JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri, District Ajmer in [CASE NUMBER] convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offences under [SECTION], [ACT] to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and further convicting the accused appellants under [SECTION], [ACT] for one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of this case, as perthe prosecution, are that the appellant No. 1 [ENTITY] and the appellant No. 2 [ENTITY], are husband and mother-in-law of [ENTITY], the deceased. After the marriage of [ENTITY] with the appellant No. 1 [ENTITY], the accused appellants used to ill-treat [ENTITY] and committed various acts of cruelty on her as a result of which ultimately [ENTITY] committed suicide due to intimidation by the accused appellants on 3.9.2002 and on 4.9.2002 before the post-mortem could be conducted, the deceased [ENTITY] was cremated. It is in this background that report Exhibit-1 was submitted on 5.9.2002 by [ENTITY] P.W-1 who is brother of the deceased [ENTITY] at Police Station Bhinay, District Ajmer on 5.9.2002 on which report FIR No. 177/2002 was drawn for the offences under [SECTION], [ACT]. The Police after investigation submitted a challan for offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] against the accused persons. After the case was challanged and committed, charges were framed for the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] against the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and produced 16 documents by way of prosecution evidence. The accused appellant made statements under [SECTION], [ACT] The learned Trial Court after having gone through the evidence, came to the conclusion that both the accused persons were guilty of the offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] and, consequently, sentenced the accused appellants for the terms . mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, this appeal was filed by both the accused appellants before this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case there is no evidence to convict the accused appellants for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT]. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that [SECTION], [ACT] requires that if any person commits suicide then in that event whoever abets the commission of such offences shall be liable to be punished. It is submitted that in terms of [SECTION], [ACT] the word "abets" would derive its mean from [SECTION], [ACT]. It is submitted that in the instant case there is no evidence to bring the case of the accused appellants within the scope of [SECTION], [ACT].
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present case would have to be considered in the light of the fact that [SECTION] of the [ACT] is not applicable since suicide by deceased [ENTITY] did not occur within the period of seven years from the date of her marriage. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the prosecution would have to be examined in the light of the direct evidence which has been led by the prosecution and the prosecution cannot take shelter of any presumption by virtue of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
5. With a view to examine the aforesaid, the prosecution evidence has to be examined. There are two sets of evidence in the instant case. One set of witnesses is the family members in relation of the deceased and the second set of witnesses are the residents of the village where the deceased was residing and died on 3.9.2002. So far as the fact of marriage is concerned. P.W.-1 [ENTITY] has stated that marriage took place between the deceased [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], the appellant No. 1 in the year 1993. Similarly, P.W.-3 [ENTITY], in the first set of witness who are relations, like P.W.-1 has also submitted that marriage of the deceased [ENTITY] with appellant No. 1 [ENTITY] took place in the year 1993. P.W.-1 4 Smt. [ENTITY] who is also one of the relations of the deceased [ENTITY] has stated that marriage took place about ten years ago. Her statement was recorded in the Court on 15.7.2003. P.W.-15 [ENTITY] who is a resident of the village of [ENTITY]'s father [ENTITY] has stated that marriage took place about 8-9 years ago. P.W.-18 [ENTITY], who is mother of the deceased [ENTITY], has stated that [ENTITY]'s marriage took place about ten years ago. Her statement is dated 16.7.2003 . P.W.-19 [ENTITY] has stated that deceased got marriage in the year 1993. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that marriage of the deceased with the accused appellant No. 1 [ENTITY] took place in the year 1993 i.e., more than seven years prior to the act of suicide by the deceased [ENTITY]. In that view of the matter, the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] are not attracted so as to raise a presumption that her husband or any other relative of the husband had subjected her to cruelty having regard to other circumstances in the case and that act of suicide has been abetted by her husband or such relatives of the husband.
