In order to establish the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the victim to commit suicide. Similarly, to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused subjected the victim to physical or mental torture of such a nature that it was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health.

1. THIS Appeal has been filed at the instance of Amir Sk. @ Kachai, the convict and is directed against the judgment and order passed on 5.8.1988 by the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan, thereby sentencing the appellant to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and further sentence the appellant to suffer R.I. for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for committing the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

2. THE case of the prosecution in the learned trial Court, in short, is that the marriage between Arambanu @ Puti and the appellant Amir Sk. took place about 6 and 1/2 years ago from the date of filing of the FIR and in the said marriage, 10 cottas of landed property was given by the elder brother of Arambanu @ Puti. Arambanu was pressurized in her matrimonial house to bring money from her paternal house. She was subjected to physical and mental torture because of her failure to bring money to meet that demand. THE elder brother of Arambanu had given money time to time to the in-laws of Arambanu to solve the problem but everything was proved fruitless. On 16.10.2000, the elder brother of Arambanu received information that his sister Arambanu died after taking Poison. THE elder brother of Arambanu i.e. Sk.Surman strongly believed that his sister Arambanu @ Puti could not bear physical and mental torture inflicted on her by the appellant, her husband and other in laws and therefore, she commited suicide. She lodged one FIR with Memari Police Station which was registered as Memari Police Station Case No. 186 of 2000 dated 17.10.2000 under Section 498A and 306 of IPC. THE investigation into the case ended into a charge under Section 498A and 306 of I .P.C against the appellant Sk. Amir @ Kacnai, Sabera Bibi and Manija Bibi. THE learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498A/304 B and 306 of IPC against the Appellant Amir Sk. @ Kachai and Manija Bibi. Another accused Sabera Bibi died and, as such, no charge was framed against her. THE appellant Amir Sk. and co-accused Manija Bibi pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.

3. THE learned trial Court recorded evidence of 14 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant in course of trial. THE FIR, inquest report, seizure lists, sketch of the P.O., post mortem report etc. were admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution.

4. UPON consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned trial Court found that the appellant committed the offence under Section 306 and 498A of IPC and accordingly, recorded his sentence by the judgement and order impugned. Another case accused Manija Bibi, however, was found not guilty to any of the charges framed against her. She was acquitted.

5. THE appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:-

a) that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper and true perspective;

b) that the learned Court failed to take note of the fact that there were discrepancies in the facts stated in the FIR and the facts stated by the witnesses in course of trial on material points;

c) that the learned Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house amounting to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC;

d) that the learned Court failed to consider that the witnesses made inconsistent statements which did not corroborate to each and other;

e) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the immediate nexus of the incident alleged with the allegation of cruelty;

f) that the learned Court ignored the evidence of the P.W. 8 and P.W. 11 without assigning acceptable reason;

g) that the learned Court failed to take note that no