JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Shristi Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P.for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2003 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1994 whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offence under Sections 306/120B of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and both the sentences to be run concurrently. 3. The present case is based upon Fardbeyan of informant namely, Leela Senapati, wife of Late Naresh Senapati resident of Village – Purdan, Police Station – Nimia Ghat, District – Giridih who allegedly stated therein that she is working as a maid in the mess of Gomoh Railway Colony and on 06.07.1989 at around 05:30 P.M. while she was watching T.V. in the residence of B. R. Bose, her son namely Jagarnath Senapati came and apprised her that his sister immolated herself and on hearing this, she along with her sister-in-law (Bhabi, Lakhi Thakur, P.W. – 4) came to her house and saw her daughter in burnt condition and there was crowd assembled there. At that time, Dinesh Choudhary and Arjun Choudhary told her that her daughter had to be removed to hospital and they would bring ambulance and ambulance was brought by them then informant, her Bhabi, daughter, Dinesh Choudhary, Arjun Choudhary and one sweeper visited to State Dispensary, Jitpur, Gomoh at about 07:00 P.M. where one lady Doctor Bina Chakraborty (P.W. - 8 ) referred her daughter to Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad. 4. It is further stated that one ambassador car was brought at behest of Dinesh Choudhary and in that car all of them boarded and reached Dhanbad Hospital in the night at around 10:00 P.M. and Dinesh Choudhary have had conversation with Doctor but she was not aware about it but Dinesh Choudhary asked her that her daughter has to be taken to other Hospital. At the prompting of informant, car was taken to the place of son-in-law of the informant, who after seeing her daughter who was in burning condition, told that she was no more. At the prompting of informant, car was taken to the place of son-in-law of the informant, who after seeing her daughter who was in burning condition, told that she was no more. Thereafter, she got fainted and accused Dinesh Choudhary and Arjun Choudhary, Compounder Birender Kumar buried the deceased somewhere. She has stated that as the threat was extended by those persons, she could not intimat to police and when she returned back then came cross the fact from her son (PW-1) and other neighboures that on the day of occurrence/incident at 04:00 P.M. accused Gurubhej Singh and his wife assaulted her daughter by catching her hair and also threatened her that she would be killed because she was spoiling their family. She further stated that she has also been informed that a day prior to alleged occurrence, accused- appellant herein Paramjit Singh son of Gurubhej Singh had teased deceased for which deceased Saraswati abused Paramjit Singh. On account of this, Gurubhej Singh and his wife insulted her daughter and on account of that insult, her daughter by closing the door she sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her and got herself ablazed. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 306/201/34 IPC was filed and accordingly, cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offences against accused persons including Dinesh Choudhary, Arjun Choudhary, Gurubhej Singh and Birendra Kumar. Thereafter, case was committed to Court of Sessions and charge has been framed under Sections 306, 120B/34 of IPC against the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. there is complete denial on the part of the appellant. 6. To prove its case prosecution has got examined nine prosecution witnesses and has also brought on record signature of Leela Senapati on Fardbeyan as Exhibit – 1, formal FIR as Exhibit – 2, endorsement on Fardbeyan of S.I. Bindeswar Ram as Exhibit – 3, Fardbeyan as Exhibit – 4, carbon copy of Inquest Report of the deceased as Exhibit – 5 and post-mortem report of the deceased as Exhibit – 6. 7. 7. After going through the materials available on records, it transpires that as far as present appellant is concerned, it is alleged that he prompted the deceased to commit suicide by teasing her a day prior to incident and on the day of incident, appellant along with his parents given beatings to deceased which prompted her to take extreme steps by immolating herself and she succumbed to burn injury later on. 8. It further transpires that incident is of 06.07.1989 whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 09.07.1989 and in between even the dead body of the daughter of the informant got buried but after registration of F.I.R. at the behest of I.O. the dead body got exhumed and post-mortem was done but on account of deteriorated condition of bead body, Doctor could not opine cause of death of the deceased. 9. There are two sets of witnesses got examined on behalf of prosecution. First set of witnesses are relative of deceased and second set are other witness including official witnesses. P.W. – 1, Jagarnth Senapati, is the brother of the deceased, P.W. – 5, Leela Senapati, is the mother whereas P.W. – 4, Lakhi Thakur, is Mami of the deceased. These are the witnesses who are having blood relation with the deceased. Other witness P.W. – 2, B.R. Bose, on whose residence, informant given Fardbeyan but this witness turned hostile. P.W. – 3, Mukhtar Ahmed Qureshi, is the driver of the said ambassador car who has deposed that he carried victim and other persons to Dhanbad Hospital thereafter at the Garage of son-in-law of the informant. 10. P.W. – 6 is the I.O. of the present case who has stated that on information of burning of a girl on 09.07.1989 he came across the incident and registered Sanaha and proceeded towards the place of occurrence and has recorded the Fardbeyan as well as statement of witnesses. He has also given description of the place of occurrence and also got permission for exhumation and and got post-mortem examination of deceased done. 11. P.W. – 7, Dr. Binod Kumar, is the Doctor who did post mortem examination of deceased and found that the dead body was in highly decomposed state. He has also given description of the place of occurrence and also got permission for exhumation and and got post-mortem examination of deceased done. 11. P.W. – 7, Dr. Binod Kumar, is the Doctor who did post mortem examination of deceased and found that the dead body was in highly decomposed state. Head hairs was separated from the scalp, hair was partly burnt and no smell of any oil perceived, cuticle of skin is separated at the places which were seen as brownish, blackish, patches but on the most places skin was completely absence and fatty tissues were exposed. Foot muscles were decomposed, tendous are exposed. The opinion regarding cause of death was reserved pending for chemical analysis of viscera. The post mortem report is marked as Ext.-6. In cross-examination he has stated that report of viscera has not been submitted as yet according to his knowledge. 12. P.W. – 8 is Dr. Bani Chakraborty, who was the Doctor at Gomoh State Dispensary on 06.07.1989 and has referred deceased to Sadar Hospital and has stated that about 90% burn injury was on the person of deceased. 13. P.W. – 9, Pradip Kumar Singh, has also got hostile who was allegedly stated to be owner of the car on which deceased as well as other persons boarded for proceeding towards Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no ingredient of Section 306 of IPC at all even entire evidence of P.W. – 1 and P.W. – 5 are taken on its face value as the incident of teasing on the part of the appellant, which is stated by witnesses is having no proximity to the incident. He further pointed out that there is no version of victim on record and P.W. – 1 was only present at the time of incident who has also stated nothing qua the appellant rather he has stated regarding the misdeed of parents of appellant on the day of alleged incident which promoted her to commit suicide by sprinkling Kerosene Oil on her person. 15. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there is enough material which attracts the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, as such, no interference is required in the finding of learned trial court. 16. Heard rival submission of the parties and perused the trial court records. 17. 15. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there is enough material which attracts the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, as such, no interference is required in the finding of learned trial court. 16. Heard rival submission of the parties and perused the trial court records. 17. P.W. – 1 Jagarnth Senapati is the younger brother of the deceased who was present when the deceased immolated herself by closing the door of room by pouring Kerosene Oil on her. P.W. – 1 Jagarnth Senapati, has stated that he was thatching the roof of his house at about 06:00 P.M. and deceased sister was providing tiles (Khapra) then at that very time Gurubhej Singh and his wife (parents of appellant herein, who are no more) came and started abusing her and wife of Gurubhej Singh by caught hold of hair of his sister and also started giving beating and told she would kill her. It is stated by this witness that in the meanwhile this appellant reached there and he also abused. 18. The reason assigned for the incident by this witness is that a day before incident, his sister (since deceased) was going to temple then her sleeper got broken, then this appellant by teasing told deceased that “Rani Thumari Chappal Thik Kar De Kaya” then his sister got angry and told appellant that she would give a slap to him and after hearing this her mother came and such incident took place with her sister and on account of insult, his sister immolated herself by entering into a room then when smoke started coming out from the room, he broke open the door and he extinguished the fire on the person of his sister by putting gunny- bag and thereafter he intimated his mother who came and thereafter his mother, Mami and other two co-accused persons removed his sister to hospital. 19. P.W. 4, Lakhi Thakur, has stated that the deceased was her Bhagani and after intimation by P.W. – 1, Jagarnth Senapati, she along with mother of the deceased visited to place of occurrence and thereafter she accompanied them to hospitals but at the same time, she has categorically stated that she does not know how deceased died. 20. 19. P.W. 4, Lakhi Thakur, has stated that the deceased was her Bhagani and after intimation by P.W. – 1, Jagarnth Senapati, she along with mother of the deceased visited to place of occurrence and thereafter she accompanied them to hospitals but at the same time, she has categorically stated that she does not know how deceased died. 20. P.W. 5, Leela Senapati, is the mother of the deceased and has stated that she was watching T.V. in the house of B. R. Bose then his son Jagarnath Senapati came to her and told about burning of her daughter then she rushed to her house and saw her daughter in burnt condition and when she asked from her why she did so then deceased told her that why Gurubhej Singh and his wife given beatings to her. Thereafter she has stated that Dinesh and Arjun came there and thereafter she had gone to hospital in the ambulance and Lakhi Thakur (P.W. 4) was also with her. She has stated that one lady doctor had given injection to her daughter at Jeetpur Hospital and thereafter she went to Dhanbad Hospital. She has also stated that she told Dinesh repeatedly to intimate police but he did not do so. She also stated that when Dinesh told him that doctor of Dhanbad had told to take the deceased to big hospital then at her instance they were taken to the place of her son-in-law who after seeing her burnt daughter told that she was no more, thereafter she fainted and other co-accused persons got her daughter buried and then she returned. She further stated that after elapse of three days police came then she narrated the incident to Darogaji and who wrote her statement and she also put her signature on the same and the same has been marked as Exhibit -1. She has further stated that Gurubhej Singh and his wife given beatings to her daughter but she does not know why they had given beatings but on this account, deceased burned herself. 21. She has further stated that Gurubhej Singh and his wife given beatings to her daughter but she does not know why they had given beatings but on this account, deceased burned herself. 21. From aforesaid ocular evidence, it transpires that on 06.07.1989 informant was at the house of B. R. Bose where her son namely, Jagarnth Senapati, (P.W.-1) informed her about burning of her daughter then she along with Lakhi Thakur (P.W. - 4) reached to the place to occurrence and thereafter she was taken to hospital firstly at Railway Hospital, Gomoh and thereafter Sadar, Hospital, Dhanbad and after Sadar, Hospital, Dhanbad when they reached to the place of son-in-law of the informant then he told that her daughter had already died then she got fainted and later on came across the fact from co-accused that her daughter got buried. 22. P.W.-1, Jagarnth Senapati, is the younger brother of the deceased and was very much present when the deceased put herself on fire. He has stated that on day of incident father and mother of the appellant-convict came and mother of appellant- convict by caught hold of hair of deceased given beatings and on account of insult, she after sprinkling kerosene oil burnt herself. He has also stated in his testimony that he was having friendly terms with appellant and he used to visit the place of appellant and appellant also used to visit his place and even the deceased was also having visiting term to the appellant. In cross-examination, she has also stated one incident prior to occurrence of 06.07.1989 that when his sister was going to mandir her sleeper got broken then appellant taunted her then his sister reacted and told that she would slap him. He has also stated that this appellant was teasing his sister for last 15 days and this fact was only known to him. 23. At paragraph - 9 of his examination-in-chief, he has categorically stated that parents of the appellant-convict came and abused his sister and given beatings and on this account she committed suicide. In paragraph - 16 also he has only stated regarding giving of beatings by the parent of the appellant- convict. As far as P.W.- 5 is concerned. She has stated that when she reached to her house where her daughter was in burnt condition then she said that parent of appellant-convict did beatings to her. 24. In paragraph - 16 also he has only stated regarding giving of beatings by the parent of the appellant- convict. As far as P.W.- 5 is concerned. She has stated that when she reached to her house where her daughter was in burnt condition then she said that parent of appellant-convict did beatings to her. 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P. reported in (2017) 7 SCC 780 has held that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence is not sustainable in terms of Section 306 of IPC. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinunder:- “43.[Ed.: Para 43 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./23/2017 dated 28-6-2017.] . Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.” 25. Considering the above legal proposition and evidence of P.W.- 1 and P.W.-5, it transpires that a day prior to the incident this appellant-convict has teased the victim but presence of appellant on the alleged date of incident is doubtful when the evidence of P.W.-1 could be read in totality and also the evidence on record reveals that appellant, deceased and brother of deceased were having visiting terms and appellant also used to visit to the house of informant. However, the act of teasing in the present case by a causal remark a day prior to the immolation of the victim, by the appellant would not come within the purview of instigation and from the facts of the case it is nowhere visible that such a remark has created such a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 26. 26. Considering the totality of the aforesaid evidence and the legal proposition, is of considerate view that prosecution has not able to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt that the act of the appellant/convict is proximate to act of suicide by the deceased. 27. In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of considered view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2003 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 306 and 120(B) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, requires interference by this Court and consequently, it is hereby set aside. 28. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. 29. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 30. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.