IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT DIBRUGARH.

Present: Sri A.B. Siddique, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.

Sessions Case No. 146/2011.

State of Assam

Vs.

Sri Ratan Sonowal..............Accused

Appearance : Smti. Chinmoyee Dutta, Addl. Public Prosecutor......for the State.

Sri A.Rob, Advocate, ------------for the accused. Charge U/s 306 IPC.

Date of Evidence on : 01.04.2013, 30.01.2014, 16.06.2014,

01.12.2014, 06.06.2015, 12.10.2015

Date of Argument on : 08.12.2012.

Date of Judgment on : 16.01.2016.

J U D G M E N T

(1) Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 13.09.2009 one Smti. Debojani

Sonowal, has lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Duliajan P.S. to

the effect that his daughter Munmi Sonowal (Munmi) got socially married to the

accused Ratan Sonowal (Biju) . After her marriage she was subjected to

torture and cruelty demanding dowry. The accused demanded Rs. 2 lac as dowry

and subjected her physical and mental torture. On 3.8.09 the daughter of the

informant being unable to bear the torture came back to the house of the

informant and told about the torture meted out to her by the accused. Again on

10.09.2009 being unable to bear the torture of her husband she committed

suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly a case was registered at Duliajan P.S.

being Duliajan P.S. case No. 190/09 U/s 306, IPC and commenced investigation.

2

During investigation the accused was arrested and evidence against the accused

was collected and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet U/s

306, IPC against the accused person.

(2) The accused person was produced before the lower Court and after

furnishing him the necessary copies etc. the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions being the offence trialable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

(3) On appearance of the accused person before the Court and after

hearing the learned counsels for both sides on the point of charge and

considering the case record and the statements of the witnesses and the

documents referred U/s 173 of Cr.P.C. formal charge U/s 306, IPC was framed

and explained to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

(4) In order to bring home the charge against the accused person

prosecution examined ten witnesses including the victim girl and the defence

examined none. The plea of defence is of total denial. The accused person in his

statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations leveled against him

and pleaded that he is innocent.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

(i) Whether the accused person on 10.09.09 abetted her wife to

commit suicide as alleged ?

I have heard the argument placed by the learned counsel for both sides

and perused the entire evidence on record.

DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

(5) Let us first discuss the evidence of the informant, P.W. 1, Smti.

Debojani Sonowal, has stated that the occurrence took place on 10.09.098.

Her daughter Smti. Munmi Sonowal @ Mili was married to accused, Sri Ratan

Sonowal @ Biju Sonowal on 23rd January, 2009. Soon after the marriage, the

accused person started torture, both mental and physical, upon her daughter,

Smti. Munmi Sonowal @ Mili. On 03.08.09, accused person left his wife, Mili at

Duliajan Bus Stand. Her daughter then informed her over telephone that she

3

has been left at the bus stand and asked her to take her to their home. This

witness sent her son Sri Surajit Sonowal to take her home from Dulijan Bus

stand. Accordingly, he took the daughter of the witness to her house. On being

enquired why she has left at the bus stand, she told her that her husband

desires to marry another woman and for that reason, he left her at the bus

stand. She further stated that the accused used to perpetrate torture upon her.

She stated that her husband did not provide her proper maintenance and

required food, etc. She also stated that the accused person had d some illicit

relationship with another woman. Neither the accused nor any family member of

the accused made any correspondence with them asking welfare of her

daughter. Due to torture perpetrated upon her by the accused, her daughter

committed suicide on 10.09.09 at their house by hanging herself from a ceiling

fan. At that time, family members of their house were not present in the house.

While returning home from her duty at about 3.30 pm she detected that her

daughter committed suicide. She then called the neighboring local people and

they assembled at their house. This witness lodged an ejahar. Ext. 1 is the

ejahar and Ext. 1(1) is her signature. Her statement was also recorded u/s

164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. Ext. 2 is the said statement and Ext. 2(1) is

her signature thereon at the time of occurrence her daughter was carrying

pregnancy of 7 months.

During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that at

the time of occurrence when she came out from her house for attending her

duty, her sons were at her house. After her stay at their house at about one and

half months, the occurrence took place. During her stay at her house this

witness did not inform the matter to anybody else by writing. She denied the

suggestion that subsequently they hav fabricated a story against the accused

and lodged the Ext. 1 on 13.09.09. She also denied the suggestion that her

daughter stated nothing before him as alleged in her evidence in chief. She also

denied the suggestion that her daughter committed suicide due to mental

ailment.

(6) PW 2, Sri Luhit Bora, has stated that he has heard from the

mother of the victim girl regarding committing cruelty t the victim girl. After

4

nine month of marriage the accused brought her to Duliajan and left her to

Duliajan Bus Stand. Thereafter his wife went to her matrimonial home and

there she committed suicide. This witness saw the dead body of wife of

accused in her house.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not state

before police exactly what he has stated in the Court. After marriage he never

met the deceased.

(7) PW 3, Sri Surajit Sonowal, has stated that deceased was his

sister. Accused person used to torture the deceased physically and mentally

which was informed by his sister to his mother over phone. On 3rd August 2009

his sister Mili informed his mother over phone that she is at Duliajan bus stand

and told her mother to send someone to bring her from the bus stand to her

house. He came and brought his sister Mili to home. The incident took place

within one month from the time of taking hr back from bus stand. She

committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan of her bedroom His

mother lodged ejahar in the police station.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that Mili did not tell

him directly anything. During stay of Mili at their house she has usual talked

with them. Police did not ask him in detail regarding incident. He did not inform

his neighbors about the occurrence.

(8) P.W. 4, Sri Pranab Sonowal has deposed that Deceased Mili

was his sister. After marriage of his sister Mili the accused took her to the place

of his working at Tezpur and subjected her mental and physical torture. On

3.8.2009 the accused left his sister in the bus stand. She was brought to their

house by his elder brother where she committed suicide.

During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that on 10.09.2009

he lodged an ejahar before Duliajan Police Station. Ext. A1 is the said ejahar The

ejahar was lodged on the same day of incident. His mother also lodged another

ejahar on 13.9.2009 about the incident. He also stated that his assumption

regarding leaving of the deceased at the bus stand amounts to cruelty. He also

stated that he has not reported to any one. His sister spent 45 days in their

5

house after her coming from Duliajan Bus stand. He do not know that during

stay of his sister at his house the accused talked her over phone.

(9) P.W.5 Sri Ghana Kanta Sonowal, has stated that accused is his

brother-in-law . Munmi Sonowal @ Mili is the daughter of his father‟s brother.

On 10.9.2009 she committed suicide. His sister was married on 23.1.2009 with

the accused. They resided together at Lakhipathar. Thereafter they resided

together as husband and wife at Tezpur. His sister informed him over phone that

accused usually come to his house at late night. She also told him over phone

that accused used to assault her. His sister told her mother that the accused

used to demand dowry from her. His sister came to the house of her mother.

She told that the accused left her in the Duliajan bus stand wherefrom she

telephoned to her mother and accordingly his brother brought her to the house

from Duliajan Bus stand. They used to telephoned to accused but he never

received call. His sister informed him that accused demanded RS. 2 lacs. On

10.09.09 at about 2/3 pm while he was in his house his cousin Sri Bhaskar

Sonowal informed him that Mili committed suicide. He went to the place of

occurrence. Police came to the place of occurrence.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that Mili stayed in her

parental house for about 1 ½ months after coming from the house of the

accused. His house is situated at a distance of 200 mtres from the parental

house of Mili. He denied the suggestion that he has not told before police that

Mili told him that accused assaulted her. He cannot remember whether he

stated before police that one boy Bhaskar Sonowal has informed him regarding

the suicide committed by Mili. He also denied that he has not stated before

police that accused demanded Rs. 2 lac from his sister. He also denied that he

has deposed falsely implicating the accused. He also denied that he deposed in

favour of his aunt.

(10) P.W.6 Smti. Purnima Sonowal, has deposed that accused is his

brother-in-law. Munmi Sonowal @ Milli was his cousin. She committed suicide.

She got married with the accused on 23.1.2009. After marriage they started

living first at the house of accused at Digboi Laila Lowpatty where they stayed

6

for about 2 months. Thereafter she was taken to Tezpur, Biswanath Chariali The

accused was working in Zinzira Tea Estate. On 3.8.09 the accused person

brought his sister to Duliajan and left her in Duliajan Bus stand. His sister

telephoned to her aunt from Duliajan Bus Stand and took her to home and also

informed that the accused person left her in Duliajan bus Stand. From there

the elder brother of this witness Sri Surajit Sonowal brought her to home. His

sister reported that she was subjected to torture. Even she was not provided

food. The accused person demanded RS. 2 lac. She reported this witness that

she would not go to house of accused as she apprehends that her life is at

stack and she also suspected that the accused had extra marital affair with

other woman. This witness talked sitting with her. At that moment her sister

received a phone from accused. When this witness asked she told that accused

telephoned to her. But she did not tell this witness about conversation but she

was weeping. Her sister asked this witness to go to home. Accordingly this

witness went to his home. Accused made call to her at about 9.30/10 am. Her

aunt Smti. Debojani Sonowal came from her duty from OIL at 3.30 / 4 pm. She

called this witness and told that something had happened to Mili. This witness

immediately went to her house and saw Mili hanging with the ceiling fan. Village

people and police came to the place of occurrence. Police took the dead body

for post mortem examination. Her statement was recorded by police.

During cross-examination this witness has deposed that she did not

report before police that her sister reported her that accused person has extra

marital affair with other woman. She denied the suggestion that the accused

never tortured her sister. She also denied that accused never demanded dowry

from her sister.

(11) P.W. 7, Sri Pramod Hazarika, has deposed that he know both

the accused and the deceased Munmi. She died in the year 2009. She

committed suicide. Munmi Sonowal was socially married with the accused in the

month f January 2009. AFtr marriage she was taken to the house of accused at

Laupati Digboi. But as the accused worked in a tea garden and kept her in the

garden. After about 6 month, he came to know that Mili was left in bus station

from where she was brought to her parents house by her elder brother. She

7

stayed some days in the home. Her mother reported that she was subjected to

cruelty and even some time she was kept starved. One day Munmi‟s mother

called this witness and other persons of the locality to discuss regarding demand

of RS. 2 lac by the accused. Being Gaon Burah, this witness suggested to

report the matter to the police station. Mother of Munmi told this witness to

discuss wit the family members of the accused as this is a family matter. About

7 days after discussion , Munmi committed suicide on 10.09.2009. After getting

information this witness went to see Munmi and found her hanging with the

ceiling fan about 1/1.30 pm.

During cross-examination this witness stated that There was a meeting

regarding demand of dowry by the accused from Munmi. Police did not ask him

regarding the meeting prior to 7 days of the incident that is why , he did not

state before police. This witness further deposed that he has no personal

knowledge about the occurrence. This witness heard about the fact from the

mother of the deceased.

(12) P.W. 8, Sri Dulal Ch. Hazarika, has deposed that he know the

informant and deceased Munmi Sonowal. Deceased was married to the accused

person in the year 2009 and in the same year she died. After marriage the

deceased was living with the accused person at first at Lakhipathar and after

that they lived at Tezpur. After some month of the marriage of the deceased and

the accuse person he came to know that the accused left the deceased at

Duliajan bus stand. About 20 to 15 days before the incident mother of the

deceased told this witness that there is dispute between the accused and the

deceased and the accused physically tortured the deceased during her stay

with the accused person. The mother of the deceased told this witness and the

Gaon Burah of their village and other two persons. She told about the torture.

Gaon Burah Pramod Hazarika and the brother of Gaon Burah, Uma Kanta

Hazarika visited the house of the accused for compromise. The mother of the

deceased told them to settle the dispute on 25th August 2009. After two hours of

the incident he came to know about the hanging of the deceased and after that

incident the mother of the deceased lodged an ejahar against the accused

person.

8

During cross-examination, this witness deposed that his house is situated

at a distance of about 1/2 KM way from the place of occurrence. He also stated

that he do not know about the occurrence. He came to know about the incident

from the mother of the deceased. He had no personal knowledge if the

deceased was left in the Duliajan Bus Stand by the accused.

