JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2005 passed by Sri Sandip Sharma, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IVth, Chatra in Session Trial No. 414/1992 arising out of Itkhori P.S Case No. 67/92 (G.R. Case no. 298/1992) T.R No. 156/92 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for five (05) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Reshmi Devi i.e. the deceased daughter of Babli Mahto i.e. the informant had married with the appellant about eight (8) years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage his son-in-law i.e. the appellant was residing alone in his house at village Dhebadauri while his Samdhi and Samdhin were residing at Dhanbad at their place of service. The informant has further alleged that on Saturday last his daughter came to his house along with her daughter and thereafter, his son-in-law i.e. the appellant also came following her and on the same day took her back to his home saying that she has to cook food for labourers working in his house. Then, the informant asked the appellant to leave his daughter there for a week but the appellant refused and took her back with him. Thereafter, the informant accompanied his son Nirmal Mahto with them and on the next morning his son came back to the informant and told him that the appellant and his deceased sister had quarreled for the whole night and as such, in the morning he returned back. Thereafter, at about 9:30 A.M Nageshwar Mahto alias Bajarwa came running from village Dhebadauri and informed to the informant that his daughter after purchasing roasted gram flour (Sattu) from the shop of the village and consumed the same by mixing poison in it and thereby, committed suicide. Thereafter, the informant along with his sons and villagers went to village Dhebdauri where he found his daughter lying dead and when the informant and his family and villager seeing the scene began crying and after seeing this, the appellant and Nageshwar Mahto fled away. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Thereafter, the informant along with his sons and villagers went to village Dhebdauri where he found his daughter lying dead and when the informant and his family and villager seeing the scene began crying and after seeing this, the appellant and Nageshwar Mahto fled away. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that learned Court below has failed to scrutinize the evidences on record. It is submitted that the informant of the case in his fard beyan has stated that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant has taken place about 8 years ago while in his deposition at Para-1 he has stated that the marriage was performed about five (05) years ago. It is submitted that the deceased and appellant had come one after another and returned back on the same day but has contradicted the same in his deposition saying that the deceased had come one day before the date of occurrence and his son-in-law i.e. the appellant took her back on following day. It is submitted that the informant in his fard-beyan has given the reason of a accompanying Nirmal Mahto i.e. P.W-4 due to darkness but his evidence,, he developed the case saying that he sent Nirmal Mahto i.e. P.W-4 along with the deceased and appellant due to fear that the appellant may not be killed the deceased. It is submitted that the informant in his fard-beyan has given the reason of a accompanying Nirmal Mahto i.e. P.W-4 due to darkness but his evidence,, he developed the case saying that he sent Nirmal Mahto i.e. P.W-4 along with the deceased and appellant due to fear that the appellant may not be killed the deceased. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the evidence of P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-7 and P.W-8 who have clearly stated that the appellant never misbehaved with the deceased at any point of time or ever tortured her for demand of dowry or on any account, rather, they have stated that the deceased was being maintained by the appellant with due respect and regard and there was not dispute between them.’ It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider that the prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C as none of the witnesses has stated anything to suggest that it was the appellant who instigated the deceased to commit suicide and hence, the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It appears that the informant namely Babli Mahto had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto on 31.05.1992 giving rise to Ithkhori P.S Case No. 67/92 under Section 306 of I.P.C. 8. The police, after completing investigation, had submitted charge sheet against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto under Section 306 of I.P.C on 14.08.1992. Therafter, the learned C.J.M, Chatra had taken cognizance against the on 14.08.1992 against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto under Section 306 of I.P.C. 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 10. Therafter, the learned C.J.M, Chatra had taken cognizance against the on 14.08.1992 against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto under Section 306 of I.P.C. 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 10. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto under Section 306 and 109 of I.P.C on 10.07.1998 by Sri D. K Pandey, learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Chatra and to which they plead not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During trial, the prosecution got examined nine (09) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W-1 is Dr. Nitya Nand Mandal, (ii) P.W-2 is Dilchand Mahto, (iii) P.W-3 is Babli Mahto i.e. the informant, (iv) P.W-4 is Nirmal Mahto, (v) P.W-5 is Baldeo Mahto, (vi) P.W-6 is Bhuneshwar Paswan, (vii) P.W-7 is Mahendra Rana, (viii) P.W-8 is Mathura Mahto, (iv) P.W-9 is Shiv Shankar Prasad, i.e. an Advocate Clerk. 12. The prosecution has got marked the following documents in support of its case, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 is the Post-mortem Report, (ii) Exhibit-2 is the signature of Baldeo on fard beyan, (iii) Exhibit-3 is the Inquest Report, (iv) Exhibit-P3 is the formal F.I.R. 13. Thereafter, the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 25.01.2005 by Sri Sandip Sharma, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IVth, Chatra and which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 14. Neither any defence witness was examined nor any document was marked as Exhibit. 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below after hearing both the sides had convicted the appellant Mithu Mahto under Section 306 of I.P.C and had acquitted the other accused Nageshwar Mahto for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C and hence, this Criminal Appeal has been filed. 16. Now, this Court has to consider as to whether the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is proper or not? 17. From the perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that Babli Mahato i.e. the informant had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto on 31.05.1992 stating therein that his son-in-law had forcibly taken his daughter from his house and they quarreled for the whole night and the appellant had abused her. 17. From the perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that Babli Mahato i.e. the informant had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant and one other namely Nageshwar Mahto on 31.05.1992 stating therein that his son-in-law had forcibly taken his daughter from his house and they quarreled for the whole night and the appellant had abused her. On the next morning, he was informed by one Nageshwar Mahto that his daughter Reshmi Devi had committed suicide by mixing poison in roasted gram flour (sattu) and froth was coming out from her mouth. 18. So far as the prosecution witnesses is concerned, P.W-1 is Dr. Nityanand Mandal who had conducted post-mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased Reshmi Devi and had found following findings which are as follows:- (i) Whole body swollen putlifactida changes started greenish discoloration of skin over lower abdomen. (ii) Chest was having multiple blebs with feeling of cutkills at few places, blebs contained reddish, watery fuel. (iii) Rizer-mortis absent in both upper limbs and present in both lower limbs. Next was louse, reddish stained fuel coming from both nostrils and mouth lips bluish finger tips were bluish. (iv) Eyes were closed conjunctive were congested, chemosed and pupils dictated. (v) Chest- Flura congested phenera conjested. Mucosa congested. Both lungs were congested. Heart:- Right side moderate amount of blood contained, left side was empty. (vi) Abdomen:- opened up with faul smell of gas. Stomach was distended with gas and brownish semi- fluid materialsm, onvims amount of Kerosine smelled gas came out on opening of stomach. There was hypermae of mneus membrance marked at Cardiac part of stomach. Wall was congested brownish fluid, Kerosine smelled fluid over upper part. Vicera were kept preserved for histopathalosized examination. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased is due to asphyxia resulting from ingestion of poison. He could not say about the nature of the poison unless determined by chemical analysis of viscera. 19. During cross-examination, he stated that at about 9:30 A.M on 01.06.1992 the deceased dead body was brought before him and he started examining the dead body of the deceased Reshmi Devi. He stated that he had not mentioned the timing of consuming poison in his report and no family member of the deceased was present and he had also not enquired the cause of death from the persons. He stated that he had not mentioned the timing of consuming poison in his report and no family member of the deceased was present and he had also not enquired the cause of death from the persons. He further stated that he could not say the exact nature of poison taken by the deceased but Kerosene Oil was not found in the stomach of the deceased Reshmi Devi rather Kerosene Oil smelled gas was found. He further started during his cross-examination that it is not mentioned in the report as to when Vicera was sent for examination and he was also not aware as to whether the Viscera Report had been received or not. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1 i.e. the Doctor, it is evident that the deceased had died due to consume poison. However, the Viscera Report had not been received at the time of examination and the cause of death is due to asphyxia resulting from ingestion of poison. 21. P.W-2 is Dilchand Mahto who stated during his evidence that he is not aware of the occurrence. This witness P.W-2 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 22. During cross-examination, he stated that his statement was not recorded by the police, However, he also stated that he is acquainted with the appellant Mithu Mahto and the deceased Reshmi Devi and stated the appellant used to keep his wife properly. 23. Thus, P.W-2 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and his evidence is not reliable. 24. P.W-3 is Babli Mahto i.e. the Informant in this case and father of the deceased and who stated during his evidence that his daughter Reshmi Devi was married with the appellant Mithu Mahto 5 years ago. He stated that one day prior to her death, she had come to her house and his son-in-law i.e. the appellant had forcibly taken her on the next day and on the next day, she died. He heard his daughter died of taking poison and he had also seen that froth was coming from her mouth. He had sent his son to look after them as he had apprehension that she may be killed by his son-in-law i.e. the appellant. Later on, Nageshwar Mahto alias Bajarwa (acquitted by the learned Court below) informed his daughter had died. He asserted that his daughter was healthy when she had come from his house. 25. He had sent his son to look after them as he had apprehension that she may be killed by his son-in-law i.e. the appellant. Later on, Nageshwar Mahto alias Bajarwa (acquitted by the learned Court below) informed his daughter had died. He asserted that his daughter was healthy when she had come from his house. 25. During cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen anybody killing his daughter but heard that she died by taking poison. He stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto was not keeping his wife properly but when some children were born then, he was keeping her properly. He could not say as to which date the case has been instituted. He had convened the Panchayati for not keeping his daughter properly by his son-in-law and after Panchayati, he had kept her properly for few days. He claimed that he has performed “Shradh” of his daughter and his son-in-law i.e. the appellant had not helped him. He had denied the suggestion for implicating his son-in-law i.e. the appellant in suspicion. 26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-3 i.e. the informant, it is evident that his daughter was taken away by the appellant Mithu Mahto one day prior to the occurrence from his house and due to which she had consumed poison and had died. Although, he had stated specifically that his son-in-law was not keeping his daughter properly, but his evidence is weak as she had not given any specific reason except making vague allegation. He had admitted that two children were born from his daughter to the appellant and hence, the evidence of P.W-3 will be considered later on. 27. P.W-4 is Nirmal Mahto who is the brother of the deceased Reshmi Devi and who stated during his evidence that around 10 years ago the occurrence took place and his sister had married with the appellant 8 years ago. Prior to the occurrence he had gone to his sister to take her to her maike because his brother has been blessed with one boy-girl and she had merely stayed for one day in his house. Then, the appellant Mithu Mahto arrived there and took her away from his house. On the next day, she died. Nageshwar Mahto alias Bajarwa had informed about her death and when they went to see his sister of her matrimonial home, froth was coming from her mouth. 28. Then, the appellant Mithu Mahto arrived there and took her away from his house. On the next day, she died. Nageshwar Mahto alias Bajarwa had informed about her death and when they went to see his sister of her matrimonial home, froth was coming from her mouth. 28. During cross-examination, he stated that his brother-in- law i.e. the appellant used to keep his wife in a good manner and he had not seen any difficulty to his sister. However, due to act of one day, this occurrence had taken place. He also stated that there is no demand of dowry or amount of any type. He further stated that he is not aware as to how his sister died. 29. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-4, it is evident that he is the own brother of the deceased Reshmi Devi. However, he has not supported the prosecution case and had stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto used to keep his wife in a nice manner and there was no demand of dowry and any money. However, the occurrence took place due to the incident of one day. He had stated that he had taken his sister to his house as his brother had been blessed with the children but his brother-in-law had taken her back to her matrimonial home and as a result of which, she died. Thus, the evidence of P.W-4 has not supported the prosecution case and he had not attributed any specific overt act against the appellant and his evidence also does not support the prosecution case. 30. P.W-5 is Baldeo Mahto who is another brother of the deceased Reshmi Devi and stated that his sister was married with Mithu Mahto i.e the appellant 15 years ago. However, when his sister quarreled with the appellant Mithu Mahto then, she came to her house in the afternoon at around 12-1 P.M. However, his brother-in-law Mithu Mahto followed her to his house and asked him to take the deceased with him. They were trying to stop her but the appellant forcibly took her with him. However, he has sent his brother Nirmal Mahto with them but his brother Nirmal Mahto had not taken food because there was quarrel between his sister and brother-in-law. They were trying to stop her but the appellant forcibly took her with him. However, he has sent his brother Nirmal Mahto with them but his brother Nirmal Mahto had not taken food because there was quarrel between his sister and brother-in-law. On the next morning, his brother-in-law returned but on the same day, one Bajarwa Mahto arrived at his house at 8 A.M and informed that his sister is not good then, he along with his father went to her matrimonial home and found his sister died. Thereafter, they went to the police station and his father had instituted a case and he also put his thumb impression and he had put his signature. He proved his signature marked as Exhibit-2. 31. During cross-examination, he stated that his sister has got one son aged around 10 years and one daughter aged around 7 years. He also admitted that the accused never demanded any dowry and money and had never tortured for dowry and money. He also admitted that there was no assault and quarrel during his presence and there was no quarrel between them. He cannot say as to what was quarreled in house of his sister. However, his sister was not of angry nature and she never stated that consuming poison. He further stated that that he cannot say as to how his sister died. He further stated that Daroga Ji had not read the beyan before him and he had merely asked him to put his signature. Thereafter, he never met with Daroga Ji i.e the Police, Bada Babu i.e. the Officer-in-Charge had arrived but he had not taken his statement. He has not given evidence before earlier. He further admitted that that his brother-in-law had taken his sister back by convincing her and the appellant Mithu Mahto had not instituted any case. 32. Thus, P.W-5 has not supported the prosecution case and stated that there is no demand of dowry and torture. He also stated that he is not seen the occurrence and hence, the evidence of P.W-5 is not sufficient to convict the appellant and he had not attributed any specific overt act against the appellant and his evidence also does not support the prosecution case.. 33. P.W-6 is Bhuneshwar Paswan who has proved the signature on of Vishwa Badan Singh, then Officer-in-Charge on the Inquest Report which was marked as Exhibit-3. 33. P.W-6 is Bhuneshwar Paswan who has proved the signature on of Vishwa Badan Singh, then Officer-in-Charge on the Inquest Report which was marked as Exhibit-3. During cross-examination, he stated that the Inquest Report was not written before him and he is not aware of the content. 34. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-6, it is evident that P.W-6 has not supported the prosecution case and has merely a signatory on the Inquest Report written by the Officer-in- Charge, Vishwa Badan Singh but he has not supported the prosecution case stating that it was not written before him. Thus, P.W-6 is a formal witness. 35. P.W-7 is Mahendra Rana who stated during his evidence that the deceased died 11 years ago and her body was kept in the house. On the alarm, he went outside and saw that the deceased Reshmi Devi had died but he is not aware as to how the deceased had died. He heard that deceased wife of the appellant Mithu Mahto had consumed some wrong medicine. He had not attended her cremation. 36. During cross-examination, he stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto and Nageshwar Mahto are not own relative and both are living separately. He further stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto used to keep his wife in a very good condition and he had never given her torture. He stated that the wife of the appellant Mithu Mahto was the owner of the house but he is not aware of the exact children. He is not aware as to who she died. His statement was not recorded by the police and he is giving evidence for the first time in Court. 37. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-7, it is evident that he has also not supported the prosecution case and he is a villager. He also stated that the appellant has not given any trouble to his wife. He also giving evidence for the first time and the police have not recorded his statement and hence, the evidence of P.W-7 is not sufficient to convict the appellant. 38. P.W-8 is Mathura Mahto who is hearsay witness and stated during his evidence on alarm, he went to the house of deceased and had seen her dead body on the courtyard and froth was coming out from her mouth. He had not attended her cremation. 38. P.W-8 is Mathura Mahto who is hearsay witness and stated during his evidence on alarm, he went to the house of deceased and had seen her dead body on the courtyard and froth was coming out from her mouth. He had not attended her cremation. Later on, he heard that the deceased consumed poison. 39. During cross-examination, he stated that both the accused persons are Gotia and they are brothers and he identified the accused persons as being villagers. He further stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto used to keep his wife in a very good condition and he had never tortured her by demanding dowry and she was the Owner of her house and she had go children. He also stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto was not present in the house when his wife died. He had gone to Hazaribagh. Presently, Mithu Mahto was living with his wife and grandmother and children but his grandmother had died. He admitted and stated that wife of Mithu Mahto by mistake had taken insects medicine which was kept in his house, due to which she died. 40. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-8, it is evident that he has not supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellant Mithu Mahto used to keep his wife in a very good condition and not demanded dowry. Thus, the evidence of P.W-8 is not reliable. 41. P.W-9 is Shiv Shankar Prasad who is an Advocate Clerk and a formal witness and he has proved the fard beyan, formal F.I.R in the signature of Shiv Badan Singh, then Officer-in-Charge of Itkhori Police Station which was marked as Exhibit-3. 42. During cross-examination, he stated that fard beyan was not recorded during his presence and he had no personal knowledge. 43. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-9, it is evident that he is a formal witness and he is also not competent to prove the F.I.R. Therefore, it is evident that the occurrence had taken place due to sudden impulsion by the deceased. 44. It has been held in the case of Mahendra Awase versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 107 at Para Nos. 13 and 15 which are as follows:- “Para:-13. 44. It has been held in the case of Mahendra Awase versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 107 at Para Nos. 13 and 15 which are as follows:- “Para:-13. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:— “3. …Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite ‘mens rea’ on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …” Para:-15. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 , this Court held as under:— “12. Thus, 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 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 45. It has been held in the case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 S.C.R. 329 at Para Nos. 47 and 48 which are as follows:- “Para:-47. Human mind is an enigma. It is well neigh impossible to unravel the mystery of the human mind. There can be myriad reasons for a man or a woman to commit or attempt to commit suicide: it may be a case of failure to achieve academic excellence, oppressive environment in college or hostel, particularly for students belonging to the marginalized sections, joblessness, financial difficulties, disappointment in love or marriage, acute or chronic ailments, depression, so on and so forth. Therefore, it may not always be the case that someone has to abet commission of suicide. Circumstances surrounding the deceased in which he finds himself are relevant. Para:-48. Coming to the facts of the present case, we do not find any evidence on the basis of which we can hold the appellant guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased. While the death of a young woman is certainly very tragic, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that suicide has been proved; the other essential ingredient constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC, viz, abetment cannot also be said to have been proved. 46. It transpires from the evidence of P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5 and P.W-6 that they have not supported the prosecution case and stated that the deceased wife of the appellant Mithu Mahto was kept in a very good condition. 47. It is evident that there is nothing to show that the appellant had incited or abated the deceased to commit suicide. Even P.W-3, P.W-4 and P.W-5 namely Babli Mahto, Nirmal Mahto and Baldeo mahto stated that the appellant had never demanded any dowry from the deceased Reshmi Devi. There evidence do not suggest the abetment made by the appellant to the deceased to commit suicide. 48. The evidence of P.W-6, P.W-7 and P.W-8 namely Bhuneshwar Paswan, Gunjran Rana and Mathura Mahto respectively suggest that the appellant had kept in his wife very properly and in a good manner and she was the owner of her house. Thus, they have also not supported the prosecution case. 49. It is further evident that the appellant had taken back his wife from the house of her father where she had stayed only for one day on account of ceremony of her father and as such, the deceased had consumed poison. The act of the deceased Reshmi Devi amounts to under some impulsion and it is an impulsive act. Prior to one day of incident, there was nothing to suggest that the appellant had demanded dowry or teased her or her maike or her family members. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that any abetment was done to commit her suicide. 50. Prior to one day of incident, there was nothing to suggest that the appellant had demanded dowry or teased her or her maike or her family members. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that any abetment was done to commit her suicide. 50. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2005 passed by Sri Sandip Sharma, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IVth, Chatra in Session Trial No. 414/1992 arising out of Itkhori P.S Case No. 67/92 (G.R. Case no. 298/1992) T.R No. 156/92 is set aside and the appellant namely Mithu Mahto is acquitted for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 51. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 281 of 2005 is allowed. 52. Let the original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below by the office.