Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 1250 of 2006 ------ 1. Samir Maity, Son of late Kali Pada Maity, 2. Prabhawati Maity, W/o late Kali Pada Maity, Both residents of village-Sandra, P.S. Borsole, District- East Singhbhum .... …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv. Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shatri, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 06.01.2025 By Court:- Heard Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Bishwambhar Shatri, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 2006 and 11th July, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ghatshila, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial Case No. 461 of 2004, whereby and whereunder both the appellants were held guilty and convicted under Section 306/34 of the I.P.C. Appellant no.1 was directed to undergo seven years of R.I., and Appellant Page | 2 no.2 was directed to undergo five years of R.I. Factual Matrix 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased was married with the accused no.1 (Samir Maity) on 26/05/2003 and the deceased had been living a happy life in her matrimonial home. On 13.05.2004, the father of the deceased received a telephonic message that his daughter has sustained severe burn injuries and she had been taken to hospital for treatment. Upon the said information, the informant reached at the matrimonial house of his daughter and got information that his daughter had died due to burn injuries and her body was sent for post-mortem. It is further urged by the informant that his daughter was subjected to cruelty for demand of additional dowry. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. being Behragoda (Barsol) P.S. Case No. 29/2004 was registered against both accused persons for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and accordingly, cognizance was taken under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to Court of Sessions where appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against all accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Page | 3 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit 1 : Signature of Pashupati Nath Bhuiyan. Exhibit 2 : Post mortem report. Exhibit 3 : Formal F.I.R. Exhibit 1/1: Fard Beyan Exhibit 4: Inquest Report. 8. The case of defence is denial from the charge and further defence is that appellants are innocent who have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of the evidence available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offences under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that offence under Section 306 I.P.C. could not be said to be minor offence in relation to Section 304B I.P.C. within meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C., hence, conviction could not be sustained. The appellants have not been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 1995 (R) dated 06.07.2001. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned judgment and order of conviction of appellant is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Page | 4 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has also fairly admitted that in case of charge under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and without alteration of charges during the trial under Section 306 of the I.P.C. conviction cannot be sustained for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 12. I have gone through the record of the case and contentions raised on behalf of both side along with impugned judgment and order. It appears that in the instant case, F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of the I.P.C. for commission of dowry death of the daughter of the informant by alleging additional dowry demand by the appellants and charge- sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. The appellants had faced the trial for the charges under Section 304B/34 and 498A of the I.P.C. It also appears that no materials constituting the offence under Section 304B of the I.PC. was found by the learned trial court. Accordingly, the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. due to unnatural death of the deceased at her matrimonial house. Learned trial court while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. held in Para 14 as under:- “The informant is very much consistent about the fact that his daughter was not permitted by the accused to visit her mother at the time when her mother had fracture in her leg and she was very sad because of it. Out of sadness and frustration it appears Page | 5 that she had slapped her small child, as has been deposed by the informant. Refusal of permission by the husband and her mother in law might be immediate cause of taking such a drastic step like to commit suicide” From above observations and findings of learned trial court, it cannot be said that the appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide which is an essential ingredient of the Section 306 I.P.C. There is no iota of evidence that appellants have instigated/abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is also apparent from the record that entire house of the appellants burnt due to which the deceased sustained burn injuries resulting in her death and appellants were not present in the house. From the aforesaid discussion, it is quite obvious that the essential ingredient of offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is abetment to commit suicide which is absolutely lacking in this case and there was no charge at all for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. It is also quite obvious that both the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of the I.P.C. are mutually exclusive, distinct and different offences having different constituents. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. in the instant case is not warranted under law. 13. In view of the above discussions and reasons, this appeal is Allowed and impugned order of conviction and sentence of appellants is hereby, set aside. Page | 6 14. Appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds and sureties are also be discharged. 15. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated:-06.01.2025 Amar/-