High Court
Legal Reasoning
14 Cr.Appeal.433.200415.The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to dosomething. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State ofChhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, has defined the word‘instigate’ as under :-“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward,provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’.”16.The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedlyby this Court. In the case or S.S. Cheena v. Vijay KumarMahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed asunder : -“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating aperson or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigateor aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the casesdecided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order toconvict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be aclear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires anactive act or direct act which led the deceased to commitsuicide seeing no option and that act must have beenintended to push the deceased into such a position that hecommitted suicide.”14.In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police,(2019) 3 SCC 315, while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section306 IPC in detail, observed as under :-“7.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of theaccused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commitsuicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the 15 Cr.Appeal.433.2004deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidencecapable of suggesting that the accused intended by such actto instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless theingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide aresatisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306IPC.”15.In Ude Sing & others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301,the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accusedunder Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crimemust be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It wasobserved as under :-“ 16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be aproof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to thecommission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that thequestion of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context ofan offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,involving multifaceted and complex attributes of humanbehavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusationfor abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking forcogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement tothe commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mereallegation of harassment of the deceased by another personwould not suffice unless there be such action on the part ofthe accused which compels the person to commit suicide;and such an offending action ought to be proximate to thetime of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in thecommission of suicide by another or not, could only begathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abettedcommission of suicide by another; the consideration wouldbe if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act 16 Cr.Appeal.433.2004of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in thedecisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urgeforward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If thepersons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive andthe action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected toinduce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, itmay not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment ofsuicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts andby his continuous course of conduct creates a situation whichleads the deceased perceiving no other option except tocommit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners ofSection 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role intarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim,which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, theaccused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. Thequestion of mens rea on the part of the accused in such caseswould be examined with reference to the actual acts anddeeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only ofsuch nature where the accused intended nothing more thanharassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fallshort of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if theaccused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by wordsor deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, aparticular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Suchbeing the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour,each case is required to be examined on its own facts, whiletaking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing onthe actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”16.In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200,the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that whenever a person instigates orintentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, aperson can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove theoffence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of 17 Cr.Appeal.433.2004mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine theculpability. 17.In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police,2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, after referring to the above referred decisionsrendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC, the Hon’bleSupreme Court observed as under : “44. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of allegedabetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirectacts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely onthe allegation of harassment without their being any positiveaction proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of theaccused which led or compelled the person to commitsuicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is notsustainable.”18.In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCCOnLine SC 575, it is observed that to bring the case within the purview of‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence withregard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of theaccused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC,also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on thepart of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.19.In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana[Criminal Appeal (No.) 1722 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt on 22.02.2024] it is observed that, had there been any clinching 18 Cr.Appeal.433.2004evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was leftwith no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been saidthat the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. Aperson intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen ifthe given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it tohappen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most seriouslevels of punishment, is achieved when both these components areactually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).”20.In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State ofKarnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the Hon’bleApex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations are made : “39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (2011) 3SCC 626 , this Court observed that abetment would involve amental process of instigating a person or intentionally aidinga person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on thepart of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention ofthe legislature and having regard to the ratio of the casesdecided by this Court, it was concluded that in order toconvict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be aclear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also requirean active act or direct act which led the deceased to commitsuicide seeing no other option and that this act of theaccused must have been intended to push the deceased intosuch a position that he committed suicide.”21.Here, prosecution does not dispute that on 18.09.1997,deceased was found in dead condition in a room, which was locked from 19 Cr.Appeal.433.2004inside and was required to be break opened. Witnesses, who wereemployed to break open the door are also examined by defence and, assuch, there is no dispute that it is a case of consumption by closing door.Prosecution alleges suicide because of demand, ill treatment and cruelty. Here, Exhibit 56 is the vital piece of evidence, which is laidhands on by very investigating machinery i.e. suicide note. Reference toseizure of said note is finding place in the very spot panchanama dated18.09.1997. PW-1 Panch deposed that in the room of which panchanamawas drawn, one chit was lying on the chair and the same was seized. PW-6 who conducted A.D. enquiry deposed about seizure of chit and heidentified to be at Exhibit 56. In cross pra 3 this police officer hasadmitted and answered that chit sized by him was written by deceasedprior to the death. Therefore, this is a crucial piece of evidence.For proper comprehension and appreciation suicide noteEhhibit 56 in translated form is as under:“ This is my last salute to omkar. Also I did not suffer fromanyone or anyone tortured me. I have taken this decision by myown. Because I want freedom from this life. Even if I don't gohome, nobody will mind and bother it. Because man is alone inlife. He has to come alone and go alone. It is ok. You take care ofyourself. Get another strong wife for you. I could not give you anyhappiness or peace. Bring a good wife then. Moreover, you keepsaying that you have two wives in your life. Forgive me if I havedone anything wrong and take care of yourself. I express mygratitude to all and forgive me if I have done anything wrong. Icould not give you any pleasure. On the contrary, I gave you 20 Cr.Appeal.433.2004sorrow. My greetings to all relatives. Don't sit and mourn for toolong, uncle and aunt.Sessions Case No. 29/1998Exhibit No. 56Referred to Cross Examination in PW No. 1 Hence Exhibited. Signatures of PanchasBefore me Date.18.9.97sd/-1)sd/-ASI, Kotwali, Police Station. 2) sd/- ” 22.The contents of above suicide note clearly shows that she isholding no one responsible and claims to have not been subjected to anysuffering or torture at anybodys hand. Consequently, there is no element of abetment, inducementor any participation by husband in any form due to which she wascompelled to consume insecticide. This piece of evidence knocks the veryprosecution version on Section 306 of IPC at the bottom itself.23.To sum up, there is either weak or no evidence on the pointof 498-A. Only two allegations and two instances are quoted, which by nostretch of imagination can be brought in the ambit of Section 498-A ofIPC. Offence under Section 306 of IPC is also fails on account of seizureof Exhibit 56.24.Perused the judgment impugned herein. Apparently, aspointed out, even when there are vague and omnibus allegations against 21 Cr.Appeal.433.2004all accused, husband alone is chosen to be held guilty. Observations oflearned trial court, more particularly, in paras 62, 63, 64, 65 have nofoundation and are apparently assumptions and presumptions amountingto conjunctures. Consequently, the findings and judgment convictingappellant alone for both the charges cannot be allowed to be sustained.Hence, following order.ORDERI)Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2004 is allowed.II)The conviction awarded to appellant Dnyandeo PandurangYadav in Sessions Case No.29 of 1998 by the learned SecondAdditional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 03.07.2004 for theoffence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IndianPenal Code stands quashed and set aside. III)The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.IV)The bail bonds of appellant stand cancelled. V)The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellant after the statutory period. 22 Cr.Appeal.433.2004VI)It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order inrespect of disposal of muddemal. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]marathe
Arguments
