Lack of Evidence and Inconsistencies in Testimonies Lead to Acquittal of Accused in Pabitra Roy v. State of West Bengal
In a significant ruling by the Calcutta High Court, the conviction of multiple individuals under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetting the suicide of a young man was overturned. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, emphasized the absence of clear evidence and the presence of inconsistencies in witness testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The case revolved around the death of a young man, alleged to have been driven to suicide following harassment by the accused, who reportedly accused him of theft and exerted pressure for repayment. The trial court had sentenced the accused to seven years of imprisonment, relying heavily on the testimonies of the victim's family members.
However, upon appeal, the High Court meticulously examined the testimonies and found significant discrepancies. The court noted that there was a lack of independent and corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations. Moreover, the testimonies of the family members were inconsistent, and no external injuries were found on the victim’s body, which contradicted the narrative of physical assault by a mob.
Justice Das emphasized the necessity for clear mens rea and a direct act leading to the victim's suicide to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The judgment highlighted the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence—the view favoring the accused must be adopted.
The court was critical of the investigation, pointing out the failure to examine key witnesses and neighbors who could have provided corroborative evidence. The decision also underscored the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a standard which the prosecution failed to meet in this case.
Referencing precedents, the judgment reiterated that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or aiding a person in committing suicide, and without a positive act by the accused, a conviction cannot be justified.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's conviction order and directing the release of the appellants from their bail bonds. This judgment serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required for convictions in criminal cases and the importance of thorough investigations and consistent witness testimonies.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 306/34 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or aiding the commission of suicide, as defined under Section 107 IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Section 306 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 107 IPC, Section 311 CrPC, Section 313 CrPC
Pabitra Roy v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2848588
