and chin. It was oblique and neigh up towards the right lateral side of the neck. It was continuous and prominent all around the neck except the right lateral side of the neck where it was discontinued. Colour of the ligature mark was reddish brown and margins were red and congested. Internal appearance: On dissection the sub-cutaneous tissue under the ligature mark, it was dry white and glistering an epiglottis and congested. Mucus membrane of trachea was red and congested. Lungs were congested, Oedematous and exuding bloody serum and muses. Heart: Right side of the heart was full of dark fluid blood and left side- empty Brain - Normal Abdominal Organs - Normal Nature of injury – Ant-mortem Cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging Time since death within 24 hours. The post-mortem report was in his pen and bears his signature marked Exhibit-2. The doctor has found cloth of green colour Sari, Pink colour blouse, petticoat on the body of the deceased. Payal were found on both ankles and bangles in both hands. Thus the doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. From this it is manifest no external injury has been found on the external body of the deceased and thus neither there was any torture nor any cruelty by assaulting the deceased in contravention of the charges levelled against the appellants. 18. P.W.-7 Nageshwar Prasad Singh is the I.O. of this case and he has proved the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.-4, Krishna Sahu, which has been marked as Exhibit-3. This witness also proved the formal F.I.R. which was in the hand writing of the then officer in charge of the concerned police station which has been marked as Exhibit-4 and the seizure list has also been proved by this witness which has been marked as Exhibit-5. This witness also proved the formal F.I.R. which was in the hand writing of the then officer in charge of the concerned police station which has been marked as Exhibit-4 and the seizure list has also been proved by this witness which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has also proved the marriage card upon which the suicide note was written by the deceased (the handwriting and signature was proved by P.W.-5 and marked as Exhibit-B), which has been marked on Exhibit-6 and he has also proved the production-cum-seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit-7. The inquest report of the deceased has also been proved by this witness, which has been marked as Exhibit-8. This witness has also endorsed the suicide note which was written on the marriage card which was already exhibited as Exhibit-B as proved by P.W.5. 19. On the other hand D.W.-1 Sunil Kumar Prasad who has been examined on behalf of the appellants as a defence has proved the receipt of the money order which has been marked as Exhibit-D in order to show that appellant-husband had been sending money regularly to his deceased wife and this fact has been admitted by P.W.-3 in Para -11, who was the mother of the deceased and thus this establishes the fact that the relationship between the husband-appellant and the deceased was cordial and the charges of making allegation of illicit relationship of the deceased with another boy has not been substantiated either by the father or the mother of the deceased nor in the suicide note which is an admitted document of the prosecution. This witness has also proved the exhibit which is related to money order receipts Exts.- D, D/a, E and F. 20. Another witness D.W.-2, Fulman Herenj examined on behalf of the defence who is said to be one of the seizure list witnesses and he has proved his signature Ext.7/1 on the production cum seizure list on Exhibit-7 and he has also proved signature of another seizure list witness Mahendra Prasad as Exhibit-7/2 upon the Exhibit-7, which is the production cum seizure list of the marriage card upon which the suicide note was written by the deceased which has been marked as Exhibit- 6 and B- and admitted documents absolving the appellants from charges of committing Abetment of suicide. 21. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and appraisal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and recapitulating the entire evidences available on record it is well founded that the learned Trial Court has committed gross error in the appreciation of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution in order to hold the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in absence of slightest evidence of instigating by any one of the appellants as important ingredient to prove the charges of 306 of IPC. Elaborating the proposition of law on the point of abetment of suicide Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashibai & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka as reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 309 observed as under: 6. “At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provision contained in Section 306 IPC pertaining to Abetment of suicide.” “306. Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 7. What is “Abatement of a thing” has been described in Section 107 which reads as under:- “107. 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 an 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 is bound to be 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.” 8. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abatement on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. 10. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences under section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abatement on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established. 10. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 of the IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 of the IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. 14. Though, it is true that as per Section 113A of the Evidence Act, when the question arises as to whether commission of suicide by a woman had been abetment by her husband or any relative of her husband, and when it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court can presume, having regard to the other circumstances, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or such relative of her husband. However, mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. Further the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Pal @ JHANTU Vs. State of West Bengal as reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707 on the point of abetment of suicide as under: 18. It is not the case of the prosecution that the case in hand would fall within the ambit of clause Firstly of or Explanation 1 to Section 107 IPC. State of West Bengal as reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707 on the point of abetment of suicide as under: 18. It is not the case of the prosecution that the case in hand would fall within the ambit of clause Firstly of or Explanation 1 to Section 107 IPC. The prosecution, however, heavily relies on clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC because, according to the prosecution, the appellant by way of harassment and torturing the deceased at various points of time and by marrying said Anita for the second time without the permission and against the will of the deceased, intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased. 19. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the prosecution relied upon Explanation 2 to Section 107. He submitted that prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased, the appellant had, by bringing said Anita as his second wife to his house facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased and thus, the appellant intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased. The evidence on record, however, does not support such a case. 20. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had brought Anita to stay with him at his house three months prior to the date of the death of the deceased. If the deceased had been so perturbed by the act of the appellant in marrying the said Anita and in bringing her to his house that she felt impelled to commit suicide, then she could have done so on the very day when Anita had come to stay with the appellant in his house as naturally at that point of time her annoyance or dismay with life would have been at its pinnacle. From the period of three months which elapsed in between the incidents of the appellant bringing Anita to his house and the deceased committing suicide, it can be clearly inferred that it was not the act of the appellant which instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. 