THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.608 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.269 of 1999 by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC in the order dated 28.12.1999 in S.C.No.397 of 1997 by the learned Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. The brief facts of the case are as follows: PW.1 Neelam Koteswararao is the father of Tadipatri Hemalatha (who will be hereinafter referred to as the deceased). PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. W.3 is the son of PW.1. PW.4 is the daughter of the accused. PW.5 is one of the tenants in one portion out of six portions of the house of PW.1. His house is located behind the house of the accused. PW.6 is the daughter of PW.1 and younger sister of the deceased. She resides besides the house of the deceased. PWs 7 and 8 are the neighbours of the accused, whose houses are located on the northern and southern sides of the house of accused, respectively. PW.9 is the photographer. PW.10 is the mediator for scene observation mediators’ report under Ex.P.10 and seizure of MOs 1 to 3 under Ex.P.10. He also acted as one of the inquest panchayatdars. PW.11 is the Head Constable attached to Eluru Two Town Police Station who recorded Ex.P.14 statement of the deceased in the hospital and the same was registered as Cr.No.126 of 1997 of Eluru II Town Police Station. PW.12 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.16 post-mortem certificate. PW.12 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemmorage as a result of burn injuries sustained by her. PW.13 is the doctor who was present at the time of recording Ex.P.14 statement by PW.11 and certified about the mental faculty of the deceased. PW.14 is the doctor who was present at the time of recording Ex.P.11 dying declaration by the Magistrate (PW.15) and certified the mental faculty of the deceased. PW.16 is the investigation officer who registered the case, investigated into it and laid charge sheet against the accused. The trial Court on a full-fledged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC. On appeal being Criminal Appeal No.269 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution will not attract an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, since the deceased committed suicide on the spur of the movement due to some family dispute, and there is no evidence to show that she was forced to commit suicide or induced by the appellant herein. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even as per dying declaration of the deceased, the provisions of Section 306 IPC are not attracted. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Curt reported in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v State of West Bengal[1]. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that the evidence adduced is not attracting the provisions fo the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. But at the same time, the evidence clinchingly establishes an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, since the witnesses categorically stated about the demand of dowry by the accused. This Court perused the entire record and also the dying declaration by the deceased Ex.P.19 which reads as under: “My husband (accused is doing tobacco business near powerpet Eluru. I passed 10th class. I am not happy with my husband. My husband is torturing me with his words and deeds. I requested my husband to give divorce. He refused. He abused me saying whether I am having any paramour. I am having only daughter. When I asked my husband to educate her, he is not educating her. If I happened to survive, kindly grant me divorce. I will go to my parents’ house and eke-out my livelihood. I got disgusted with my husband and poured kerosene on my person and set on fire”. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is also of the definite view that merely because a person committed suicide due to some matrimonial disputes, the provisions of Section 306 IPC are not attracted, unless otherwise there are warranting circumstances and direct inducement by the accused to commit the suicide, and this was fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court cited, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for th purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing 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”. Hence this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not made out any case to convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, in connection with the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, are liable to be set aside and are accordingly, set aside. As far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, considering the evidence of the relatives of the deceased and as there is a specific averment that the petitioner demanded dowry from the deceased, the conviction reorded by the trial Court for the said offence is confirmed. But, considering the fact that the offence was committed in the year 1997 and the petitioner suffered humiliation for the last 13 years and also the conviction being stigma to the petitioner herein in the society, this Court is of the view that some lenient view can be shown against the petitioner/accused herein. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the courts below under the impugned judgments is confirmed, but however sentence imposed is modified to one month. The fine amount imposed is not interfered with. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 21st June, 2010. PNV [1] 2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 459 (SC)