2026:JHHC:18481 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.346 of 2021 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2017 and Order of sentence dated 30.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2016, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.11 of 2016 (G.R. No.73 of 2016)] --------- Pradeep Sharma, aged about 66 years S/o Late Bajrang Lal Sharma, Resident of – Bramhin Bari, Madhu Bazar, P.S – Sadar, P.O and District – West Singhbhum.….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P --------- Order No.05/ Dated: 24 th June, 2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. 2. Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2016, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.11 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.73 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) and in default thereof, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is based on the written application (Ext.1) of the informant (P.W.-1) Neelam Devi, who is daughter-in-law of the appellant and deceased, stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Vikash Sharma on 10.12.2014. Thereafter, she was living at her in-laws house at Bramhin Bari, Madhu Bazar, Chaibasa, where she saw that her father-in-law Pradeep Sharma used to assault and abuse her mother-in-law (now deceased) and also tortured her mentally, physically and sexually. Her father-in-law frequently drank liquor and started drama and dancing wearing underwear and vest. He also instigated her mother-in-law to commit suicide. In the meanwhile her father-in-law, left the house after Dipawali and returned on 19.02.2016 after four months. He used to drink liquor at 2.00 p.m. everyday and began to commit quarrel. On 22.02.2016, in the night, hearing the noise coming from the room of her mother-in-law, she woke up her husband and broke the door and saw her father-in-law thrashing her mother-in-law, pressing her neck and also committing sexual exploitation with her as animals. On the next day morning, he started to commit marpit with her mother-in-law. On 23.2.2016 her husband and father-in-law left the house at about 5.00 p.m. and she was engaged to sleep her daughter after feeding. Her mother-in-law went - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 to leave her husband outside the house but she did not return, then she called her coming outside from her room and asked from a labour that had he seen her mother-in- law but he replied no. In the meantime she saw there was fire caught on the roof. She cried and rushed on the roof where she saw her mother-in-law committing suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil and set herself on fire. She had committed suicide being tortured by her father-in-law. She has written this application in presence of her sister in law namely, Soniya Sharma (P.W.-2). On the basis of above information of the informant, Sadar P.S Case No.11 of 2016 dated 24.02.2016 has been registered under Section 306 IPC, against the accused- appellant. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC and the trial court has framed the charge on 21.06.2016 under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. 5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 6. P.W.-1, Neelam Devi, is the informant and daughter- in-law of the accused/ appellant and deceased. She has supported the prosecution case. She has proved her signature on written report (Ext.-1) and inquest report - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 (Ext.-2). In cross-examination, she has admitted that half filled bottle of kerosene oil was seized by the police from the roof of the house. She denied that there was an altercation between her parents in-laws. She denied that at the time of occurrence, her husband and father-in-law was outside of the house. She has stated that she belongs to marwari samaj and the matter was not informed to marwari samaj, but reported to the police. 7. P.W.-2, Soniya Sharma, is the daughter of the accused-appellant and the deceased. She has supported the prosecution story. She has stated that she was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. She was informed about the incident by the informant. In cross-examination, she has stated that her mother has committed suicide. She has also seen it in CCTV footage, which was installed in the godown of Mantu Kedia. 8. P.W.-3, Dinesh Sharm, is the husband of P.W.-2 and son-in-law of the accused and deceased. He has stated that he was informed about the incident by the informant. On getting information, he along with his wife (P.W.-2) reached at the place of occurrence. He has also supported the prosecution story. In cross-examination, at para – 5, he has stated that when he came to his in-laws house, he found his father-in- law in a drunken state. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, Neelam Devi told him that the deceased - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 committed suicide by setting herself on fire. 9. P.W.-4, Amit Kumar Sharma, is the brother of the deceased and he has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of incident. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of incident the accused was not there and he met him in the market in a drunken state. He has stated that he informed the police and thereafter, the accused was arrested. 10. P.W.-5, Sandeep Bhavsar, is the neighbour of the appellant and he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he was well acquainted with the deceased. In cross-examination, he has stated that he received the information of the incident on telephone by the daughter-in-law of the deceased that the deceased has set herself on fire. He identified the accused because his son was his employee. 11. P.W.-6, Gajendra Pathak, is the investigating officer of the case. He has visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. While investigation, he found the burnt dead body on the roof and there was a plastic bottle containing 200 ml kerosene oil and a match box. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of those persons whose houses are situated near the house of the deceased. He has stated that - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 he does not know whether there was CCTV camera in the house or not. He did not see any injury on the person of the deceased. 12. P.W.-7, Dr. Prince Pingua, is the doctor who has conducted post-mortem of the deceased. He found 99% burn injury on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was due to dermo epidermal burn and ante-mortem in nature. The time since death was opined as more than six hours but within 24 hours. In cross-examination, he has stated that there was no smell of kerosene oil on the dead body of the deceased. There was also no cut mark on the person of the deceased. 13. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction stating that :- (i) the prosecution story has not been properly substantiated by the evidence brought on record. For that purpose, he has drawn the attention to the deposition of P.W.-1, who has made the entire allegation against the appellant. She has stated in her cross-examination that dispute between the father-in-law and mother-in-law has not been reported to “Marwari Samaj”, but she has - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 informed the same to Thana, but no documentary evidence to that effect has been brought on record by her. (ii) it has been stated that everything has been recorded in C.C.T.V, but that C.C.T.V footage has not been produced in the court. (iii) only a bottle of 200 ml kerosene oil has been recovered, but the doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem, has not found any smell of kerosene oil on the dead body of the deceased. (iv) the deposition of other witnesses, i.e. P.Ws- 2 & 3, who are the family members, do not suggest that any instigation has been done, rather it has been merely stated that there was some dispute between the parties, as the accused-appellant used to take alcohol. (v) reference has also been made to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the appellant has clearly stated that there was some dispute with the informant, which has led to suicide. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Para – 8 of the the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2025) 1 S.C.R. 825, and it has submitted that there is no material of instigation, rather it is a case of suicide and there is no material on record to - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 cover the case under the definition of instigation, as contained under Section 107 IPC. Para – 8 of the the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.” Thus, on the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that there is clear cut allegation by P.W.-1 and the medical report corroborates to the extent that the death of the deceased is within 24 hours while in the prosecution story, it has been stated that the death of the deceased was around 6:00 to 6:30 P.M. The case is of suicide and there is allegation of continuous harassment which has left no other option with the deceased, but to commit suicide and as such the case is covered under Section 306 IPC. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) the death of the deceased has been accepted as suicide, but no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. (b) only a bottle containing 200 ml kerosene oil has been found, but the doctor, who has - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021 2026:JHHC:18481 conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has not found any smell of kerosene oil. (c) although it has been claimed by the witnesses that CCTV footage was available, but that has also not been seized. (d) the deposition of P.W.-3 does not clearly suggest instigation. 18. Considering the facts of the present case in totally and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as noted above, this Court finds that no sufficient material available on record to convict the appellant under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2016, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.11 of 2016, corresponding to G.R No.73 of 2016 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 21. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 24th June, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 29.06.2026 - 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2021