The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between abetment to commit suicide and cruelty for demand of money, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 306 IPC and the affirmation of the conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.98 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 127/ 97 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.1000 u/s 306 and simple imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 498-A IPC, plus default stipulations.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that marriage of the deceased namely Asha Bai was solemnized with the accused/appellant herein about 2 years prior to the date of incident i.e. 05.07.97. It is alleged that on 5.7.1997 the deceased died in her matrimonial house after sustaining 100% bum injuries. Merg intimation Ex. P-2 was given to the police on that day itself and after merg investigation FIR Ex. P-16 was registered on 8.7.1997. Challan was filed on 28.07.97 u/s 306 of I.P.C. However, trial Court framed the charges against the accused/ appellant on 18.10.1997 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/ appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the accused• appellant of the charge under Section 304-8 IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that merely on the basis of general allegations made by the relatives of the deceased the accused/appellant has been convicted by the court below. According to him, even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is the offence under Section 306 LP.C. is not made out against the accused/appellant because there is no evidence on record to show that the accused/appellant had abetted the deceased in any manner whatsoever to commit suicide and that being so the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case. As regard the offence under Section 498-A J.P.C., counsel for the accused/appellant submits that as the basic ingredients needed for conviction under this Section are absent in this case, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted for the same.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/States supports the judgment impugned and submits that as from the very beginning the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused/appellant for the demand of Rs.25,000/- as has been clearly stated by the most of the witnesses, she had no other option but to commit suicide and therefore the findings recorded by the court below convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 306 & 498-A I.P.C. are just and proper and no interference there with is warranted.

7. Vinod Kumar (PW -1) is the ward boy who had given merg intimation (Ex.P-2). Nayeb Tahsildar G.R. Mahipal (PW-2) is a witness to inquest (Ex.P5). Dr. C.S. Mohabe (PW-3) is the witness who had first attended the deceased after hospitalization as a result of 100% burn injuries. Siya Ram Sahu (PW4) is the witness of seizure of Kerosene container, certain burnt clothes etc. made under (Ex.P-8). Pushai Bai (PW-5) - the aunt of the deceased has not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellant. Sant Ram (PW-6) the uncle of the deceased though has not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellant yet he has stated that once the deceased had visited his house and informed about her subjection to cruelty by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. He has categorically stated that the deceased had not disclosed to him anything against the present appellant. Laxman (PW -7)the father of the deceased has stated that one year after the marriage of the deceased he was informed by his daught