III S!i:i'l-!t'^isS®: HI6H COURTOF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR V"'1 ^" • - Cr. Aooeal No.TC3/20(® Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri OiWp Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Tek Singh Verema. Versus .<1'1. . State of.Chhattisgarh 5hri P. DiMfukar, leamed Sr. Counsel with 5hri P.R.Patankar' for the appellant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, P.L. for -the State. JUD6MENT (Deliveredon 23''d of January 2006) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2005 delivered by Shri L.R.Thakur, 8 Additionat Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Sessions Case No. 162/2004 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2.000/-, in default of the same, to undergo additional R.I. for six months. 2. It is not disputed that the deceased Pritam Bai was married to the appetlant in the year 2003 and committed suicide by setting herself on fire on 2.5.2004. 3. The prosecution story in short is that eversince his marrioge with the deceased the appellant tised to doubt the character of the deceased and alwoc/s used to quarrel with her and levelled allegations of ssxual infidelit/ against her. A doy prior to the occurrence, the appeltant had again quarretled with the deceased and said that die had illicit relationship with other persons. Fed up with this, at 4.00 A. s- as v~~ @ I-'- on 2.5.2004 the deceased on went to the Badiof her house and after \ pouring kerosene over her body, set herself on fire. The deceased was removed to the District Ho^pitnl, Durg. The deceased nouTated to br. S.R-Churendra P.W.2 that she had set herself on fire due to the allegations levelled against her by the husband. 3. bying declaration of Pritam Bai was recorded by Naib Tahsildar Shri Pubk Bhattacharya P.W.7 vHe Ex.P.6 in which she stated that her husband repeatedly doubted her character and at night levelled allegations that she had illicit relationdiip with other people and therefore, he would divorce her. As a reailt of this, she got fed up and went to +he Badiand after pouring kerosene, set herself on fire. 4. Pritam Bai succumbed to the burn injuries in the night of 2.5.2004. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. A.P.Sawant P.W.9 who opined that the couse of death was shock due to the extensive ante- mortem bum injuries sustained by her. After completion of investigation, the accused appellant was prosecuted under Section 306 I.P.C. 5. The accused-appellcnt abjured the guitt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. The trial Judge, relying upon the dyin9 declaration of Pritam Bai recorded by Pulak Bhattacharya (P.W.7) and also the testimony of the parents of the deceased i.e. Chaitram P.W.15 and Sawama Bai P.W.16, convicted & sentenced the accused-oypellant as aforesaid in para 1. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Nanka v. State of M.P. reported in 1999 (l) tt.P.W.N. [52] irt-support of his contentions that even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the dying declaration Ex.P.6 against the appellont is accepted on its face value, it would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. - 3' It was contended that mere leveling of charges of illicit relationship would not amount to abetment ixs defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. On the other homd, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. 7. Section 107 of I.P.C. reads os under: "107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets in doing of a •ttiing, who— Firstly— Instigates.iany person to do tiiat •riiing; or Secondfy'—Enyigsswith one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if on act or illegal omission -lukes place in pursuance of •thnt conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. Explwvrlion 1.—A person who, by witlful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact trfiich he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or att-empts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate •riie doing of that i+iing. It is thus clear that for constituting the offence of abetment, it must be shown by the prosecution that the appellont instigated or intentionally aided a doing of a particular thing. In other words, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused intentionally instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In other words, the act of suicide committed by the deceased must be the proximate cause of the instigation offered by the accused and it must be shown that the instigation, if ony, was so direct, co-related, immediate and proximate with the act of suicide that it can be safely inferred that the deceased committed suicide only on account of such instigation. This is in conformity with the dictum laid down by this Court in RoSfesh Vaidinm 1/s. SfafB ofM.P. 2004 (l) C6LJ 324. 8. The only point which nequires consideration in this case, therefore, is as to whether •the accused-appellant had instigated the ISfflfilS! .;/i^::£tE^- .-. /f.- commission of suicide by the deceased-wife. The dying declaration recorded by Pulak Bhattacharya P.W.7 clearly diows that the accused- oypetlouit had levelled alle9ations that the deceased had illicit relationship with his elder brother and nephew, ond therefore, he would divorce her. Letters written by the deceased have been produced os Ex.P.14 oaid Ex.P.15 which go to show that such allegations were being levetled against tli? deceased soon after marriage and she ,1. was not inclined to live with the accused-appellant. I have gone through the testimpny of Chaitram P.W.15 cnd Sawaana Bai P.W.16, who ure the parents of the deceoaed. There is nothing in the testimony which would lead to cui inference that the accused-appellont had ever instigated the connmission of suicide by the deceased. So far as the dying dectaration of the dececsed Ex.P.6 is concerned, it only transpires that the accused-appelhnt wonted to divorce Pritam Bai. However, no inference can be drawn from the above-mentioned facts that the accused ever instigated or intended that Pritam Bai should commit suicide. 9. It is no doubt tragic that due to the allegation levelled by the accused-oppellant the deceased committed suicide yet in the absence of any legal evidence to show that the appellant intended or instigated the commission of suicide by the deceased, the guilt under Section 306 I.P.C. could not be held to be established against the accused-appellant. Merely on the basis of allegation levelled by the appellant retating to infidetity of the deceased, the learned trial Judge drew an inference that the accused-appellont instigated -the commission of suicide by Pritom Bai which cannot be said to be in conformity witfa-law. 10. This cppeal, therefore, deseryes fo be and is allowed. Conviction of the oppellant under Section 306 I.P.C. and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge It! -^'^^^^-'••; ^ _ ^ under Section 306 I.P.C. and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in oiny other offence. Fine, if paid, diall be refunded to the appeltant. .'/. Sd-/' Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukl Judge <>? n'i[