The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish the accused's conduct that drove the deceased to commit suicide and the cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide, emphasizing the distinction between abetment of suicide and cruelty under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Abetment of Suicide - Section 107, Section 306, Section 498-a, Section 113a of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act, focusing on the distinction between abetment of suicide and cruelty, and the application of presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. The court emphasized the need to establish the conduct of the accused which drove the deceased to commit suicide and the cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide. The court also highlighted the distinction between Sections 306 and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the difference in intention and the need for evidence to prove the charges.
Fact of the Case:

A married woman died under unnatural circumstances after alleged torture by her husband. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498a/306 of the Indian Penal Code based on evidence, but the appellant appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence did not establish the appellant's primary intention to instigate his wife to commit suicide, leading to the acquittal under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court upheld the conviction under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code based on the victim's dying declaration and willful conduct of the appellant.
Issues: The court considered whether the evidence proved abetment of suicide and cruelty under Section 306 and Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, and the distinction between the two charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish the accused's conduct that drove the deceased to commit suicide and the cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide. It also highlighted the distinction between Sections 306 and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the difference in intention and the need for evidence to prove the charges.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 for the offence under Section 498a.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The moot question involved in the instant appeal is whether on conviction of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code naturally follows or not.

Law on this point is no longer res integra. The relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code that falls for consideration are as under:-

Section 107: 'abatement of a thing.- a person abets the doing of a thing who-

First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing'.

Section 306. abatement of suicide.

'If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine'.

Section 498-a. Husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation .-For the purposes of this section, 'Cruelty'means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand]

along with the above-mentioned provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Section 113a of the Evidence act, 1872 also requires consideration. and the said provision runs thus:-

Section 113a.-

'Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman'. -When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in section 498a of the IPC (45 of 1860.)".

a married lady had met with an unnatural death after twenty years of marriage on 16th March, 2014. The mother of the deceased Smt. Rekha Dutta lodged a written complaint with the Inspector-In-Charge, Contai P.S. alleging, inter alia, that marriage of her deceased daughter was solemnized according to Hindu rites and Ceremonies with the appellant, named, Sankar Shyamal. after few months of marriage Sankar started torturing her both physically and mentally on illegal demand of money. The deceased used to work in N.R.G.S Project during her lifetime. Her husband demanded the said money from her because he was intoxicated to liquor and gambling. During her lifetime, the de facto complainant and other family members of her paternal side tried to settle the dispute amicably. The de facto complainant personally requested the appellant not to inflict torture upon her but on 10th March, 2014, the deceased informed her brother that the appellant was inflicting unbearable torture upon her on demand of money which she saved for the future of her children. The brother of the deceased told her that she would go to her matrimonial home on the next day. However, on that very night, the deceased received severe burn injury. She was admitted to Contai S.D. Hospital. O