Case Background
The case arose from the death of a married woman, Santoshi Kumari, in her matrimonial home in village Surjana, under Pranpur Police Station, District Katihar.
On 8.6.2007 at about 12 noon, her brother, later examined as PW 10, was at his own house when he suddenly heard that his sister was lying dead in her house. He immediately went to her matrimonial home along with their mother, PW 8.
At the matrimonial home, they found Santoshi lying dead in the courtyard. On being questioned, her husband, the present appellant, informed them that she had committed suicide by hanging.
PW 10 noticed a deep black mark on Santoshi’s neck. He also stated that Santoshi had been married to the appellant about one year earlier and that, since the marriage, the appellant used to assault her at night after taking liquor. Due to this behaviour, there was a breakdown in normal relations and they were not on talking terms.
Because of these circumstances, PW 10 suspected that his sister had actually been strangulated to death by the appellant and his mother, and that the body was then hanged to make it look like a suicide.
On the basis of the fard beyan of PW 10, Pranpur Police Station Case No. 39 of 2007 dated 8.6.2007 was registered against the appellant and his mother under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During investigation, the police considered the post mortem report and supervision notes of senior officers. Finally, they submitted charge sheet No. 48 of 2007 dated 6.9.2007 only for the offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), dropping the murder charge.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and, on 5.1.2009, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2009/CIS No. (GR) 998 of 2007.
After full trial, the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court I, Katihar convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC and, by judgment dated 19.8.2017 and sentence order dated 22.8.2017, sentenced him to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with six months’ further imprisonment in default of fine.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3092 of 2017 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The appeal was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh. The Court considered the evidence led at the trial, the submissions of both sides, and the nature of the conviction and sentence.
The prosecution had examined twelve witnesses in total. Certain documents were also exhibited, including the formal fard beyan, signatures on the post mortem report, and the copy of the post mortem report itself.
The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence.
In the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant attacked the conviction on several grounds. First, he argued that the prosecution case was based only on suspicion and not on firm evidence that the appellant had instigated or abetted Santoshi to commit suicide.
He submitted that, for abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide, and that merely showing that the husband treated the deceased with cruelty was not enough.
Counsel further pointed out that the case had initially been registered under Sections 302/34 IPC, but the police, after perusing the post mortem report and supervision notes, had filed charge sheet only under Section 306 IPC. According to him, even then, no specific charge under Section 306 IPC was framed during trial.
On this basis, he contended that the appellant was deprived of a fair opportunity to defend himself and to rebut any presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which led to failure of justice.
He also argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses.
On the other side, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, supported the trial court’s judgment. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses had given consistent statements regarding abetment of suicide and, therefore, the conviction under Section 306 IPC was justified and required no interference.
After hearing both sides and examining the lower court records, the Patna High Court analysed the medical and oral evidence.
The Court noted that Dr. Amar Kumar Deo (PW 13), who had conducted the post mortem examination, supported the prosecution version. He opined that the victim had died due to asphyxia caused by hanging by the neck.
PW 8, the mother of the deceased, stated that on hearing of her daughter’s death she went to the matrimonial house and saw a ligature mark on her neck, as well as a wound mark on her back. She supported the prosecution case about the condition of the body.
PW 10, the brother and informant, also supported the prosecution version. He had already described the ligature mark and the background of alleged assaults by the appellant.
PW 11, Ram Swarup Paswan, was the Investigating Officer. He proved the place of occurrence and other steps taken during investigation.
The High Court observed that the testimonies of these witnesses did not show any material variance regarding the manner of occurrence. They consistently described how the body was found and the circumstances pointing towards suicide by hanging.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the trial court had rightly accepted their evidence. The finding that the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was affirmed.
The Court did not accept the appellant’s plea that the conviction was based merely on suspicion or that there was such contradiction in witness statements that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Nor did it find sufficient ground to disturb the finding of abetment of suicide recorded by the trial court.
Having upheld the conviction, the Patna High Court then turned to the question of sentence. It noted that the appellant had already undergone more than seven years of incarceration, including remission granted by the Government, while the sentence imposed by the trial court was eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Court also mentioned that the offence proved against the appellant was as an “abettor”. Keeping this in view, the Court considered whether the original sentence was too harsh in the circumstances.
It came to the conclusion that reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice. This meant that, while the conviction remained, the appellant would not have to serve further imprisonment, subject to payment of fine as per the modified order and any other legal requirements.
Accordingly, with this modification in the sentence, the appeal was dismissed. The Court directed that the appellant be set free forthwith, if he was not wanted in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is important for families and accused persons involved in abetment of suicide cases, especially arising from matrimonial disputes.
First, the Court made it clear that when medical and witness evidence consistently supports the prosecution’s case of suicide by hanging and involvement of the husband as an abettor, the conviction under Section 306 IPC will not be lightly interfered with in appeal.
At the same time, the Court looked carefully at how long the appellant had already remained in jail. Noting that he had spent more than seven years behind bars for an eight-year sentence, the Court balanced punishment with the concept of fairness.
By reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, the Court showed that even when a conviction stands, the sentence can be tailored to the time actually spent in custody, particularly in cases of abetment rather than direct homicidal violence.
For ordinary readers, this decision shows two things: that allegations of harassment and suicide in marriage are taken seriously by the courts, and that higher courts can still grant relief in terms of sentence where the time already served is close to the maximum imposed.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Should the conviction of the husband for abetment of his wife’s suicide under Section 306 IPC be set aside in appeal?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the medical evidence and consistent testimonies of key witnesses supported the prosecution, and the conviction was upheld. - Issue: Whether the sentence of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment required interference by the High Court?
Answer: Yes, partly. Considering that the appellant had already undergone more than seven years of incarceration and that he was an abettor, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment text provided does not mention or rely upon any cited precedents. No prior cases are expressly referred to.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3092 of 2017; arising out of Pranpur P.S. Case No. 39 of 2007, District Katihar; Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2009/CIS No. (GR) 998 of 2007.
Case Title: Bhaddo Mandal v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 144
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh
Advocates: Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Shyed A. Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal (single judge) against judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of High Court Judgment: 06.12.2021
Result: Conviction under Section 306 IPC upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone; appeal dismissed with modification in sentence; appellant directed to be released if not wanted in any other case.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court official judgment link
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
