Sameer Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:19699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.376 of 2019 With

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.131 of 2019

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 and Order of sentence dated 23.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – X, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.899 of 2013, arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.275 of 2012, corresponding to G.R No.6548 of 2012]

¶5

Sameer Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Late baidyanath Singh, resident of House no.-30, State Bank Colony, Danapur, Takiyapur, P.O & P.S. - Danapur, District – Patna (Bihar). ..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.376 of 2019]

¶6

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Maheshwar Singh, resident of Abadganj, Daltonganj, P.O & P.S. - Daltonganj, District – Palamau. ..... Appellant [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.131 of 2019]

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent [in both the Cr. Appeals ]

¶9

Dr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Maheshwar Singh, resident of village – Abadganj, P.O & P.S. - Daltonganj, District – Palamau. At present residing at Flat No.-302, Shreya Enclave, Antu Chowk, P.O & P.S. - Bariatu, District – Ranchi.

¶10

..... Respondent [in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.376 of 2019]

¶11

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sumitra Kumari, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.376 of 2019] Mrs. Archana Kumari Singh, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.131 of 2019] For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P For the Informant :Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sumitra Kumari, Advocate [In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.131 of 2019] ---------

¶12

Order No.09/ Dated: 06th July, 2026

¶13

1. The captioned appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence the same have been clubbed and heard together and being disposed of with a common judgment.

¶14

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned senior

¶15

- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶16

2026:JHHC:19699

¶17

counsel for the appellant (in Cr. Appeal No.376 of 2019), Mrs. Archana Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant (in Cr. Appeal No.131 of 2019) and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State.

¶18

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2019, has been preferred for enhancement of sentence, imposed upon the accused/ respondent No.02, whereas Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.131 of 2019 has been preferred by the accused for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶19

3. The present appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - X, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.899 of 2013, arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.275 of 2012 (G.R. No.6548 of 2012), whereby the accused-appellant namely, Dr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, 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 five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine further simple imprisonment of six months.

¶20

4. The prosecution story, in short, as per the fardbeyan of the informant/ brother of the deceased Anju Singh, recorded by Sub-Inspector P. Paswan, Officer-in-charge, Bariatu P.S. on dated 06.12.2012 at 7.15 a.m at Shreya Enclave, Near Antu chowk, Bariatu. According to fardbeyan , the deceased was married to the accused Dr.

¶21

- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶22

2026:JHHC:19699

¶23

Pankaj Kumar Singh, about 11 years before prior to the occurrence in the year 2001. In the intervening night of 5/6.12.2012 deceased have committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling of roof in matrimonial home. It is alleged that on 05.12.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. a woman from the Shreya Apartment informed the informant that due to torture by her husband, she tried to commit suicide. Upon such information, he tried to contact the accused over phone but accused did not pick up his phone. Finally, he boarded on at Patna in a bus for Ranchi at about 10.00 p.m on 05.12.2012. At about 5.30 a.m on 06.12.2012, he Reached at Ranchi and directly went to the matrimonial home of his sister. His brother-in-law, told him that his sister is in her room when they peeped, saw that his sister was hanging with the help of Dupatta from the ceiling fan of the room. Somehow, they opened the door. One outsider was also present in the room of the accused, disclosed that his name is Priya Ranjan Singh and he is his friend. Other resident of the apartment also assembled there. They disclosed that on 05.12.2012 at about 8.30 a.m., there was a quarrel between husband and wife and with the intervention of neighborers, the matter was pacified at that time. At that time also she had also tried to commit suicide. They have two children out of wedlock, one male and one female. It is further alleged that two years prior to the occurrence, the accused-appellant was having illicit relationship with a twenty years old girl namely Moni Kumari for which the deceased tried to make him

¶24

- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶25

2026:JHHC:19699

¶26

understand but the accused did not mend his ways and used to beat her. This was the reason of acrimony between husband and wife. It is further alleged that several times the informant visited to Ranchi for conciliation. On one occasion, conciliation was also done by the residents of the apartment in which he has given an undertaking in writing that now onwards he will not keep any relation with the said Moni Kumari and not commit mar-peet with the deceased. He has expressed bonafide doubt that due to prolong ill treatment and harassment, his sister has committed suicide.

¶27

On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Bariatu P.S Case No.275 of 2012 dated 06.12.2012 has been registered under Section 306 IPC, against the accused. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 306 IPC and acordingly the charge has been framed on 09.02.2015 under Section 306 IPC against the accused.

¶28

The case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the accused-appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

¶29

5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses, and their depositions, in brief, are as follows:-

¶30

6. P.W.-1, Samir Kumar, is the informant and brother of the deceased. He has supported the prosecution story.

¶31

- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶32

2026:JHHC:19699

¶33

He has proved the signature over the fardbeyan (Ext.-1) as well as on the seizure list (Ext.-2). He has proved the letter (Ext.-3) written the deceased.

¶34

In cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that date was not mentioned in the letter (Ext.-3). In para – 34, he has deposed that the accused was arrested by the police from his flat. Prior to the incident, no complaint was made to the police or before other authority. He has admitted that the deceased was suffering from brain tumor since 2005 and they were not aware about this. He has also admitted that the deceased had undergone treatment before various doctors.

¶35

7. P.W.-2, Kumar Rashmi Rathi Singh, is the resident of the same apartment where deceased had committed suicide. In examination-in-chief, he has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he observed quarreling between the accused and deceased, as she was suspecting extra marital affairs of her husband. After while he came to know that the deceased has tried to commit suicide.

¶36

During cross-examination, he has submitted that he and accused both are employees of State Bank of India.

¶37

8. P.W.-3, Bhaskar Kumare, is the elder brother of the deceased and he has also supported the prosecution story. He has deposed that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was not cordial and the accused was in touch with another girl.

¶38

During cross-examination, he has admitted that prior to the occurrence, no complaint of torture was made by

¶39

- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶40

2026:JHHC:19699

¶41

him before the police. He has also admitted that the deceased has undergone brain tumor operation in the year 2005 and she usually resides with her husband. He has not made any statement before the police with regard to the relationship of the accused with another girl. However, once he had seen the accused with that girl.

¶42

9. P.W.-4, Narayan Singh, is the Security Guard of the apartment. He has been declared hostile.

¶43

10. P.W.-5, Kusum Singh , is the mother of the deceased and she has supported the case.

¶44

In cross-examination, she has admitted that the accused never tortured her daughter in her presence. She has deposed that save and except the letters written by the deceased, all exhibited documents, which are in the hand writing of Pankaj prepared at Ranchi on same day, none of the exhibited documents bear her signature.

¶45

11. P.W.-6, Rajesh Kumar, is the resident of the same apartment. He has been declared hostile.

¶46

12. P.W.-7, Parash Nath Singh , is the uncle of the deceased and he has deposed that on information, he went to the house of the deceased where dead body of the deceased was hanging with a ceiling fan. He has no knowledge about the occurrence.

¶47

13. P.W.-8, Smt. Puspa Goraudia , is the local resident and she has been declared hostile.

¶48

14. P.W.-9, Phaguni Paswan , is the investigating officer of the case. He has investigated the matter and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. Inquest report was

¶49

- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶50

2026:JHHC:19699

¶51

prepared by him and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. During investigation, he found the inner bolt of the room where the occurrence took place was broken.

¶52

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the door of the house was broken in presence of the informant and the accused was also present there. He has admitted that he has not verified the hand writing and signature on the seized documents.

¶53

15. P.W.-10, Dr. Nawal Kumar Singh , is the doctor, who has conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased. He has found ligature mark ante-mortem in nature and opined the cause of death as asphyxia result of hanging.

¶54

In cross-examination, he has admitted that the ligature mark, as mentioned in the post-mortem report, can be found in a case of hanging.

¶55

16. P.W.-11, Khushi Singh , is the daughter of the deceased and she has supported the prosecution case.

¶56

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she was aware about the fact that her mother was suffering from brain tumor and the relationship between her father and mother was cordial as from several photographs in which it is evident that they have visited so many place during vacation. She has admitted that her mother has committed suicide due to frustration and depression. She has also admitted that her parents used to attend parents-teachers meeting in school.

¶57

17. P.W.-12, Arman Pratap Singh , is the son of the deceased and he has supported the prosecution case. He

¶58

- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶59

2026:JHHC:19699

¶60

has deposed that one year prior to the occurrence, his parents has quarreled on trivial issues. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence, her mother tried to commit suicide twice and finally committed suicide in the night hour. He was aged about five years at the time of occurrence.

¶61

18. P.W.-13, Siddhnath Tiwary , is a friend of the father of the deceased. He has deposed that earlier an agreement was executed between the deceased and her husband to live in harmony, in his presence, which has been exhibited as Ext.-14.

¶62

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he and father of the deceased was working in a same bank having good relationship.

¶63

19. The defence has also examined two witnesses namely, Sanjay Kumar (D.W.-1) and Bindeshwari Singh (D.W.-2).

¶64

20. 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.

¶65

21. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the informant as well as the accused, both have preferred the appeals.

¶66

22. Learned senior counsel for the victim/ informant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balaji Jaiswal Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Anr., reported in 2026 Supreme (SC) 406 , which has interpreted Section 306 of the IPC.

¶67

- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶68

2026:JHHC:19699

¶69

23. Learned senior counsel for the victim/ informant has also drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of P.Ws.11 & 12, who are the children of the deceased and has submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC is present. The depositions of other witnesses have also been brought to the notice of this Court.

¶70

24. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant (in Cr. Appeal No.131 of 2019) has stated that there is no material against the appellant, as required under the law and as such convicting the appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC is bad in law.

¶71

25. For better appreciation of the case, Section 306 IPC is quoted herein-below, which reads as under :-

¶72

“306. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .”

¶73

Considering the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Parliamentary law, contained under Section 306 IPC and Section 107 IPC, the law which emerges is as follows :-

¶74

(A) the accused has helped in formation of mens rea of the victim in commission of crime as commission of suicide itself is a crime; or

¶75

(B) the accused has helped in performance of actus reus; or

¶76

(C) the accused has left no other option with the victim, but to commit suicide, and

¶77

(D) the above act must be sufficiently connected

¶78

- 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶79

2026:JHHC:19699

¶80

with the suicide in the time frame or otherwise.

¶81

26. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :-

¶82

(i) as per the allegation, the accused wanted to solemnize second marriage and for that purpose there was always quarrel between the husband and wife (deceased).

¶83

(ii) they were playing the role of parents, as is evident from the depositions of P.Ws.-11 & 12 as they used to attend the school on Parent-Teachers Meeting.

¶84

(iii) the deceased was suffering from brain tumor.

¶85

(iv ) the deceased had earlier also attempted to commit suicide.

¶86

27. Thus, from the above evidence, it is evident that there is no material to suggests that :-

¶87

(a) the accused has assisted in formation of mens rea for commission of suicide.

¶88

(b) there is no material to suggest that the accused has assisted in commission of suicide.

¶89

(c) even the allegation does not constitute the situation, wherein the deceased has no other option but to commit suicide.

¶90

28. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the necessary ingredients as required for conviction under Section 306 IPC is lacking as the factum of suicide has been accepted by the trial court and that is otherwise also

¶91

- 10 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

¶92

2026:JHHC:19699

¶93

stands proved from the materials available on record. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - X, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.899 of 2013, arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case No.275 of 2012 (G.R. No.6548 of 2012) is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶94

29. In the result, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.131 of 2019 stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.376 of 2019, which has been preferred by the victim/ informant for enhancement of the sentence, stands disposed of.

¶95

30. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

¶96

31. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

¶97

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶98

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 06^th July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan /- NAFR Uploaded on 08.07.2026

¶99

- 11 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.376 of 2019 & 131 of 2019

Sameer Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhan Mochi Alias Budhan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Managing Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Represented Thro Varun Ranjan Vs Sudhir Kumar

Nagendra Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raghunath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb

Sheque Akram Alias Sk Akram Vs the State of Jharkhand