1 Cr.Appeal.433.2004IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433 OF 2004.Dnyandeo Pandurang Yadav,Age: 35 years, Occ.: Salesman,R/o.: Shivaji Nagar, Kedgaon,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar .. Appellant (Orig. Accused No.1)Versus.The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent…Advocate for Appellant: Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Sanjay S. Dudhane i/b. Mr. V. R. DhordeAPP for Respondent / State: Mr. A. A. A. Khan…CORAM:ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.Reserved on:23.07.2024Pronounced on:02.08.2024JUDGMENT:1.Judgment and order of conviction dated 03.07.2004, passedby Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions CaseNo.29 of 1998, convicting appellant for offence under Sections 498-A,306 of the Indian Penal Code is questioned by filing instant appeal.FACTS LEADING TO TRIAL2.Appellant – Dnyandeo was married to deceased Lalita. Aftermarriage she went to cohabit with accused husband. One month after 2 Cr.Appeal.433.2004marriage when informant father and others paid visit to Lalita, that timeLalita cried and informed that family members of her husband aresubjecting her to cruelty, taunting, compelling her to do excess domesticwork. Informant and his wife both console her. Accused persons weredisgruntled for giving more customary honour in the marriage of seconddaughter Manisha. During visit at the time of Nagpanchami Festival shereported about ill treatment at the hands of husband, in-laws and theytaunting and quarreling with her. There was also demand of Rs.50,000/-for business. Complainant requested accused not to ill treat his daughterbut there was repeated ill treatment. On 18.09.1997, news of Lalita to beserious was received and, therefore, he and his brother went to house ofaccused. There they noticed dead body of Lalita in a room. Afterpostmortem and funeral, he lodged report Exhibit-59 on the basis ofwhich crime was registered.PW-8 and PW-9, who were entrusted with the investigationcompleted the same and chargesheeted accused for commission ofoffence under Section 498-A, 302, 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.In support of it’s case, prosecution adduced in all 8 witnessesand accused also adduced evidence of 4 witnesses. On analysis and appreciation of evidence adduced by theparties, learned trial judge reached to a finding that no case has beenmade out against accused Nos.1, 3 to 10 for offence under Section 302 3 Cr.Appeal.433.2004read with 34 of the IPC; no case is made out against accused Nos.3 to 10for offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC; however,prosecution did succeed in establishing the charge of Sections 498-A and306 of the IPC as against appellant / husband alone and vide judgmentand order dated 03.07.2004, guilt came to be recorded to his extent andthe same is questioned by instant appeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of the Appellant:3.Learned Senior Advocate appraised this court about thenature of charge. Then, he took this court to the testimony of informant –father PW-2; cross faced by his father; testimony of mother PW-3;answers given by her in cross; testimony of maternal uncle PW-4;testimony of paternal aunt of deceased PW-5 and would submit that noneof the family members have specified, elaborated or quoted instances ofill treatment. According to him, mere omnibus and general allegationsare levelled about taunting, quarreling without specifying for what therewas taunting and who amongst the numerous accused said what andwhen. He submitted that even witnesses are not consistent or lendingsupport to each other on material counts.Learned Senior Advocate further pointed out thatprosecution witnesses are quoting about solitary instances of demand of 4 Cr.Appeal.433.2004Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, according to him, when there is no consistentand incessant demand or harassment, charge of Section 498-A of IPCought not to have been invoked by learned trial court. 4.As regards to suicide, he pointed out that, on same set ofevidence remaining accused are given clean chit by the learned trialcourt, as necessary ingredients like abetment, inducement were not foundby the learned trial court. Further, he pointed out that same evidence isused to record guilt of appellant / husband alone without assigningplausible reason for singling out husband. He pointed out that,admittedly, Lalita had consumed pesticide by closing the doors of theroom and the same was required to be forced open as were locked frominside and, therefore, why and who abated alleged consumption havingnot been proved by prosecution. According to him, it was incumbentupon prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there waspresence of the accused husband at the time of alleged consumption so asto implicate him on the charge of abetment or inducement. He pointedout that there was no material suggesting any active role played byhusband in abetting the suicide and, therefore, according to him, findingsof trial court are not sustainable. He pointed out that in this case suicidenote was laid hands by the investigating machinery. That, in the saidsuicide note, deceased had clearly conveyed that nobody should be held 5 Cr.Appeal.433.2004responsible for the same. With such material, he questions theappreciation of the trial court, more particularly, paras 63, 64 and 65 ofthe Judgment. For all above reasons, he prays to interfere by setting asidethe impugned judgment.On behalf of the State:5.In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that barely afterone month of marriage deceased Lalita was subjected to cruelty. Shepromptly reported it to her parents, uncles. Accused husband indulged insubjecting deceased to maltreatment. There was continuous physical andmental harassment coupled with demand of Rs.50,000/-. That, onlybecause of such cruelty and harassment deceased Lalita was constrainedto consume poison. Said consumption is in the very house of accused andwhile she was in their custody. That, there is no explanation for theunnatural death taking place in their house. Accordingly, in view ofSection 106 of the Evidence Act, there is no explanation from their side.Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. there is simplicitor denial. Therefore, learnedtrial court has correctly accepted prosecution version as regards thehusband is concerned. He is responsible for the death and, hence,according to him, there is no illegality or perversity and no reason forinterference. 6 Cr.Appeal.433.2004SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD6.It seems that prosecution has adduced evidence of in all 9witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of theirevidence is as under : PW-1 Uttam Gavali / Panch to seizure of suicide note Exhibit-55.PW-2 Ramkisan Waghaskar / Father deposed about marriage withaccused. Some and substance of his testimony is that there wascruelty to his daughter in the backdrop of demand of Rs.50,000/-,making her do extra domestic work.PW-3 Suman Waghaskar / Mother also stated that marriage of bothdaughters deceased Lalita and Manisha were solemnized together.According to her, after one month when she and her husband wentto meet deceased daughter she cried and informed ill treatment bytaunting for giving less customary honour compared to otherdaughter, and on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- of businessand about receiving news about daughter to be serious.PW-4 Ashok Waghaskar/ Maternal Uncle also claims that after one monthhis niece cried and informed ill treatment by humiliation for notgiving respect in the marriage, making her do excess domesticwork and demand of Rs.50,000/-. 7 Cr.Appeal.433.2004PW-5 Aubhadra Gaikwad / Aunt of deceased stated that on the eve ofSatyanarayan Pooja she had been to the house of accused. Thattime Lalita was happy. One month after marriage she was seennervous and while crying she informed that in-laws, husband,brother-in-law and sister-in-law ill treated by humiliating her fornot giving proper respect in the marriage. She told that she wascompelled to do excess domestic work and nobody assisted her inthe domestic work. She claims that she came to know aboutdemand of Rs.50,000/- from her brother and there is further threatif demand is not met with. She went along with brother andrelatives to give understanding to the accused but they did notlisten. On 18.09.1997, news was received that she was admitted inthe hospital. On enquiry, it was learnt that she had died. None ofthe accused had attended the funeral.PW-6 Police Officer, who conducted A.D., drew inquest panchanama andspot panchanama Exhibits 19 and 55 respectively. Drawing panchto seizure of chit Exhibit 56 and noted the complaint lodged byfather, which was made base of registration of crime bearingno.255/97.PW-7 Prakash / Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem and issuedopinion about cause of death as aspecia due throttling. 8 Cr.Appeal.433.2004PW-8 Investigating OfficerPW-9 Investigating OfficerANALYSIS7.Evidence of parents of Lalita, her maternal uncle andpaternal aunt is of relevance out of 9 witnesses examined by prosecution.PW-2 Informant / Father in his evidence at Exhibit-58deposed as under:“(1)after marriage, Lalita went to stay with accused. 8 to 10 days afterthe marriage Lalita came back to my house and within few days againshe went to the house of accused. One month thereafter myself, my wifeand other relatives i.e. my brother Balasaheb, Ashok, son Dipak, cousinbrother Kotkar visited house of accused. When alongwith my wife I hadgone to see Lalita she started crying and she told me that the accusedperson and the family members of her husband are subjecting her tocruelty by giving her taunt and compelling her to do excess domesticwork. She also told me that family members of her husband are oftenaggrieved against her. She told me that she being newly wedded wife shedoes not speak anything to any accused.…. accused persons weresubjecting my daughter to cruelty on the ground that at the time ofmarriage more customary honours were performed pertaining to mydaughter Manisha and in comparison to that, less customary honourswere performed in the family of husband of Lalita.(2)at the time of Nagpanchami Festival my daughter Lalita came toBhingar for one day. She stayed at the house of my mother and disclosedabout ill treatment to my mother and brother. On same day she came toLoni and stayed for 8 to 10 days. During that period Lalita told me aboutill treatment to her at the hands of the accused. She also told that herhusband, in-laws, sister-in-law, brother-in-law gave taunt and oftenquarreling with her. She told me that accused persons are asking her todo excess domestic work. She also told that accused persons aredemanding Rs.50,000/- for business and they further asked to bring the 9 Cr.Appeal.433.2004said amount from her parents. After festival of Rakshabhandhan husbandof Lalita came to take her back at that time also husband of Lalitademanded money from me. I had shown my inability to fulfill hisdemand and assured him to consider his demand later on.(3)eight days thereafter myself, my wife went to Kedgaon to seeLalita. On seeing us Lalita started crying. She had repeated her illtreatment, which she had earlier disclosed to me.(4)on 13.09.1997, I went to Kedgaon to extend invitation ofSatyanarayan Pooja on the eve of festival of Lord Ganesha. Accusedpersons accepted my invitation. On 14.09.1997 neither Lalita noraccused came.(5)on 18.09.1997, at 02:00 p.m., Police Constable Vinayak informedabout phone call from Kedgaon outpost about serious condition ofLalita.”PW-3 Wife of PW-2 deposed at Exhibit 62 as under:“Lalita was given in marriage at Kedgaon to accused Dnyandeo. 16 daysafter the marriage there was Satyanarayan Pooja at the house of accusedand, therefore, myself, my husband had gone to the house of Lalita.Other family members had also came with us for Satyanarayan Pooja.One month thereafter again myself and my husband gone to the accusedto meet Lalita. On seeing us Lalita started crying. Therefore, we enquiredto her the reason. Lalita told us that husband, in-laws, brother-in-law andsister-in-law started ill treating her by saying that they were given lesscustomary honour in comparison to customary honour given to Manisha.She also told that accused persons asked her to to more domestic workand gave her taunts and humiliate her.”“During Nagpanchami Festival when she came at Loni she told “that herhusband and family members in the house ill treat her and subjected herto cruelty. She also told that accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- toher for business.”“Accused Dnyandeo too demanded Rs.50,000/- for business. He gotannoyed when we showed our inability to pay Rs.50,000/- and,therefore, in the hit of anger he took Lalita with him. One monththereafter again we went to Kedgaon to meet Lalita. On seeing us Lalitastarted crying and accused persons demanded money to us in presence of 10 Cr.Appeal.433.2004Lalita. Accused persons did not attend Satyanarayan Pooja even wheninvitation was extended. On 18th news was received.”PW-4 Maternal Uncle deposed that, “16 days after marriage of Lalita I have gone to the house of accusedalong with brother and other family members. Thereafter Lalita told methat her husband and family members are subjecting her to cruelty bysaying that they were given less customary honour in comparison tocustomary honour given to Manisha at the time marriage and she alsotold that she has been asked to do more household work and accusedpersons are taunting her. During festival of Nagpanchami she wasnervous, crying and she told that accused family members are subjectingher to cruelty. They asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- for business andfurther threatened to ill treat her if demand is not fulfilled.”PW-5 Paternal Aunt deposed that “ on the eve of Satyanarayan Pooja I had gone to the house of accused.When I had been to the house of accused I saw Lalita was happy. Onemother after marriage of Lalita along with my husband I had been to thehouse of accused. That time we saw Lalita in nervous mood and she wascrying. Myself and my husband were mediators of the marriage of Lalitaand I was residing near the house of Lalita we went to the house ofaccused one month after the marriage. On enquiring with Lalita she toldthat her in-laws, husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law ill treat her bygiving humiliating treatment and taunting by saying that accused personswere not properly respected at the time of marriage ceremony. Lalita alsotold that her sister-in-law compelled her to do excess domestic work anddid not assist in the domestic work. When I had been to the house of mybrother I came to know that accused demanded Rs.50,000/- to Lalita forbusiness and further threatened her not to cohabit with them if theirdemand is not fulfilled. On 18.09.1997, while she was in school, shelearnt that Lalita was admitted.”8.On critical analysis of above discussion, oral evidence ofparents, maternal uncle and paternal aunt, it is noticed that they are 11 Cr.Appeal.433.2004merely speaking about deceased Lalita after one month of marriagereporting that family members i.e. husband, in-laws, brother-in law andsister-in-law ill treating her, there was taunting for not giving duehonours in the marriage as like that given in the marriage of her sister.Second allegation is that she was made to do excess domestic work.Therefore, entire accusation is only on above 2 counts.Informant in cross is unable to state the nature of illtreatment or cruelty and which amongst the 10 accused, who were madeto face the trial, subjected Lalita to ill treatment. Who amongst themtaunted is also not stated by, either father or mother. Only paternal aunt,who was a mediator levels allegation against the sister-in-law of makingLalita work excessively and not assisting her in domestic work. She is themediator who has arranged the said marriage and resident of the sameplace. But, surprisingly, claims to have heard from her brother aboutdemand of Rs.50,000/- for business. Admittedly, learned trial court hasalready acquitted sister-in-law from all charges. Even no details for whichproposed business demand was raised and when has not come on record.Apparently, allegations are omnibus, general, vague innature. 9.Only twice there seems said to be reporting by Lalita i.e. firsttime, one month after marriage only on being asked by informant and his 12 Cr.Appeal.433.2004wife and second reporting seems to be when Lalita came forNagpanchami Festival. Therefore, apparently, only 2 instances are quoted.In fact, PW-5, who is a mediator and paternal aunt of deceased hasherself deposed in chief that when she went to meet her on the eve ofSatyanarayan Pooja Lalita was found to be happy. Therefore, takingabove material into consideration, cruelty as contemplated under law forattracting Section 498-A is not finding place in the testimony of parents,uncle and aunt.10.Husband / Appellant alone is also held guilty for offenceunder Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. Before adverting to the law onabetment to commit suicide, it is profitable to give brief account of thesettled legal position when there is a charge of Section 306 of IPC.In umpteen judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court has time andagain expounded legal requirements for attracting the charge of 306 IPCi.e. in the known cases, which are time and again referred to till date.11.In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73],the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should beextremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each caseand the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whetherthe cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her lifeby committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing 13 Cr.Appeal.433.2004suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differencein domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victimbelonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expectedto induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society tocommit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied forbasing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence ofsuicide should be found guilt. 12.In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618,it is observed that, “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, inciteor encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigationthough it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect orwhat constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically besuggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite theconsequence must be capable of being spelt out. 13.In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another (2021) 19SCC 144, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provision ofSection 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107IPC and observed as under :“14.Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide acriminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.. . .