6 In view of the aforesaid, it would be necessary, therefore, to view the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant in the light of the evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in order to bring home the conviction for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT], the evidence of abetment by the accused appellants would have to be viewed in the light of the provisions of [SECTION], [ACT]. It is submitted that in the present cases, [SECTION], [ACT] alone is applicable and the prosecution would be required to prove that the appellants had instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
7. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. in [PRECEDENT], and in the case of [ENTITY] v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in IV (2001) CCR 178 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 and two decisions of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], as well as in the case of [PRECEDENT].
8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the [ENTITY]'s case (supra) after para 9 onwards of the said judgment considered the provisions of [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] as well as the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In para 13 it was held that the case would fall only under the first clause of [SECTION], [ACT] and not clause secondly and thirdly. In paras 14 and 15 it has been held as under:
14. It is beyond doubt that [ENTITY] did commit suicide. Undisputedly, such suicide has been committed within a year of the date of marriage. What happened on the date of occurrence is very material for the purpose of recording a finding on the question of abetment. Enough material is available on record by way of oral and documentary evidence which we shall now deal with.
15. What transpired on the date of the incident is known only to two persons, namely, the deceased and the accused. The deceased's version of that day's happening constituting the proximate cause provoking her suicide is to be spelt out from what is contained in diary (Article A) in the handwriting of the deceased herself and in the dying declaration Ext. P-10
9. Having thereafter considered the evidence Their Lordships in paras 20 and 21 have held as under:
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fits of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. In [PRECEDENT], this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the Trial for the purpose of filing whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committed suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
10. It is in this background that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court declined to raise the presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT]. In the present case, however, since the presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is not available in the facts and circumstances, the case of the accused would have to be examined in the light of the direct evidence. In the first set of evidence are the relatives of the deceased. P.W.-18 [ENTITY] is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased [ENTITY] was married to [ENTITY] in the year 1993 and that her in-laws including the husband [ENTITY] and mother-in-law Smt. [ENTITY], the appellants, used to trouble her. She was even given beating and used to be driven out of the house. Sometimes she was not even given food for about four to five days. It has also been stated that the sister of deceased [ENTITY] was also married in the same family and both the sisters were treated with cruelty. The reason for this has also been given as the cruelty was attributed on account of the fact that deceased and her sister did not bring enough dowry. Smt. [ENTITY] P.W.-18 has also stated that three months prior to her death when [ENTITY] came, she had told the mother that her in-laws treated her with cruelty and also used to give her beating but her mother sent her back to her in-laws' house so as to avoid any adverse reaction in her own village that her daughter has come away from her in-laws' house. In her cross-examination P.W.-18 [ENTITY] has stated that [ENTITY], the deceased, used to complain that her mother-in-law Smt. [ENTITY] and her husband [ENTITY], the appellants used to beat her mercilessly on small pretexts. She has also stated on a suggestion by the defence that there was discord in the family on minor issues. The learned defence Counsel has also tried to submit the evidence from the P.W.-18 wherein the mother has stated that the deceased had gone to her in-laws' house from her mother's place only three months prior to the incident and in the last three months, the mother did not hear anything from the daughter deceased [ENTITY] regarding her being troubled. On the basis of this statement, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no immediate cause, on the contrary the prosecution witness Smt. [ENTITY] P.W.-18, the mother has stated that deceased was residing in her in-laws' house happily. The other important witnesses on the side of the prosecution are the sister of the deceased P.W.