Laxman Singh and Bachhia Devi vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants have been convicted u/s 306/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Case No. 383/91, S.T. No. 121/93 by the judgment dated 31.1.1994.

The prosecution case is that the informant''s sister was married to the Appellant No. 1 about 10 years ago but he performed the second marriage with the Appellant No. 2 and used to variously assault her on account of which finally the deceased lost her life.

The case was initially instituted u/s 302/34 but charge was framed both under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 306/34 I.P.C. since the doctor was of the opinion that death was suicidal. Since there was no direct evidence against the Appellants for having caused the death of the deceased, the Appellants were acquitted of charges u/s 302/34 I.P.C but were held to have abetted the suicide of the deceased.

To prove its case the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses out of whom only P.W.8 and 9 are material witnesses who are relatives of the deceased and had supported the factum of assault and harassment by the Appellant No. 1.

It has been submitted that on behalf of the Appellant that there is absolutely no evidence that the Appellants had abetted the suicide since there is no evidence on record that there was any instigation. Further submission is that even oral evidence with regard to the assault by the 2 witnesses is not corroborated by any independent source.

On going through the evidence on record as well as the judgment of conviction, I find that there is total absence of any material to support the fact that the Appellants had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and, therefore, the Appellants are acquitted of the said charges. However, since there is oral evidence that the deceased used to be assaulted by the Appellant No. 1 in the facts of the case it would be fit and proper to convict him u/s 323 I.P.C. but sentenced to one that has already been undergone by him.

In the result, the appeal of Appellant No. 2 is allowed and conviction and sentence of the Appellant No. 2 is hereby set aside whereas the appeal of Appellant No. 1 is dismissed with the aforesaid modification as stated above.

In the result the appeal is partly allowed.