The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 74 of 1991 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Rabindra Nath @ Kumar Swain ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 27.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.1991 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.241 of 1990. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and R.I. for four years for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The present appeal has been pending since 1991. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Panda. 3. Heard Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Page 2 of 28 4. The prosecution case, in terse and brief is that the deceased, Sobha, sister of the informant, was married to the appellant in June (Asadha), 1986, according to the “Tolakanya” form of marriage. At the time of final marriage negotiations, the informant, accompanied by one Kapila Patra, visited the appellant’s house and, as per the demand of the groom’s side, paid a sum of Rs.3,000/-, one gold chain, and certain wooden furniture, including a cot and an almirah. It is alleged that, subsequent to the marriage, the appellant and his family members again demanded an additional gold chain and further wooden furniture. Due to non-fulfilment of these demands, the appellant is said to have subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. The deceased allegedly informed her father of the continued demands and the ill-treatment meted out to her, but the informant, owing to poverty, expressed his inability to meet the additional demands. The prosecution further alleged that about five days prior to the death of the deceased, the father of the deceased (P.W.3) had visited her marital home, then the deceased reiterated the appellant’s continued assaults for non-supply of the aforesaid articles. On the night of 22.04.1989, the deceased’s life came to an end. In the Page 3 of 28 early morning of 23.04.1989, her body was found hanging from a branch of a mango tree situated in the bari of P.W.3. Her cousin, Ramakant Swain, thereafter lodged a report before the Officer-in- Charge, Kujang Police Station, stating that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said report (Ext.4), U.D. Case No. 23 of 1989 was registered, and an enquiry commenced. After conducting the inquest, the police forwarded the body for post-mortem examination. The autopsy was conducted by P.W.6, the doctor of Jagatsinghpur Sub-Divisional Hospital, who opined that the death was due to hanging and that the injuries noted on the body were ante- mortem in nature. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charge examined eight witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 was the independent witness, P.W.2 was the neighbor of the informant, P.W.3 was the father of the deceased, P.W.4 was the brother and informant of this case. P.W.5 was the mediator of the marriage, P.W.6 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 was the A.S.I. of Kujang Police Station, who was also a seizure witness. Page 4 of 28 P.W.8 was the I.O. of the case. The defence examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.1 and D.W.2. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial. 6. On the analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of commission of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. However, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. On each count, sentences have been awarded. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has arrived at the following conclusion:- “11.On a meticulous analysis of the proved facts and circumstances of the case, the Court arrives at the following verdicts; (i) Evidence of the P.Ws clearly established a case that the accused demanded some definite property (dowry) from P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were the father and brother respectively of the deceased and therefore he should be suitably dealt with for commission of the offence U/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (ii) As regards the offence U/s 498-A I.P.C. the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the accused being the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty by his willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. It has been proved that the deceased was subjected to harassment with a view to make some wrongful gain by way of unlawful demand of Page 5 of 28 property. Then, the offence U/s 498-A, I.P.C. has been brought home by the prosecution. (iii) As regards the alternative charges U/s 304-B and 306, I.P.C., it may be mentioned that having drawn a presumption U/s 113-A, Evidence Act, we can safely delete the charge u/s 304-B I.P.C. from consideration in as such as it has already been presented that the suicide has been committed works has been abetted by the accused. Section 304-B, I.P.C. recognized dowry dealt. Where death of a woman is caused by any burns, or bodily injury or occurs otherwise then under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage by showing that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. It is called dowry death. In the case at hand we have already obtained the conclusive opinion of the doctor that it is a case of suicide and not a case of homicide. Therefore, it is held that section 306 I.P.C. the appropriate offence which has been brought home by the prosecution against the accused beyond any semblance of doubt.” 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
25. This Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, held that to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or Page 19 of 28 mental state to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability. It was observed as under: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the Page 20 of 28 accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 26. On a careful and close consideration of the facts and the material on record in the present case and in light of the law laid down by this Court regarding Section 306, IPC, there appears no proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her subsequent death by hanging. The alleged incident of selling of gold ornaments and subsequent physical and mental harassment, as alleged, occurred almost a year before the FIR was registered at the instance of the father of the deceased. Even the statements of the deceased’s cousins only mention instances which occurred a year prior to the death of the deceased. Further, selling of gold ornaments and the Page 21 of 28 same was followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.” Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2024 INSC 1020, decided on 20 December 2024. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “25. Relying on the decision in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), this Court in the case of Gurjit Singh (supra) set aside the conviction Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as it was clear from the evidence on record that there was a time gap of about two months between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand for money by the Accused- Appellant and the date of commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, this Court held that there was nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the Accused-Appellant. This Court observed as follows: Page 22 of 28 the illegal demand and “36. It could further be seen from the evidence on record that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard the date of to commission of suicide is about two months. As such, there is nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the Appellant. In Sanju v. State of of M.P., v. [Sanju M.P. MANU/SC/0392/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141] this Court found that there was time gap of 48 hours between the Accused telling the deceased "to go and die" and the deceased "committing suicide". As such, this Court held that there was no material to establish that the Accused had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased." State : 2002:INSC:250 (emphasis supplied) 26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the Accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the Accused person. 27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that Page 23 of 28 the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the Accused-Appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows: “11. In the present case, taking the complaint of the third Respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the Appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third Respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the Appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the Appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third Respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits. 12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was not made out against the Appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.” (emphasis supplied)” Page 24 of 28 15. From the reading of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and statutory command flowing from Sections 107 and 306 of I.P.C., the two most important ingredients which attract the offence is that instigation must be of such intensity and in close proximity that force or pushes the deceased to take extreme step in life. The triggering incident should be close proximity to the incident, which cause sufficient instigation to the deceased to take the extreme step. In the instant case, it has prominenty borne on record that the incident had happened in the parental house of the deceased. The allegation as apparent from the evidence of the prosecution is general, omnibus and indefinite. There is no proximate incident which is of that intensity which could have triggered to push the deceased to commit suicide. No specific incident or allegation is made against the accused regarding any kind of physical assault being caused to the deceased in the form of harassment. That is apparent from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.6). Even none of the witnesses have narrated any such incident have happened closed proximity to the incident of commission of suicide rather all the witnesses have stated that the allegation of harassment either mental or physical was told to them by Page 25 of 28 the deceased are general and omnibus in nature. Law is well settled that mere allegation of harassment or quarreling between wife and husband without any serious intensified incident caused immediately preceding suicide would not fall under the category of abatement for the purpose of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, taking into account the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the view that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt to bring the element of abatement so as to justify conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 16. Accordingly, by extending the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. However, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act stands affirmed and sentence on the those counts as awarded by the learned trial Court is also confirmed. 17. At this stage, Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1991, at that point the appellant was about 28 years of age. At present, he is aged at Page 26 of 28 about 62 years. He also brought to the notice of this Court that during trial, the appellant was arrested on 06.05.1989 and was released on bail on 04.08.1989. Therefore, the appellant has already undergone custody for about three months. The impugned judgment was pronounced on 24.01.1991 and the appellant was released on bail on 30.01.1991. Therefore, post-conviction, he has already undergone custody for about six days. The total period of incarceration is about three months and six days. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter- productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, a lenient view should be taken and the sentence of the appellant be reduced to that of the period he has already undergone. 