IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘DP Act’). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad City imposed sentences of 3 years, 10 years and 5 years respectively for the aforesaid offences and fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The accused married Kantaben (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in 1989. Soon after two years of his marriage, the accused started inflicting mental and physical torture on her and she was taunted by the accused for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage. He also demanded from the victim an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a house. He even wrote letters to the in-laws and demanded Rs.40,000/- for purchasing the house. The demand was persistent. Even threats were administered to the deceased and her family members. Thus, the accused inflicted mental and physical torture on the victim which prompted her to commit suicide by burning herself on 23-03-1999 after pouring kerosene on her body. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of DP Act. The complaint was given by Dhulagiri Gumangiri Goswami on 17.5.1999. On the strength of the complaint given by the complainant investigation was carried out. The place where the suicide was committed by the victim was visited and the panchnama of the place of incident was prepared in the presence of the panch-witnesses. Statements of the witnesses from the neighbourhood were recorded. The injured was immediately rushed to the hospital for providing necessary treatment. Muddamal seized was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of detailed analysis. On the death of the victim, the inquest panchnama was prepared and the dead body was sent for autopsy. The appellant was arrested during the course of investigation. On receipt of the report from FSL, the post-mortem report along with other material, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the DP Act. He was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. Seventeen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. The trial court found that the letters written by the accused clearly established the demand of dowry and further the suicide was clearly abetted by the acts and conduct of the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction was recorded and sentences were imposed as afore-stated.

In appeal, the High court concurred with the views of the trial Court.

4. In support of the appeal, it was submitted that the letters whereby the alleged demand of dowry was made has not been signed by the appellant and even has not been addressed to anyone. There was no material to show that the appellant had subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to instigate her to commit suicide. The evidence on record shows that the appellant had purchased valuable silver ornaments for the deceased and in his insurance policy, the deceased was shown to be his nominee. Their relation was otherwise cordial. Since the substratum of the allegations of dowry and harassment were letters, their authenticity having not been established the trial Court and the High Court should not have relied upon the same.

5. It is pointed out that the accused