21. The perpetration of physical torture on the deceased on the day prior to the date of incident which led the deceased to commit suicide is the prosecution case all throughout. 21. The perpetration of physical torture on the deceased on the day prior to the date of incident which led the deceased to commit suicide is the prosecution case all throughout. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the appellant had played any active role either in instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the deceased for denying to accept Anita as the wife of the appellant. Anita, the second wife of the appellant was brought by the appellant to his house about three months prior to the date of the incident of suicide by the deceased and therefore, bringing of the second wife to the house by the appellant cannot be said to have either incited or facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is also not the case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence led which we have scrutinised very minutely. The aforesaid contention, in our considered opinion, is far-fetched and is not established by the facts of the present case. 22. After carefully assessing the evidence on record we find that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has not done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. 23. We now intent to proceed to find out whether a case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the appellant or not. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra [ (2002)5 SCC 177 ] this Court gave a succinct enumeration of the object and ingredients of Section 498-A IPC when it observed as follows in paras 3 and 17: (SCC pp. 180 & 193-84). “3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid ‘cruelty’ which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word ‘cruelty’ as is expressed by the legislature: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. “3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid ‘cruelty’ which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word ‘cruelty’ as is expressed by the legislature: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide, or (ii) to cause grave injury, or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity; in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expression is equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of ‘cruelty’ in terms of Section 498-A. 17. As regards the core issue as to whether charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other, as noticed earlier, there appears to be a long catena of cases in affirmation thereto and as such further dilation is not necessary neither are we inclined to do so, but in order to justify a conviction under the later provision there must be available on record some material and cogent evidence. Presently, we have on record two inconsistent versions of the brother and the cousin, as such no credence can be attributed thereon- the documentary evidence (namely, those three letters), in our view, falls short of the requirement of the statute; even on an assumption of the fact that there is no contradiction in the oral testimony available on record, the cousin goes to the unfortunate girl’s in-laws’ place and requests the husband to treat her well- at best some torture and a request to treat her well. This by itself would not bring home the charge under Section 498-A. Demand for dowry has not seen the light of day.” 24. This by itself would not bring home the charge under Section 498-A. Demand for dowry has not seen the light of day.” 24. From the evidence on record available before us, we find that the prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant for the first time after his marriage with the deceased when he was refused permission for marriage with said Anita by the deceased. On having been refused the permission for his second marriage with Anita, the appellant again, after a few days requested the deceased to accede to his request for marriage with Anita, which request was again refused by the deceased. Consequent to the said position and due to the adamant position taken by the deceased, cruelty was meted out to her by the accused which fact is sufficiently proved from the evidence on record. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial court and the High Court as far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned. 22. In the light of the aforesaid rulings of Hon’ble Supreme court on the charge of fastening the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC it is well founded in the present case that prosecution has miserably failed to produce an iota evidence against any of the appellants for instigating the deceased or played any active role which can be considered in the purview of instigating or aiding the suicide of the deceased. Rather the evidence has come from the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 that the appellants had been in cordial relationship with the deceased as observed by this court in the appraisal of the evidences in the foregoing paragraphs. P.W.-3 (mother of the deceased) and P.W.-4 (father of the deceased) who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution did not utter a single word about the charges of making allegation of illicit relationship of the deceased by any one of the appellants, rather P.W.-3 had stated that the husband- Sakindar Kashyap had been sending money to the deceased wife showing that they had been in good relationship. Further, P.W.-5 who is the independent witness also did not utter a single word about the allegation of illicit relationship ever made by anyone of the appellants. Further, P.W.-5 who is the independent witness also did not utter a single word about the allegation of illicit relationship ever made by anyone of the appellants. P.W.-4, who is the father of the deceased had also not stated about any kind of allegation of illicit relationship ever made by anyone of the appellants. P.W.-1, who is the cousin brother-in-law (Jijaji) and P.W.-2, who is the brother of the deceased had stated about making of illicit relationship but did not state against anyone of the appellants as to who was making such allegation and what kind of allegation of illicit relationship was made by any one of the appellants. It is also inferred from Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-B which is an admitted document and that is the suicide note where it is explicitly written in unequivocal words that due to mental tension she has committed suicide and no one should be fastened guilty either the members of her parent's house or the members of her in-laws family including father, mother, brother, sister or the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law or brother-in-law and thus the documentary evidence which is an admitted document on behalf of both the parties totally negates the charges of any kind of instigation for committing suicide within the meaning of abatement of suicide under section 306 of Indian Penal Code by the appellants. In this view of the matter the important ingredients for holding the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is the abatement which has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved against anyone of the appellants. 23. In the result it is found that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing any kind of evidence by which the abatement to commit suicide is proved against any one of the appellants as discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs. 24. Accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15th December, 2011 and order of sentence dated 20th December, 2011 passed against the appellants in aforesaid both the appeals by the Court of learned Additional Judicial commissioner-I, Khunti (Ranchi) in S.T. Case No. 651 of 2005/S.T. Case No. 102 of 2006, is hereby set aside and both the aforesaid criminal appeals are allowed. The appellants namely Sakindar Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 17 of 2012 and Ratni Devi and Raju Kashyap of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 686 of 2011 are discharged from the liability of bail bonds in this case and acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 25. Let the Lower Court Records and the copy of judgment be also transmitted to the learned Court below.