18. The submission made by Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, deserves merit. Accordingly, while Page 27 of 28 confirming the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under 498-A of I.P.C read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, I modify the sentence to that of the period the appellant has already undergone. However, to balance the scale of justice, it would be apt to impose a fine of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand) on the appellant, in default of which, he shall undergo R.I. for two months. The fine amount to be deposited by the appellant within one month shall be disbursed to the parents of the deceased/ LRs. in accordance with the provision of Section 357 Cr.P.C. 19. With this observation, the CRA is partly allowed. 20. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th December, 2025/Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Dec-2025 10:41:01 Page 28 of 28
Arguments
8. Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, by taking me to the evidence on record in extenso has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. According to him, the entire prosecution case rests Page 6 of 28 solely on the testimonies of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, which, upon close scrutiny, reveals material inconsistencies and contradictions. It is submitted that, except for certain general and omnibus allegations of dowry demand and cruelty said to have been meted out to the deceased, no specific overt act has been attributed to the appellant. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that, in order to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C., it must be proved that the deceased committed suicide and that such suicide was abetted by the accused. Thus, the prosecution is required to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, both the factum of suicide and the active or intentional abetment thereof by the appellant. In the present case, it is urged, there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence indicating any instigation, intentional aid, or active participation by the appellant in the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae further contended that Sections 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. constitute distinct and independent offences. While, in a given factual scenario, conduct amounting to cruelty under Section 498-A of I.P.C. may, in certain circumstances, lead to a conclusion of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of I.P.C., the latter does not Page 7 of 28 automatically follow from the former. The mere fact that an accused is found guilty of an offence under Section 498-A does not, by itself, warrant a conviction under Section 306 on the same set of evidence. In the instant case, the materials on record indicate that the deceased committed suicide while residing in her parental home. Hence, the alleged acts of cruelty said to have been inflicted by the appellant cannot be held to have had any proximate or direct connection with the act of suicide. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of additional dowry demands are vague, general in nature, and unsupported by any specific particulars as to the time, manner, or nature of the alleged acts. Learned Amicus Curiae highlighted several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence concerning the date, time, and place of occurrence, and urged that there is no specific accusation establishing any act or conduct on the part of the appellant that may be construed as abetment to suicide. On such premises, it is argued that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from serious infirmities and is not sustainable in law, warranting its interference and consequent setting aside. Page 8 of 28 10. On the contrary, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has read out the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. She has submitted that, P.W.3, who is the father of the deceased in his evidence, has stated, that there was demand of gold chain and wooden furniture at the time of marriage and due to the financial strain, he could not fulfil the demand made by the accused. Therefore, his daughter was consistently tortured. The said witness further deposed that four days before Pana Sankranti of 1989, when his daughter expired, he had been to her in-laws house. His daughter has informed him that due to non-fulfilment of the demand of gold chain and furniture, she was repeatedly assaulted by her husband. He has also stated that on 23.04.1989, his family members discovered that his daughter was hanging on the mango tree in the back side of their house. This testimony of P.W.3 stood corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the independent witnesses and P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased. 11. By reading out the evidence of these witnesses, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi submitted that the prosecution could not only establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt in regard to the demand of dowry and Page 9 of 28 subsequent harassment meted out to the victim (deceased) but also brought on record the evidence that four days before the suicide committed by the deceased, the father of the deceased (P.W.3) visited and she narrated the ordeal faced by her. That incident is very close proximate to the incident of suicide. Therefore, the ingredient of abatement as provided under Section 107 of I.P.C. is completely satisfied. 12. I have taken into consideration the argument advanced by both the parties and also read out the evidence. In so far as the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act regarding demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 are prominent. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. He in his examination-in- chief has stated that he had given marriage of his daughter to the accused-appellant in the year 1986. The marriage was a “Tola Kanya” marriage. At the time of marriage, as per the demand, he had promised to give a gold chain for his son-in-law and some wooden furniture, but due to the financial constraints, he could not made good the demand. However, all other necessary demanded materials were Page 10 of 28 given by him at the time of marriage. He further stated that just four days before the death of his daughter, when he visited her, she informed him that due to non-fulfillment of demand of gold chain and furniture, her husband had been constantly harassing and assaulting her. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the allegations of torture narrated by his daughter were general and indefinite in nature. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, who has very categorically deposed that the marriage proposal between his sister (the deceased) and the accused-appellant was finalized in the presence of one Kapila Patra. He further stated that the accused and his brother, Ramesh Chandra Swain demanded dowry of hard cash of Rs.3,000/- along with some gold ornaments and furniture. In the cross- examination, he has further stated that Rs.3,000/- was paid on the very same day, however, the gold ornaments, wooden furniture and other dowry articles could not be given to the accused due to financial difficulty being faced by the family. P.W.5 in the similar rigor has deposed that the accused persons at the time of negotiation of marriage has demanded dowry. However, he resiled out of his earlier statement that Rs.3,000/- as demanded by Page 11 of 28 the accused persons was paid in front of him. The said witness was declared hostile. P.W.5 was subjected to cross-examine by the prosecutor. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he was being told by the mother of the deceased that the deceased was being ill- treated by her husband for non-supply of gold chain and wooden furnitures. He also deposed that the deceased, who is his cousin sister, has also told him regarding the assault and abuses given by her husband for want of further dowry articles. The said witness further cross-examined by the defence. In the cross-examination, he has reiterated his stand saying that Keshab Chandra Swain, his father-in- law was present when Ajaya Swain paid the cash of Rs.3,000/- to the brother of the accused in their house at the time of negotiation. Therefore, taking into account the evidence of P.W.5 in its entirety, it is very clear that the accused persons have demanded dowry and the deceased was being subjected to harassment by the accused for want of dowry. This part of the version of P.W.5 is directly stood corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Hence, there cannot be any doubt regarding the nature of evidence being led by the prosecution to establish the case of demand of dowry being made by Page 12 of 28 the accused persons and subsequent harassment and ill-treatment given to the deceased by the accused for not satisfying the demand of gold chain and the wooden furniture. All the witnesses in regard to the aforementioned allegations are consistent in their evidence, although they were grilled by the defence in the cross-examination. This being so, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be found fault with. The reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in that regard is largely reflecting in paragraph-6 of the judgment. For the convenience of ready reference, paragraph-6 is reproduced hereunder:- “6. P.Ws 1 and 2 are the residents of Chhatrakandha. Both of them while proving marriage of the deceased with the accused have deposed that on 23.4.89 morning they on being informed about the death of Sobha came to the Bari of P.W.3 and found Sobha lying to the bari with a piece of rope tied to her neck, the other end of which was cut. According to P.W.1, two months before her death, Sobha had come to his house and on being asked by him regarding the affairs of her marital home she cried aloud and told him that her parents having not fulfilled the demands of her husband, promised to be given during marriage, the accused has been torturing her causing physical and mental agony. According to P.W.2, deceased Sobha came to Chhatrakandha during the Page 13 of 28 marriage ceremony of her brother Souri and during her stay there she came to his house and was telling him that her father had not given the gold chain and the wooden furniture to the accused, for which, he has been repeatedly abusing and assaulting her. She also alleged that other relatives of the accused in her marital home were also abusing and subjecting her to sufficient mental agony for want of inadequate dowry. P.W.3 the father who admits to have promised to give the gold chain and wooden furnitures to the accused (his son-in-law) but could not give these materials due to poverty. On many occasions the deceased had requested him to give those promised articles and she was narrating that she is often beaten by the accused for non-compliance thereof. The last visit of the father to the house of the deceased is 4 days after Pana Sankrati. The deceased died 9 days after Pana Sankrati. During P.W.3's last visit which is only 5 days before the death of Sobha she had reminded him to give the gold chain and wooden furnitures early to save her from repeated assaults by her husband. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased who has stated to have gone to the house of the accused for final negotiation of marriage with P.W.5. According to him, the accused and his brother demanded dowry of hard cash of Rs.3000/-, a gold chain and wooden furnitures. On that very day P.W.3 claim to have paid R.3000/- to the elder brother of the accused in presence of P.W.5 and the rest articles demanded were promised to be given after marriage. According to P.W.3, Sobha had visited their house for about 10 to 15 occasions after her marriage and before her death. During each of her visit she had requested him in keeping state to give the gold chain and wooden furnitures to the accused to save her from being beaten severely for non-supply of those materials. P.W.3 serves as a steno at Bhubaneswar and on being Page 14 of 28 the native place of informed about the death of his sister, he came to his village and finally approached the Superintendent of Police (Rural),Cuttack by submitting the application Ext.2, which was treated as the F.I.R. P.W.5 had acted as the middle man (MADHYASTI) in the marriage of the accused and the deceased in the year 1986. He is none but the sister's husband of the accused. Normally, such persons act as middle man in the talk for marriage negotiation. Moreover, P.W.5 was an advantageous position being a villager of Chhatrakandha the bride. According to P.W.5, the accused and his brother demanded dowry of Rs.3000/- in cash, a gold chain and some wooden furnitures such as cot and almirah. P.Ws.3 and 4 agreed to give the same. On that very day P.W.4 paid Rs.3000/- in cash to the brother of the accused whereafter the marriage was solemnized. Six months after the marriage of the accused with Sobha, P.W.5 had been to the house of the accused (P.W.5’s father-in-law’s house). He deposed that the accused told him then that P.W.3 has not given the gold chain and the wooden furnitures to the till then. He conveyed the mind of the accused to P.W.3 who wanted sine tune to supply those materials. Although P.W.5 was declared hostile by the prosecution, during leading questions by the prosecution to him, admitted to have asked Sobha regarding her condition at the marital home to which Sobha replied that her husband (accused) is abusing her as her father could not give the demanded articles as cowry. She also complained before him that the accused was often assaulting her for those dowry materials. Keeping in view the above discussed oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 let us consider the objection taken by the defence against acceptance of their evidence.” Page 15 of 28 Therefore, no plausible reason can be found to interfere with regard to the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, is affirmed. 13. Coming to the recording of conviction against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is essential to evaluate the evidence on record independent of the other offences. P.W.3, the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that his daughter died nine days after the “Pana Sankranti” in the year 1989. Four days before the Pana Sankaranti, he had visited his daughter. During the said visit, his daughter (deceased) informed that her husband has been assaulting and harassing as the demanded gold chain and furniture was not given. In the early morning of 23.04.1989, his wife and daughter-in-law has been to the backyard (bari) of his house and discovered that his daughter is hanging in a branch of mango tree. All of them ran to the place and took up the dead body of his daughter from their back courtyard. This part of the evidence is consistently found in the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Therefore, it is Page 16 of 28 evident that the death of Sobha, the deceased has occurred in her parent’s house. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 in their cross-examination have very categorically stated that “the deceased had alleged about the torture and harassment in an indefinite and general manner against her husband”. P.W.6 is the post-mortem doctor. He on his examination of the dead body of the deceased has found the following external and internal injuries:- “(1) Face swollen and congested, limbs cyanosed, eyes open and protrude, conjunctiva congested, pupils dilated from the mouth and nostrils, saliva sticking to the right side face from right angle of mouth to the cheek, nail beds border of mandible above thyroid cartilages placed obliquely with a width of 2.5 cm. The ligature mark encircles the neck with intervening healthy area over the nape of the neck. The knot appears on the left side of mastoid region. 2. On dissection I found the following internal injuries:- The mussels and sub-cutaneous tissues below the ligature mark is white glistening and patchment like. The mussels are torn. The carotid sheath is torn. The margin of the ligature marks is congested, and blood clots are seen. The internal organs like larynx, trachea, lungs, stomach, intestine, liver, spline and kidneys are congested. Uterus empty. The right side Page 17 of 28 of the heart is full with liquid blood and the left side is empty. The probable cause of death is asphyxia caused due to hanging. The injuries were ante- mortem in nature and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.” 14. Two things are eminent from the unison reading of the evidence of all the witnesses. Firstly, the death of the deceased is suicidal in nature and secondly, the death has caused in the parental house of the deceased. This aspect of the matter is also affirmed on the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. On the basis of the evidence of aforementioned nature, the law pertaining to the ingredient required to establish the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. needs to be dealt with. In catena of judgments, the law regarding the abatement of an offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. has been well settled. Abatement involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring charge under Section 306 of I.P.C., the act of abatement would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused persons being apparent from the face of record, charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. Abatement also requires an active act, Page 18 of 28 direct or indirect on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option rather to commit suicide. Suicide as such is not defined under the Code. However, the meaning and import is well known. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing” that implies an act of self-killing is suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. vrs. State of Gujurat reported in 2024 INSC 960, wherein it has been held as under:- “24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused’s role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused’s intent and its impact on the victim.