ORDER : 1. Prabhu Nayayan Mahto who is the brother of Uma Devi has challenged the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2016 with Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2017 by which Jodhi Mahto and Sunita Devi @ Sumitra Devi have been acquitted of the charge under sections 498-A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also of the alternative charge under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset, we may indicate that the charges under section 306 and section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot go together. The logic is quite simple, that if the victim has committed suicide it cannot be a case of murder. 3. On an allegation that Jodhi Mahto had illicit relationship with Sunita Devi they inflicted harassment and torture upon Uma Devi whose marriage with Jodhi Mahto was solemnized in the year 1997. This is the further case of the prosecution that these accused persons have committed murder of Uma Devi by throttling in her matrimonial home. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against Jodhi Mahto and Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2016 has commenced against him. Later on, after further investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Sunita Devi under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2017 commenced against her. Finally, vide order 4th March 2017 both the sessions cases have been amalgamated and trial in both the sessions cases has started together. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses out of whom PW-1 Dineshwar Mahto is a co-villager and PW-2 Thaneshwar Mahto is the first cousin of Jodhi Mahto. PW-3 Moti Mahto is the uncle, PW-4 Suraj Mahto is the father and PW-6 Prabhu Narayan Mahto is the elder brother of Uma Devi but they are also not the eye-witness. 5. On the appreciation of the materials on records, the learned trial Judge has observed as under: “23. The F.S.L. Report (Ext. 2) dated 14.09.2016 does not show presence of any poisonous substance in the viscera. Hence, the poisoning to the deceased is absolutely ruled out. So far as the postmortem examination report (Ext. 3) is concerned, no apparent sign of injury has been found on the dead body of the deceased. The F.S.L. Report (Ext. 2) dated 14.09.2016 does not show presence of any poisonous substance in the viscera. Hence, the poisoning to the deceased is absolutely ruled out. So far as the postmortem examination report (Ext. 3) is concerned, no apparent sign of injury has been found on the dead body of the deceased. Though the P.Ws have deposed that there were marks of assault on the left hand and left side of neck or left shoulder and the waist of the deceased, but the same is not supported by the medical evidence. The Inquest Report is also not there on the case record. It has not been brought on record and proved by the prosecution. Thus, the scope of verifying the injuries from the Inquest Report, is also not there. The evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 6 that the deceased was killed by throttling, also does not find support from the medical evidence, as mentioned in the postmortem report. No fracture etc. has been found in the hyoid bone etc. which does not support the oral evidence regarding throttling. The cause of death has not been ascertained in the postmortem report and the opinion in this regard was reserved till confirmation from F.S.L. report. After seeing the F.S.L. report, the doctor conducting postmortem examination, has opined that the death of the deceased might have been caused due to asphyxia (Asthma) with further opinion that the deceased appears to be a patient of Asthma. It has been also deposed by PW-7 doctor that if a patient of Asthma is left untreated, the situation may worsen and the patient, in the critical case, may even die due to asphyxia. The postmortem report and the testimony of the doctor clearly rule out the death of the deceased by throttling or strangulation. Thus, it is evident that the death was neither homicidal nor suicidal. Under such circumstances, the charge of murder u/s 302 I.P.C. or that of abetment to suicide u/s 306, I.P.C. can not be sustained. 24. So far as the allegations of torture and harassment to the deceased regarding demand of dowry is concerned, these allegations are omnibus and general in nature. The amount of cash allegedly demanded by the accused, has not been mentioned. 24. So far as the allegations of torture and harassment to the deceased regarding demand of dowry is concerned, these allegations are omnibus and general in nature. The amount of cash allegedly demanded by the accused, has not been mentioned. The date or occasion of any such demand has also not been mentioned either in the Written Report or in the testimony of P.Ws 3, 4 and 6. The date of panchayati convened by them has also not been mentioned. Any independent witness who might have attended that panchayati, has also not been examined by the prosecution to support this fact. Further, the deceased had been married 18 years ago and after such a long time of marriage, chances of demand of dowry become very weak. Admittedly, during such a long period after marriage of the deceased, no complaint etc. has been made by the informant party to any authority. There is also no evidence that the deceased ever sustained any injury due to the alleged assault by the accused persons or she was ever treated anywhere for the same. 25. As regards the allegations of illicit relationship between the husband (A-1) and gotni (A-2) of the deceased is concerned, there is no evidence as to what led to this suspicion to the deceased. There is no evidence regarding any specific incident of causing suspicion against them or finding them in compromising position by the deceased. The husband of Sunita Devi (A-2) is living with her and they are having four children as it has been brought during arguments. When Sunita Devi is living with her husband and his family, illicit relationship between her and the husband of the deceased cannot be easily presumed or inferred. It is not a case of the prosecution that Sunita Devi is a widow which might have prompted such a relationship between them. As such, the evidence in this regard is also not very convincing and the same cannot be relied upon. There may be a strong suspicion in this regard, but it cannot be so concluded on the basis of the evidence available on the case record. Further more, it is well settled law that illicit relation of the husband per se, does not amount to torture to the wife. For the same reason, allegations of torture to the deceased by both the accused also gets weakened. Further more, it is well settled law that illicit relation of the husband per se, does not amount to torture to the wife. For the same reason, allegations of torture to the deceased by both the accused also gets weakened. There may be chances that the deceased might have been taunted or occasionally humiliated for being issueless. But this alone is not sufficient to come to a definite finding on this issue. There may be also instances of quarrel on domestic issues between the two gotnies, i.e. the deceased and accused Sunita Devi, but such domestic frictions are not uncommon in a joint family. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts the charge u/s 498-A, I.P.C. also. It is well settled law that suspicion howsoever so strong, cannot be a substitute of a cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Under such circumstances, it would be very risky to conclude that the deceased was being harassed by the accused persons. 27. Needless to say that the ruling filed on behalf of the informant/prosecution is not applicable to the facts of this case. The ruling relates to a case of bride-burning in which the I.O. had seized plastic jerry can containing kerosene oil from the room of the deceased. To sum up the foregoing discussion, I find and hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. They are accordingly acquitted from the charge against them. They are also discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.” 6. Admittedly, there is no eye witness who could have informed the Court about the circumstances in which Uma Devi has died. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established, of a conclusive nature and must exclude all possible hypothesis except the one which must unerringly establish that it was the accused who has committed the crime. 8. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established, of a conclusive nature and must exclude all possible hypothesis except the one which must unerringly establish that it was the accused who has committed the crime. 8. In Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1971) 3 SCC 182 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9.....In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 9. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 who are intimately related to Uma Devi have made allegations of harassment and torture of Uma Devi in her matrimonial home. PW-6 has made specific allegation about illicit relationship of Jodhi Mahto with Sunita Devi who is the elder sister-in-law. However, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed in the Court that harassment and torture of Uma Devi has happened in their presence. This is the specific case of the prosecution that Uma Devi used to tell her miseries in her matrimonial home to her father and brother and that is how they came to know about her harassment and torture at the hands of the accused persons. 10. PW-6 has deposed in the Court that Govind Mahto who is a co-villager of the accused informed him that his sister had fallen ill. As PW-7, Dr. Shiwani Singh who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Uma Devi has tendered evidence in the Court that she did not find any apparent sign of injury over her dead body. She has also not found any suspicious characteristic such as injury over trachea, larynx, heart, stomach etc. Since the cause of death could not be ascertained viscera was sent for FSL report. She has also not found any suspicious characteristic such as injury over trachea, larynx, heart, stomach etc. Since the cause of death could not be ascertained viscera was sent for FSL report. The FSL report has also not shown any presence of any poison. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid findings/observations, PW-7 has rendered an opinion that Uma Devi has died due to Asthma. 12. The defence set-up by the accused persons is that Uma Devi was a patient of Asthma and due to that reason she has died. The doctor has also stated in her cross-examination that in a critical case the patient may die due to asphyxia. 13. The trial Judge has held that there is no evidence to show illicit relationship between the accused persons. May be Uma Devi was suspecting their illicit relationship but for that reason it cannot be inferred that she was treated badly in her matrimonial home. 14. Mrs. Nirupma, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a husband must say something how his wife has died in the matrimonial home. The submission raised at the Bar is that once it is found that a woman has died in suspicious circumstances an inference in law must be raised under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, we are not inclined to accept this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The reverse burden which section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act puts on the accused is not raised automatically. The prosecution is under a duty to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the object behind section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not to relieve the prosecution of the initial burden to prove its case [Refer: Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 ]. 16. In Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 15 SCC 285 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that merely because death of a woman has taken place in her matrimonial home that by itself is not sufficient to raise a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act to hold an accused guilty for murder. 17. There are certain judicially evolved parameters to test the legality of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Judge. 17. There are certain judicially evolved parameters to test the legality of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Judge. Before the Appellate Court decides to interfere with a judgment of acquittal it is required in law to record a finding that there are compelling reasons arising out of overlooking of some vital evidence on the record which warrants interference with the judgment of acquittal. 18. In Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi vs. High Court of A.P. (2013) 14 SCC 145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “25. This Court has time and again laid down parameters for interference by a superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial courts acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.” 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2016 with Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2017 and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2020 is dismissed. 20. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned.