Allowed

Sunil Kumar Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2024Cr.A(SJ)/303/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 306 IPC for wife's suicide. All material witnesses were declared hostile; suicide note expressed marital anguish but no abetment by husband, and Section 113A presumption could not apply without foundational facts. Conviction and sentence set aside; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant discharged from bail bond liability.

Sunil Kumar Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 303 of 2012

¶2

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2012 passed by learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 269 of 2008)

¶3

¶4

Sunil Kumar Nayak … …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent

¶5

P R E S E N T

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

By Court :

Heard the parties

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2012 passed by learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 269 of 2008 arising out of Manjgaon (Kumardungi) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2008 (G.R. No. 390 of 2008), whereby and whereunder, the court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant for R.I. of five years for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, the deceased was married with the appellant on 09.06.2008 and died on 17.08.2008 by consuming pesticide.

¶14

The FIR was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the father of the deceased on 18.08.2008. As per the FIR, the deceased was married to the appellant and on previous visit to the natal home the deceased had stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were treating her well, but her husband Sunil Kumar Nayak was an alcoholic and used to abuse and assault her. The father of the deceased thought that these were the minor disputes between the deceased and her husband, and sent her back to the matrimonial home where she committed suicide by consuming poison.

¶15

After cognizance, the sole accused was put on trial under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Altogether 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the postmortem report was adduced and marked as Ext.4 along with the report of the Viscera (Ext.5).

¶16

The judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that out of nine prosecution witnesses, eight were declared hostile on the prayer of

¶17

the prosecution as they did not support the prosecution case. The only material on the basis of which the conviction has been returned is the suicide note (material Ext.-1) and FSL report showing consumption of poison. The suicide note has been proved and marked as material Ext.-1.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that neither there is any evidence on record to show that the suicide note was in the writing and signature of the deceased, nor any date has been referred to on the said suicide note. So far as the content of the said suicide note is concerned there is no allegation against the Appellant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶20

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that on merit this appeal is to be allowed for the following reason:

¶21

Firstly, all the material witnesses, including the close relatives of the deceased have not made allegation of abetment to commit suicide against the appellant. They have not supported the prosecution case and were accordingly declared hostile.

¶22

Secondly, there is only material Ext.-1, which is the suicide note which is in Oriya, but on bare perusal of its Hindi translation, it will be evident that no inference can be drawn that the appellant in any manner had abetted the suicide of his wife. The suicide note which is addressed to the mother of the deceased expresses her pain, anguish and broken dreams arising out of disillusionment from her marital life, but does not state anything against her husband that he actively abetted the offence.

¶23

Lastly, presumption under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless foundational facts are proved by the prosecution.

¶24

Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed against the appellant, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. Since the appellant is on bail and his conviction has been set aside, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶25

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 17^th January, 2024 NAFR/ AKT/Satayendra

¶26

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Sunil Kumar Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udit Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Basant Kumar Hetamsaria And Anr. Vs Director General,Defence Estate

Prakash Modi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prahlad Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Devi Alias Piyaso Devi Vs State of Jharkhand