-25 [ENTITY], wife of [ENTITY], the brother of the appellant [ENTITY]. Both the sisters were married to two brothers and, as such, her testimony is the nearest with regard to the conditions prevailing in the house of the deceased [ENTITY]. P.W.-25 Smt. [ENTITY] has stated that both the sisters were married in the same family to two brothers. The marriage was performed from her nanihal because the sisters had lost their father at an early age and they were living in a state of poverty. She has further stated that her deceased sister [ENTITY] was ill-treated by in-laws. She has gone to the extent of saying that [ENTITY] was often beaten by the appellant as well as by her husband [ENTITY]. She has further stated in her examination-in-chief that she had met her sister [ENTITY] about ten-fifteen days prior to her death and she had told her that she was being ill-treated and that things had come to a stage where [ENTITY] had told the witness Smt. [ENTITY] that she would even die one of these days. The relevant statement of Smt. [ENTITY] in examination-in-chief is as under:
("Hindi matter omitted")
11. In her cross-examination P.W.-25 Smt. [ENTITY] has further stated that from the very beginning of their marriage i.e., 2 and 2 1/2 months after the marriage, in-laws and husband had started ill-treating them. She has, no doubt, stated that she was not in the house when [ENTITY] died but was with her mother in village Panvaliya where she had come about ten-twelve days prior to the incident. Very significant part of her statement is that even she has left her husband's home and come to her mother's house because her in-laws use to beat her on small pretexts and it is because of the aforesaid ill-treatment that she has come away. She has stated that when she was coming to her mother's house even the deceased [ENTITY] wanted to come away but did not come. The other relatives are P.W.-3 [ENTITY] who is maternal uncle of the deceased. He has reiterated the similar allegations which were there in the testimony of P.W.-18 Smt. [ENTITY] as well as P.W.-25 Smt. [ENTITY] and has further stated that after this incident even P.W.-25 [ENTITY], sister of the deceased [ENTITY], who is married to the brother of the appellant [ENTITY] has not been able to return to her husband's house or to her children. The other witness in this claim is P.W.-19 [ENTITY] who is brother of the deceased who has also reiterated the same testimony as has been given by P.W.-18 Smt. [ENTITY] and P.W.-25 Smt. [ENTITY].
12. Apart from this set of witnesses, there is evidence of other villagers of village Panvaliya namely P.W.-1 [ENTITY], P.W.-14 [ENTITY], who is nani (maternal grand-mother) of the deceased. P.W.-15 [ENTITY] and P.W.-1 6 [ENTITY]. These witnesses have corroborated and supported the testimony of P.W.-18 Smt. [ENTITY] and P.W.-25 Smt. [ENTITY], the mother and sister respectively of the deceased.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has sought to argue that these witnesses are not the residents of the village where the deceased was living immediately prior to her death whereas the villagers and neighbours have not supported the case of the prosecution witnesses who have been referred to above. In this set of evidence is the evidence of P.W. 2 [ENTITY] who is the immediate neighbourer of the appellants. The testimony of P.W. 2 [ENTITY] is that he is the immediate neighbour and on hearing Smt. [ENTITY] shouting that [ENTITY] has been bitten by insect, he came to their house and saw that [ENTITY] had hung herself with a saree around her neck. He tore the saree and brought her down. Another significant part of her testimony on which the appellants have relied is that he has stated as follows:
("Hindi matter omitted")
14. In cross-examination, however, this witness has stated as under: ("Hindi matter omitted")
15. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, it has been contended that alleged cruelty or ill-treatment which was meted out to [ENTITY] was a normal thing which was happening between husband and wife and cannot be equated with instigation so as to amount to abetment to commit suicide. The other witness P.W. 8 Smt. [ENTITY], who is resident of the village where [ENTITY] died. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. In her examination-in-chief, however, she has stated as under:
("Hindi matter omitted")
16. In her cross-examination though this witness has stated that she never heard that accused used to trouble the deceased, The other witness in this chain is P.W. 10 Smt. [ENTITY] who is also a resident of village where the deceased died nearly Barla and she has also stated that she never heard that deceased [ENTITY] was ever ill-treated by the accused appellants. P.W. 11 [ENTITY] is another resident of village Barla and he has stated that he never heard that deceased was ill-treated by the appellants and he has gone to explain that it is because his house is far away of that of the accused appellants. P.W. 12 [ENTITY], the village barber of village Barla has also stated that he never heard that the deceased was ever ill-treated by her in-laws. On the contrary, the husband and wife i.e., deceased and the appellant [ENTITY] stayed happily. P.W. 13 [ENTITY] who has also deposed to the same effect that he never heard that deceased was ill-treated by her in-laws i.e., the appellants.
