To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of accused to aid or to instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Active role has to be played by accused persons in instigating or aiding the doing of a thing before a person can be said to be abetting the offence u/s.306 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

1. Here, original accused - convict Vithal has taken exception to judgment and order of conviction passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dtd. 14/12/2002, by which he is held guilty for commission of offence under Sec. 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT

2. Daughter of informant, namely, Ranjana was eldest amongst other daughters and was married to accused Vithal who was resident of Islampur. After marriage, she went to reside with her husband and father-in-law Taterao. According to informant, everything was smooth for a period of five years. Informant lost her husband who was in service in railway department and she took appointment on compassionate ground and also received pension of deceased husband. Accused - Vithal started pressurizing Ranjana to bring money from her mother, i.e. out of pension received by informant - mother and he also pressurized her to seek share in agricultural land of his father by saying that she had no brother. On both counts, informant claims that, Ranjana was harassed. Thereafter, informant once paid Rs.3,000.00 to accused- Vithal and subsequently Rs.1500.00 for construction of well as demanded by accused. Informant herself as well as by indulging her acquaintance, namely, Taterao Bokhare, Trimbakrao Bokhare, Bhimrao Bokhare, Prabhakar Bokhare and Subhash Bokhare tried to give understanding to accused and requested to cohabit peacefully and not to harass Ranjana, but still harassment continued. Just before Diwali festival, deceased Ranjana had come to the informant and informed about the harassment mated out to her by husband. According to informant, accused no.2 i.e. father-in-law of deceased used to instigate his son accused no.1, who used to beat her. One day, accused no.1 husband came to the house of informant and asked whether Ranjana has come there and on inquiry he told that she is not in his house since one day. Subsequently, accused - Vithal again informed her that dead body of Ranjana is floating in their well and therefore, informant lodged complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. husband and father-in-law of deceased Ranjana, on the strength of which, crime was registered with Purna Police Station for the above offence.

3. Investigation commenced and after gathering sufficient evidence against accused, they were charge-sheeted. At trial prosecution examined in all six witnesses and sought reliance on various documentary evidence like FIR, inquest panchanama, postmortem report, spot panchanama etc. Defence refused to lead any evidence and faced trial. Learned trial Judge appreciated oral and documentary evidence and reached to the finding that prosecution has succeeded in bringing home charges as against husband accused- Vithal only. Finding no evidence against father-in-law, he stood acquitted. Thus, impugned judgment and order of conviction of accused No.1 is now challenged before us by way of instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that prosecution case was weak on all counts and there was no trustworthy, reliable evidence on behalf of prosecution. However, still learned trial Judge accepted the case of prosecution and recorded the guilt of accused.

Secondly, required ingredients for attracting offence of abetment to commit suicide were not at all available evidence of prosecution, however, learned trial Judge has held accused - appellant guilty and convicted him. That, there is total non appreciation of evidence on record and settled legal position has been lost sight of.

Thirdly, there is no material whatsoever in support of allegation of ill treatment and commission of offence under Sec. 498-A of IP