Can’t Ignore Defence That Deceased Committed Suicide Due To Allegations Of Theft: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction In Sec.306 IPC Case

The Appeal before the High Court was filed against the judgement sentencing the accused appeallnats to suffer imprisonment for seven years in a case registered under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held, “The charge was framed under Section 306/34 of IPC and it was not challenged by the prosecution. The post-mortem report clearly speaks the death was in the nature of suicide. The stand of the defence Counsel as evident from the nature of cross examination, that because of the allegations levelled against the deceased by the local people of stealing mobile phones as well as money, the parents and family members had to be humiliated and also he had to pay ₹4600 for that purpose and they scolded the son for which the he was upset and committed suicide, cannot be ignored.”

Advocate Neguive Ahmed represented the Apepllant while Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant before the Officer-in-Charge alleging that on April 17, 2010 Ramu Majumdar called his son who was then sleeping and took him on the road. His wife followed them, they talked and then his son went to bed. Later that night, the other accused persons named in the FIR came to their house and started abusing them in filthy languages and asked Narayan to come out with a threatening to kill him if disobeyed such direction. It was their grievance that the son of the de-facto complainant had stolen four mobile sets and an amount of Rs 12,000 by breaking the window and they began to create pressure for that money upon the de facto complainant.

Ajit and Apoorva allegedly forcibly snatched ₹4900 from the de-facto complainant and thereafter, the son did not return. As his son did not return, the complainant father began to search for his son. He found his son hanging from a tree. He took his son to the Hospital with the help of village people where the doctor declared his son as dead. It was alleged by the de-facto complainant that the FIR named accused persons/appellants killed his son and then they hanged his son from the tree. Over the said incident, a case came to be registered under Sections 302,34 of the I.P.C.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the on the date of the incident, from 1:30 A.M. till 5 A.M., the entire family consisting of the parents and other four brothers, did not take any steps to find out their brother and did not inform to any other authorities or even to any neighbours.

The Bench noticed that the except the the parents and brother, no other evidence could be found to substantiate the contention of the de-facto complainant that the accused persons went to their house on two different time on the relevant day and took the brother forcibly from their house with a threatening to kill him and or that they killed him and hanged him. It was also not found corroborated that in the morning, the body of the victim was found hanging from a nearby tree by the family members and it was brought down by the father and the family members along with villagers, in absence of any other supportive evidence to that extent.

“From the fore corners of the entire facts and circumstances, no materials can be found in order to establish that there was instigation as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. There are glaring inconsistence in the evidence of the family members itself”, it added.

Holding that the prosecution is to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, the Bench noted that the written complaint as well as the testimony of the witnesses were absolutely silent about the role played by the accused persons.

“In view of the threadbare discussions made herein above this Court is not inclined to accept the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court for passing such order of conviction solely on the basis of surmise and conjecture. Lastly, even if for the sake of argument, the version of the prosecution is accepted, it fails to attract the ingredients essential for the offence committed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code”, it held.

Thus, setting aside the order of conviction passed by the trial court, the Bench ordered the appellants to be released from their respective bail bonds forthwith.

Cause Title: Pabitra Roy v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:150)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Neguive Ahmed, Priyanka Chowdhury

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy, Advocates Manisha Sharma, Nirupam Dhali

Click here to read/download Order