17. In the light of the above evidence of the second set of witnesses, it has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that there is no evidence led by the prosecution so as to suggest that immediately preceding the incident, there was no such incident which could be said to amount to instigation so as to fall within the definition of abetment. On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses have stated that deceased along with her in-laws was living happily. It is, therefore, suggested that the prosecution has failed to bring home any cogent evidence and material so as to suggest that there was any abetment on the part of the accused persons so as to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
18. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that the second set of evidence which has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot help the accused appellants as this set of witnesses have only submitted that they are unaware as to whether there was any ill-treatment of the deceased by the appellants. The statement of these witnesses is to the effect that they did not hear that the deceased was ill-treated or was ever beaten by the appellants, as such, it cannot be said that there is any positive evidence by these witnesses to show that the appellants never ill-treated the deceased.
19. Having dealt with the evidence, as has been referred to above, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge for a conviction under [SECTION], [ACT] It is true that direct evidence with regard to any particular immediate cause for the act on the part of the deceased to commit suicide has not been brought on record by the prosecution, however, as has been noted by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 of [ENTITY]'s case (supra) that what happened on the date of the incident is known only to two persons viz., the deceased and the accused. In that view of the matter, it is necessary to examine the circumstances. In the instant case the first set of evidence of the relatives of the deceased more particularly the mother P.W, 18 Smt. [ENTITY] and the sister P.W. 25 Smt. [ENTITY] who is also married in the same household is most relevant. In the case in hand, the testimony of P.W. 25 Smt. [ENTITY], the sister of the deceased, is very clear that for the last ten years i.e., from the time of her marriage till her death, the deceased was treated with cruelty and even given beating by the appellants, so much so, that about ten-fifteen days prior to her death when P.W. 25 Smt. [ENTITY] last met the deceased [ENTITY], she told her that her husband [ENTITY] beats her continuously and that one of these days she may even die. This testimony is corroborated by the mother P.W. 18 Smt. [ENTITY] and it can safely be held that deceased was being treated with cruelty and was being regularly ill-treated and beaten by the appellants. As Their Lordships in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) in paras 20 and 21 have laid down the exception where the accused persons by their acts, omissions and commissions and by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide. A case of instigation may be inferred in the light of the prosecution evidence which has been brought on record to prove that the deceased was being continuously harassed, troubled and beaten by the accused for various reasons for a period often years. It can safely be considered that present one is a case of an exception where the continued course of conduct and circumstances created by the accused, the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide and in that view of the matter, it would be safe to conclude that present case is a case falling within [SECTION], [ACT] so as to constitute an offence under [SECTION], [ACT] It may also be added that it has come in the evidence of P.W. 3 [ENTITY], P.W. 18 Smt. [ENTITY] and P.W. 25 Smt. [ENTITY], the sister of the deceased [ENTITY], that as a result of the behaviour of the accused persons, the sister of the [ENTITY] Smt. [ENTITY], though married to the brother of the appellant [ENTITY] has since the time of the incident and more particularly some time prior to it has left her husband's house and has not been able to return to the matrimonial home, to her children and her husband. That goes to show the kind of situation that was prevailing in the household of the appellants toward the deceased and her sister Smt. [ENTITY]. As has been held above in the light of the exception which has been carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 20 of [ENTITY]'s case the present one is a case where the accused had by their acts of commission and ommission and by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other optiion except to commit suicide and, consequently, it is a case where the instigation has to be inferred. Consequently, the accused appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT] I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused appellants for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT]
20. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in the instant case the conviction under [SECTION], [ACT] deserves to be set aside on account of the fact that it cannot be said to be a case of causing screening of evidence, inasmuch as the prosecution evidence itself goes to show that the complainant and the relatives of the deceased were present at the time of cremation. In this respect, the attention has been invited to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who have deposed that the relatives of the deceased were present at the time of cremation of deceased [ENTITY] on 4.9.2002 at the village of her in-laws.
