1. This criminal apeal assails the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Contai in ST Case No. 03/February/2017 (SC Case No. 281/November/2016 ) convicting the accused persons for committing offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to sufffer simple imprisonment for 6 months.

2. Shri Bablu Patra set the criminal administration of justice into motion by informing the Officer-in_Charge of Khejuri, I.C. Purba Medinipur on 25th December, 2013 that his younger son Kartick Patra went to his in-laws house being called by his father-in-law. His wife was staying in the house of her father since Jamaisasthi nearly for one and half months prior to the date of incident. His son was assaulted in his in-law’s house. At about 1.30 p.m. Bablu Patra received an information from the covillagers that his son Kartick committed suicide by consuming poison. The information since disclosed offence cognizable in nature, Khejuri P.S. Case No. 318 of 2013 was registered on 26th December, 2013 under Sections 302/120B of the IPC. Police took up investigation and submitted charge sheet. The appellants stood the trial pleading their innocence .

3. To crown success prosecution examined 11 witnesses and learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to hold that the accused persons guilty for committing offence within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code .

4. PW1 Bablu Patra is the de facto complainant who stated that his son Kartick went to his in-laws house at Kakuria when the accused persons assaulted him and abeted him to commit suicide. According to PW 1 the accused persons killed his son by pouring poison into his mouth. He received the information of death of his son at about 2/2.30 p.m.

5. PW 2 Laxmi Kanta Maity and PW3 Ranjit Ghatak were examined in the light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. PW 4 Chhabi Rani Patra is the mother of the deceased who stated that his son went to his in-laws house to bring back his wife sumitra who was carrying Sumitra refused to come back instead abeted Kartick to commit suicide by consuming poison or by hanging himself to death, so that Sumitra could remarry. On the fateful day the accused persons also assaulted Kartick and she came to know everything over phone including the death of his son Kartick. PW 5 Laxmi Rani Partra is the sister in law of the victim who stated that accused persons assaulted her brother-in-law Kartick and poured poison into his mouth. PW 6 Madan Mohan Patra is the elder brother of Kartick who also stated that on 9 pous in the morning when Kartick went to his in-laws house to bring back his wife Sumitra on that date about 2.30 p.m. they came to know over phone about the death of Kartick. He went there and found the dead body of Kartick in the house of the father of Sumitra. PW 7 and PW 8 did not have any direct knowledge about the incident. PW 9 is the second investigating Officer who examined the witnesses seized an old bycycle, prepared sketch maps. PW 11 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination. The post mortem report is admitted as Ext. 8. No other witnesses was examined. The prosecution witness no. 1,4,5 and 6 are the parents, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased who made a general statement that victim

6. committed suicide being abeted by the accused persons. None of them had direct knowledge about the incident . There is no ingredient of offence within the meaning of Section 107 of the IPC indicating the appellants instigated the victim to commit suicide . The Autopsy Surgeon also gave an opinion as to the cause of death, bereaft of any chemical examination report. Prosecution did not collect the chemical examination report of viscera to ascertain whether the victim died because of consumption of poison. Only because the unfortunate incident took place in the house of the appellants, they cannot be made culpable for committing offence within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC, in absence of any essential ingredient within the meaning of Section 107 of the I.P.C. that I have already pointed out. In my opinion learned trial Court recorded an order of conviction on the basis of rather conjectures.Since the victim died in his in-law’s house, such fact may create suspicion as to the role of the inmates of that house. But suspicion, howsoever strong cannot replace the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt Consequently the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction is reversed to an order of acquittal.

7. Let the lower Court record along with a copy of the judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. Appellants are discharged from bail bonds. But shall have to furnish a bond under Section 437A of Cr P C for 6 months , before the learned Trial Court. Application, if any, stand disposed of with the disposal of the appeal.

8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied therefor, be supplied on the usual undertakings.