(13) P.W. 9 Dr. Konbapu Chowdhury stated that On 10.09.2009 he was

Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College &

Hospital, Dibrugarh, and on that day he has conducted post mortem

examination over the dead body of Mili Sonowal @ Munmi Sonowal age 24

years female W/O. Sri Ratan Sonowal of Gijira Tea Estate, P.S. Tezpur, Dist.

Sonitpur, Assam with reference to Duliajan P.S. U.D. Case No. 35/2009 dated

10.9.2009. The dead body was identified by Constable No. 52 Tribedi Baruah and

Sri Kanak Sonowal and found the following:

External appearance :- A female dead body of average build

brown complexion wearing nighty , bran and panty. Eyes and mouth closed.

Rigor mortis present all over the body. Blood stain present on both nostril. Anus

and Vulva healthy.

External injury not detected. Mark of ligature on neck – a Non

continuous / ligature mark present on upper part of neck. Mark is grooved and

margins abraded. Knot of the ligature present over left angle of mandible. On

dissection underlying soft tissues are dry and glistening.

Cranium and Spinal Canal :

Scalp, Skull and Vertebrae – healthy. Membrane and brain congested. Thorax –

Walls and ribs healthy. Pleurae, Larynx and Trachea healthy. Right and left lung

congested. Pericardium , Heart and Vessels healthy.

Abdomen – Wall healthy. Peritoneum, mouth , pharynx and

esophagus healthy. Stomach healthy contains partly digested food matters.

Small Intestine – healthy and contains liquid food matter. Large

Intestine healthy and contains gases and fecal matters.

Liver , Spleen and Kidney – congested. Bladder healthy. Organs of

Generation healthy. Uterus – Gravid , contain a single us 40 cm long.

OPINION

9

Death was due to asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging which

was suicidal in nature. Approx time since death 12 to 24 hours.

Ext. 3 is the post mortem report and Ext. 3(1) is my signature. Ext. 3(2)

is the signature of S.I. Borbhuyan, Professor and Head Department of Forensic

Medicine, Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh who concurred with my

opinion.

At the time of post mortem examination papers are placed before him.

Ext. 4 is the dead body challlan and Ext. 4(1) is his signature. Ext. 5 is inquest

and Ext. 5(1) and 5(2) and 5(3) are his signatures.

During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that nature

of death was suicidal in nature.

(14 ) ` P.W. 10, Sri Gulap Bailung stated that On 10.09.2009, he was

working as ASI at Duliajan P.S. One Pranab Sonowal lodged, an ejahar, that on

10.09.2009, Smti. Mili Sonowal, committed suicide at her parent‟s house. After

receiving the ejahar, then O/C, Duliajan P.S. Rajib Kr. Saikia, registered a UD

case as Duliajan P.S. UD Case NO. 35/09 and directed me to take up the

investigation of this case.

After direction of O/C, Duliajan P.S. at 7.45 pm he went to the

informant‟s house and visited the place of occurrence. He informed Executive

Magistrate for inquest but it was already night time, therefore, the Executive

Magistrate informed me that he would do the inquest on next day.

On 11.09.2009, inquest was done in presence of Executive Magistrate.

Ext. 5 is the Inquest. On 11.09.2009, he sent the dead body for post mortem.

After registering the UD case he recorded the statement of witnesses on

11.9.2009.

On 13.9.2009, he was working as ASI at Duliajan P.S. On that day one

Debojani Sonowal of Kachari Pathar Gaon, under P.S. Duliajan lodged a written

ejahar that her daughter Munmi Sonowal, was married with Ratan Sonowal on

23.1.2009 and after marriage, she was assaulted by her husband and her

husband demanded money from her which was told by her daughter Munmi in

front of her.

10

In the ejahar it was also mentioned that they gave sufficient Stridhan as

per their capacity. But again Munmi‟s husband demanded Rupees two lacs for

which Munmi was tortured physically and mentally by her husband. On 3.8.09,

she returned to informant‟s house for the atrocities of her husband and we

requested many times to return back our daughter to his house but he refused.

The accused Ratan also had illicit relationship with other girl. For this

atrocities on 10.09. 2009, when no was present at informant‟s house, Munmi

committee suicide by hanging herself. After receiving the ejahar then O/C Rajib

Kr. Saikia registered a case as case No. Duliajan P.S. 190/09 under section 306

IPC and entrusted me to investigate the case. Ext. 1 is the ejahar and Ext. 1(2)

is the signature of Rajib Kr. Saikia, O/C, Duliajan P.S. and he know his signature.

Ext. 6 is the ejahar. He was entrusted to take pre step of this case. Ext.

4 is the First Information Report. Ext. 6(1) is the signature of Rajib Kr. Saikia

and this witness know his signature. Ext. 6(2) is the signature of the informant.

This PW recorded the statement of informant in the case. On 13.098.2009, at 10

am he went to the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the PO. Ext. 7

is the Sketch Map and Ext. 7(1) is my signature.

He again recorded the statement of witnesses. In the place of

occurrence. He recorded the statement of five witnesses at the place of

occurrence and I found sufficient material against the accused person that the

accused demanded money from the deceased parent‟s and the accused left

deceased at the bus stand of Duliajan P.S. alone and he returned back to his

house and he refused to accept the deceased.

He sent the informant before Magistrate, to record her statement U/s

164 Cr.P.C. Ext. 2 is the statement of informant U/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 29.10.2009

he combined both the UD case and the case No. 190/09 U/s. 306 IPC. He

combined both cases after collecting the PM report of deceased. He already

arrested the accused person on 13.10.2009 from his residence from Lakhipathar

and he sent him to Judicial custody on 14.09.2009. After completing the

investigation, he gave Jimma of the C/D to O/C, Rajib Kr. Saikia to Duliajan P.S.

and he submitted the C/S on 23.12.2009 against the accused person U/s 306

IPC. Ext. 8 is the charge sheet and Ext. 8(1) is the signature of O/C Rajib Kr

Saikia, which this PW know.

11

During cross-examination this witness has deposed that he received the

First Information Report on 10.9.2009 and second on 13.9.2009. First FIR was

lodged by one Pramod Sonowal and second FIR dated 13.9.09 was lodged by

Smti. Debojoni Sonowal. Basing upon the Second FIR 13.9.09 , the O/C Duliajan

P.S. has submitted the C/S.

He started the investigation after receiving the FIR dated 13.9.20009.

O/C did not mention in the C/S about the development in the UD case. On the

basis of FIR 10.9.09 no case has been made out U/s 306, IPC hence we

investigated the case on the FIR dated 13.9.09. IN U.D. case NO. 35/09, Dr.

K.B. Chowdhury, opined that the death was due to suicide. At the time of

investigation this PW was ASI. He investigated the case as an ASI.

This witness however, denied the suggestion that being ASI, he is not

entitled to investigate the case. The complainant did not mention the cause of

delay in filing FIR dated 13.9.09. He has examined the writer of both the FIR.

P.W. 1, complainant has not stated before this witness that deceased was

carrying pregnancy of 9 months at the time of her death. He also denied that

FIR dated 10.9.09 did not made out any case hence, he asked the complainant

to lodge another FIR, dated 13.9.09 and on the basis of the said FIR,

investigation was done and submitted the charge sheet. This PW also denied

that he has not investigated the case properly as per law.

(15) After completion of the prosecution witness the accused person is

examined and his statement is recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused person

denied all the allegations leveled against him and he claimed that he is innocent.

However, the accused person was not acquitted U/s 232 Cr.P.C. and was

asked to enter upon his defence to which, he declined to adduce any evidence

in his favour. To prove the charge against the accused person the prosecution

examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Medical and Investigating

Officer. P.W. 9 is the Doctor who deposed that he conducted post mortem on the

dead body of Mili Sonowal @ Munmi Sonowal. On examination on the body of

the deceased the doctor has opined that the cause of the death was due to

asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging which was suicidal in nature.

12

Approx time since death 12 to 24 hours. From the perusal of the post

mortem report along with deposition of P.W. 9 this Court is of the opinion that

death was due to asphyxia and it was homicidal in nature. Now, the question is

whether the accused person compelled / abated the deceased to commit

suicide. To prove this let us explore the evidence of other witnesses.