21. With a view to ascertain the above, a closer look at the testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveals that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that while it is true that relatives of the deceased were present at the time of cremation, nonetheless, it becomes clear that relatives of the deceased [ENTITY] were informed by the in-laws and before they reached, the deceased was taken for her last rites and cremation and the relatives reached the spot only after the cremation had been started. In this behalf, the statements of the relatives of deceased viz., P.W. 1 [ENTITY], P.W. 3 [ENTITY], P.W. 14 Smt. [ENTITY], P.W. 18 Smt [ENTITY] and P.W. 19 [ENTITY] are very clear that before they reached village Barla where the cremation took place, the deceased [ENTITY] was taken for her funeral and they only reached after the funeral fire had been lit and as such having waited for about an hour and half or so, they came away to their own place. While these witnesses are the relations of the deceased, there is the evidence of villagers namely P.W. 8 Smt. [ENTITY] who has though been declared hostile but nonetheless she has stated in her cross-examination at the instance of the accused appellants as under:
("Hindi matter omitted")
22. Another independent witness is P.W. 9 [ENTITY] who had gone to inform the relatives of the deceased at village Juniya regarding the death of Smt. [ENTITY]. This witness has deposed that when he returned after giving the information the deceased had already been taken for her last rites and cremation by eight or nine in the morning. P.W.10 Smt. [ENTITY] another independent witness has stated that villagers insisted that the body be taken for cremation and her relatives would come later. P.W. 11 [ENTITY] in the examination-in-chief has stated that when the deceased was taken for cremation her relatives had not come but reached the site of cremation and that the cremation took place in their presence. P.W. 12 [ENTITY] has stated that at about eight in the morning, the villagers stated that it is not proper to keep the dead body for long and as such could be taken for cremation. He has stated that when the body was taken for cremation, the relatives of the deceased had not come by that time. Apart from the above, there is also the testimony of two hostile witnesses P.W. 20 Smt. [ENTITY] and P.W. 21 [ENTITY]. P.W. 20 Smt. [ENTITY] has deposed that the relatives of the deceased arrived after deceased [ENTITY] had been taken for cremation. Similarly, P.W. 21 [ENTITY] has stated as under:
("Hindi matter omitted")
23. In the cross-examination he has deposed that after the dead body of [ENTITY] was taken for cremation, the relatives arrived at the place of cremation. Thus, both the sets of witnesses have clearly stated that cremation took place at about 8.00 a.m. and that the dead body was taken for the cremation before the relatives of the deceased arrived at the village Barla, where the cremation took place, though they were present at the time of cremation. It has also come in the evidence that villagers in sizable number were also present at the time of cremation. In the instant case the deceased [ENTITY] did not die a natural death. P.W. 2 [ENTITY] has clearly deposed that when he came, after hearing the hue and cry from the adjoining house, to the house of the accused appellants, he found [ENTITY] hanging by a Saree tied to her neck. Thus, the death was not a natural one and being an unnatural death, the matter was required to be reported and investigated. Regarding cause of the death of [ENTITY] to be ascertained, the dead body was required to be examined for post-mortem and the dead body was material piece of evidence in this case. Since the accused appellants screened the said evidence by cremating the same without the matter being reported or investigated, it is clearly a case which is covered by the [SECTION], [ACT] Consequently, I find no error in the judgment of the learned Trial Court by which the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under [SECTION], [ACT]
24. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. One of the appellants Smt. [ENTITY] is on bail. She shall surrender to her bail bonds immediately and would be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of her sentence. The appellant [ENTITY] is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence.