Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J:- Ravinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Amritsar, was married to Satpal Singh in November, 1982. She died on 25th June, 1983 at about 2.30 p.m. She, it was alleged, committed suicide because of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws soon after her marriage. She used to visit her parents at Amritsar occasionally and during those visits she used to tell them that there was demand for dowry and also taunting of her by the members of the family of her in-laws and also insinuation that she was carrying an illegitimate child. There are (is) sufficient, relevant and acceptable evidence to that effect. It is alleged that provoked by the aforesaid conduct and behaviour, she committed suicide. The father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of the accused have been the abettors to the crime. The evidence further established that she died of second to third degree burns on the body, and there was sprinkling of kerosene oil on her body and the body was burnt by fire. Accused No. 3 - Smt. Kamal Dip Kaur, the mother-in-law of the deceased and the mother of the accused Satpal Singh, stated in her statement under S. 313 Cr. P.C. that she was lying in her house at that time and the deceased was cooking food on a kerosene stove, and as such the deceased caught fire accidentally.

2. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that there was absence of burn injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law and other members of the family. As mentioned before, he deceased was married in November, 1982. After marriage, she used to stay in the house of her in-laws at Raja Sansi. The deceased used to visit the house of her parents at Amritsar occasionally, as noted before. During these visits she used to tell them that her in-laws were not happy with the dowry given to the latter. It is further on evidence that she complained that her in-laws used to taunt her and insisted on her to bring more dowry. It is stated that she complained that the in-laws taunted her that at the time of the marriage, her parents did not serve proper meals to the in-laws and the their guests. It is further stated that the accused used to tell her that they had been offered fridge etc. by other parties for the marriage of the accused while she had not brought dowry expected from her parents. It is also on evidence that she was often openly threatened that she would be turned out of the house in case she did not bring more articles. These were all established by the evidence of Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased and his two daughters. It was insinuated of her by the accused that she was carrying an illegitimate child.

3. On the totality of the evidence on record, it was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused were guilty of abetment to suicide and as such punishable under S. 306 of the I.P.C. The High Court on appeal was of the view that the guilt of the accused had not been proved, and as such acquitted them.

4. The first thing that is necessary for proving the offence is the fact of suicide. Abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided the thing abetted is an offence. Abetment does not involve the actual commission of the crime abetted; it is a crime apart. See the observations of Barendra Kumar Ghosh, ILR 52 Cal 197. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no direct evidence of the act of suicide by Ravinder Kaur. There, indeed, could not be in the circumstances in which she died. She was in the house of her in-laws.There is ample and sufficient evidence that she had complained that she was taunted for bringing meagre dowry and that (it was) even insinuated that she was carrying an illegitimate child. The aforesaid facts stand established by cogent and reliable evidence. These are grave and serious provocations enough for an ordinary woman in the Indian setup, to do what the deceased is alleged to have done. There is also evidence that the persons in the house of her in-laws including the mother-in-l