PW 4 is the brother, who filed First Information Report for the first time

hereinafter called First FIR. He was examined in the Court. He deposed that

deceased Mili was his sister. She died on 10.9.09 at their residence. After her

marriage his sister was taken to Tezpur and subjected her mental and physical

torture. On 3.8.09, the accused left his sister in the bus stand. During cross-

examination he deposed that he lodged ejahar and his mother also has lodged

another ejahar on 13.9.09. He admits that his sister spent 45 days in their

house after coming from Duliajan Bus stand. He further deposed that he did

not know that during the stay of her sister at their house the accused talked

to her over telephone.

P.W. 1 , is the mother of the deceased. she filed second ejahar. She

deposed in the Court that marriage between the accused and her daughter was

held on 23.1.2009. Soon after the marriage the accused started to torture her

daughter both physically and mentally. On 3.8.09 the accused left her daughter

at Duliajan Bus stand which is about 7 KM away from their home. This witness

further deposed that on being asked to her daughter, her daughter told her

that her husband desires to marry another woman and for that reason he left

her at bus stand. This witness further stated that her daughter told her that the

accused used to torture her , did not provide her proper maintenance, food etc.

This witness also deposed that her daughter told her that the accused person

had some illicit relationship with another woman. This witness further deposed

that due to torture her daughter committed suicide on 10.9.2009 at her house

by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. From the deposition of this witness it

transpires that the accused tortured the deceased. The reason of his torture as

deposed by this witness is illicit relationship with another woman. But no

where in his deposition this witness stated that who is the another woman.

From the deposition of this witness it also reveals that marriage was held on

23.1.2009 and the deceased committed suicide on 10.9.2009 i.e., within 8

13

months after the marriage. But from the deposition of this witness nowhere it is

mentioned that the accused demanded any dowry from the deceased.

P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased, PW 3 is also the brother of the

deceased. PW 2 heard from his mother that the accused inflicted cruelty to his

sister and after nine month of his marriage the accused left his sister at Duliajan

Bus Stand.

P.W. 3 also deposed on the same tune. But during his cross PW 3

admitted that his sister Mili did not tell him anything regarding the cruelty. He

also admitted that Sri Ranjit Sonowal and Pramod Hazarika are residing adjacent

to their house. But he did not inform any of the neighbours regarding the

incident.

P.W. 5 is another brother. He deposed that his sister informed him over

telephone that the accused usually came to his house at late night. The

accused used to assault her, the accused used to demand dowry from her. The

accused left his sister at Duliajan Bus Stand from where his sister telephoned to

his mother and thereafter his sister was brought from Dulajan to Bus Stand.

This witness further deposed that his sister informed him that the accused

demanded Rs. 2 lac about which he consulted with the Local Gaon Burah and

the villagers who decided not to give dowry to the accused. From the

deposition of this witness it is found that the accused demanded Rs. 2 lacs from

her sister. But PW 1 that is, his mother did not depose in the Court that the

accused demanded Rs. 2 lac frm her daughter. Moreover, this witness did not

depose that the accused person had illicit relationship with any other woman.

From the deposition of P.W. 1 and the PW 5, though it is established that the

accused left his wife at Duliajan Bus Stand, it does not establish the cruelty to

the extent to end her life.

PW 6 is the sister. She is the cousin of the victim. She deposed that her

sister reported her that the accused subjected her to torture. She was not

provided food etc. The accused demanded Rs. 2 lac. This witness further

deposed that her sister used to talk with the accused and the accused also talk

with her sister over telephone. Her sister reported her that she would not go to

the house of the accused as she apprehends that her life is at danger as she

suspected that accused had extra marital affair with other woman. On

14

10.09.2009 prior to the day of Janamastomi, Mili came to her house and she was

talking sitting with her. At that moment her sister received a phone call from

the accused. On being asked she told that the accused telephoned to her but

she did not tell her about the conversation except she was weeping. The

accused made phone call to her at about 9.30/10 am. Her aunt i.e, PW 1 called

her and told her that something had happened to Mili. She immediately went to

the house of Mili and saw Mili was hanging herself in a ceiling fan. During

cross-examination , this witness admitted that her sister stayed in the house of

her parents from 3.8.09 to 10.09.2009. From perusal of the deposition of this

witness it is found that this witness came to know from the deceased Mili that

the accused had made phone call and the phone call was made around 9.30/10

am and the deceased committed suicide on 3.30/4 pm. From the deposition of

this witness, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide in the house of her

parents and not in the house of the accused.

From the deposition of this witness though, it reveals that on the day of

incident the deceased received a phone call from the accused but the

prosecution did not brought on record from this witness the phone number of

the accused as well as the deceased. Moreover, it is also not brought on the

record whether the accused on the relevant time, i.e. about 9.30/10 am made

any phone call to the deceased or not. Therefore, from the evidence of this

witness it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had abated /

assaulted the deceased to commit suicide.

P.W. 7 is the Gaon Burah and P.W. 8 is the neighbor whereas P.W. 10 is

the Investigation Officer. All these witness described the post incident and from

their evidence did not prove the charge of abetting by the accused.

(16) It has been rieterated in catena of judgment that any over reaction on the

part of the deceased can not be a ground for abatement . Different person react

differenty in a same set of action. But all that action can not be treated as

abated by the accused. Let ius discuss some Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme

Court.

15

(17) In State of Kerala and Ors Vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair and Ors AIR

2015 SC 3351 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has nice explain the concept of

abetment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below for ready reference.

„10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the obtaining factual matrix,

it is necessary to understand the concept of abatement as enshrined

in Section 107 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-

„107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First – Instigates any

person to do that thing; or Secondly – Engages with one or more

other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing,

if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that

conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly –

Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing. Explanation 1. – A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or

by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,

voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a

thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission

of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that

act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the

doing of that act.”

11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P[4].

by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-

“Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of

abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person,

abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do

that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any

conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act

or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential

to complete abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means

to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any

thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional

aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109

16

provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of

abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such

abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment

provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the

specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of

which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with

the proved offence.”

12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[5]. dealing with

expression of abetment the Court observed:- “The expression “abetment”

has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted

above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person

instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do

anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107

IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant

to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with

the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the

respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case

where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According

to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for

under Section 107 IPC.”

(18) In Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and Ors. Vs. State of

Gujarat AIR 2015 SC 2670 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has nice explained the

concept of cruelty and abetment causing death. The relevant paragraph is

reproduced below for ready reference.

“15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the Holi festival in

the said year fell on 6.3.2004 and the occurrence took place on March 4,

2004. It is also noticeable that the sister of the deceased had volunteered

to speak about the conversation of divorce. The document shows that

there was a divorce as per the customs. There is material on record to

show that she was staying on the terrace. In this factual backdrop what

is to be seen is whether there has been a cruelty which compelled her to

17

commit suicide. In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to Section 498A of

the IPC, which reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of

a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the

relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall

be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of

this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a

nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with

a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure

by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

16. This Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharashtra[1].,

examining the scope of 498A, has observed thus: "The basic purport of

the statutory provision is to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by

attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed

hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to

ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is expressed by the

legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz.

(i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or

(iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus

involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence

of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive

harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally

heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other

one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute

since the same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms

of Section 498-A."

17. In Gurnaib Singh V. State of Punjab[2]., while analyzing the aforesaid

provision, it has been opined that Clause (a) of the Explanation

to Section 498A IPC defines cruelty to mean "any willful conduct which

is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide".

18

Clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand and Clause (a)

can take in its ambit mental cruelty.

18. From the aforesaid authorities it is quite clear that the first limb

of Section 498A, which refers to cruelty, has nothing to do with demand

of dowry. In the present case, in fact, there is no demand of dowry. If

the evidence is appropriately appreciated, the deceased was pained and

disturbed as the husband was having an illicit affair with the appellant

no.4. Whether such a situation would amount to cruelty under the first

limb of Section 498A IPC is to be seen. A two-Judge Bench of this Court

in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal V. State of Gujarat[3]., while dealing with

extra marital relationship, has held thus: "Marital relationship means the

legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include

marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same

roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have

children, their upbringing, services in the home, support, affection, love,

liking and so on. Extramarital relationship as such is not defined in the

Penal Code. Though, according to the prosecution in this case, it was that

relationship which ultimately led to mental harassment and cruelty within

the Explanation to Section 498-A and that A-1 had abetted the wife to

commit suicide." xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx "We are of the view that the mere

fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during

the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital

obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such

a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within

the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not

be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also

would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of

course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and

the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others

suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may

think of ending one's life. We, on facts, found that the alleged

extramarital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to

commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or acted in such a manner

19

which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit

suicide." The Court further proceeded to state: "Section 306 refers to

abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever

abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be

liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of

mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute

an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a

person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the

accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that

the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission

of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if proved,

could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the

prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced

the wife to commit suicide."

19. After holding as aforesaid, the Court found on facts and especially

referring to suicide note that one can infer that the deceased was so

possessive of her husband, and was always under an emotional stress

that she might lose her husband and that apart she had exonerated the

husband and accordingly it would not come within the scope and ambit

of Section 306 IPC.”

(19) From perusal of the entire evidence on record, the allegations against

the accused person was in a nutshell is that the accused person had illicit

relationship with another woman. The accused person did not provide food to

the deceased, the accused person demanded Rs. 2 lacs and the immediate

cause is that the accused person left the deceased in Duliajan Bus Stand. The

defence counsel argued that the accused is service holder and there is no

reason to demand Rs. 2 lac from the deceased. In fact her mother who was

close to the deceased has not deposed demanding of money from the deceased.

So far other allegations regarding the illicit relationship with another

woman is concerned, no specific proof is adduced, even with whom the accused

had illicit relationship not brought on record from the mouth of any of the

witnesses. So far the cruelty regarding not giving food not properly is also not

20

established as because the accused is the service holder and he is self

sufficient person. So far leaving of the deceased at Duliajan Bus Stand the

accused denied the allegation.

Even if it is taken that the accused left his wife at Duliajan Bus Stand

which is 7 KM away from the house of the deceased that does not establish the

cruelty to the extent which affect his life and limb . All the allegations brought

against the accused person even if it is taken to be true that does not establish

the cruelty to the extent which compelled her to take her life and because the

deceased left the house of her husband and stayed in the house of her parents.

She stayed in the house of her parent for about 1 ½ months. She could have

sought divorce or judicial separation from her husband. She could have avoided

any contact to her husband. The deceased had many alternatives to avoid the

accused. From perusal of the entire evidence on record no such incriminating

material is found which shows that the accused person compelled/abated his

wife to commit suicide. Alternately, the deceased had no option to except to

commit suicide. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge U/s

306 against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

(20) From perusal of the entire evidence on record and the facts and

circumstances , this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to

establish the charge U/s 306 IPC against the accused Ratan Sonowal. Hence,

the accused is not held guilty. The accused is acquitted from the charge .Set

him at liberty.

His bail bond with surety is extended to next six months.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this the 16th day of January ,

2016.

Dictated and corrected by me, ( A.B. Siddique ), Addl. Sessions Judge, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. Dibrugarh.

21

APPENDIX

Prosecution witnesses;

P.W. 1 – Smti. Debajani Sonowal.

P.W. 2 – Sri Luhit Bora.

P.W. 3 – Sri Surajit Sonowal.

P.W. 4 – Sri Pranab Sonowal.

P.W. 5 – Sri Ghana Kanta Sonowal.

P.W. 6 – Smti. Purnima Sonowal.

P.W. 7 – Sri Pramod Hazarika.

P.W. 8 – Sri Dulal Ch. Hazarika.

P.W. 9 – Dr. Konbapu Chowdhury.

P.W. 10 – Sri Gulap Bailung.

Exhibits :

Ext. 1 – Ejahar.

Ext. 2 – Statement of witness U/s 164 CrP.C.

Ext. 3 – Post mortem report.

Ext. 4 – Dead body challan.

Ext. 7 – Sketch Map.

Ext 8 – Charge sheet.

Charge sheet.

Medico Legal report of the victim.

(A.B.Siddique) Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.