IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT:: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.921 of 2008 Between: D.Mahendar, S/o Narasimha …Appellant/Accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.921 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-2007 in S.C.No.450 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The case was registered on the basis of a complaint given by P.W.1, brother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is the husband of the deceased, has been harassing the deceased Sunitha demanding additional dowry and since 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, the harassment increased and unable to bear the same, on 19-02-2006 the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene by setting fire to herself. 4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of both the offences and convicted him for the same and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.50/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and also imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. As seen from the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P-7-dying declaration for recording conviction for both the offences. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and de facto complainant. P.W.2 is the neighbour and P.W.3 is the younger brother of the deceased. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the dying declaration-Ex.P-7 would only establish that the accused was harassing the deceased and subjecting her to ill-treatment and physical assault over the demand for additional dowry. The ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC are thus made out from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P-7. However, there is no iota of evidence on record to attract the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. 8. The accused is charged with the offence under Section 306 IPC, which renders a person who abets the commission of suicide by another, liable for punishment. The expression ‘abetment’ is defined under Section 107 IPC in the following terms: 107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of the thing. In order to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to show that the abetment was of the kind as defined in Section 107 IPC. It is an established proposition that before the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the abetment, as contemplated under Section 107 IPC, was caused by the accused. In the present case, none of the witnesses have spoken about the abetment on the part of the accused in the commission of suicide by the deceased by way of aiding or instigating in such commission. Even in the dying declaration-Ex.P-7 the deceased has not stated that the accused had in any way abetted her in the commission of suicide. What all Ex.P-7 states is that unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused demanding dowry, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. 9. In view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to establish the abetment on the part of the accused in commission of suicide by the deceased in terms of Section 107 IPC, the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be held to be made out. The conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC is, therefore, unwarranted, as the said offence is not made out by the evidence on record. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC is set aside as also the sentence imposed against him by the trial Court in that regard. However, the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.50/- imposed by the trial Court together with the default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months, are confirmed. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th August, 2009. Lrkm.