Point of Law: Section 107 of IPC, which reads as Abetment of a thing—A person abets doing of a thing, who— Firstly — Instigates any person to do that thing.

JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2000, whereby appellants have been convicted for offence defined under Section 306 of IPC and have sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI of six months.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Shiv Kumari (since deceased) was married to appellant-Ramavatar and residing in her matrimonial home at village-Ghothiya, Police Station-Kawardha. On 01.04.1999, at about 6 pm, Shiv Kumari suffered burn injuries. She was taken to the Hospital. During the course of treatment, her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She died on 06.04.1999 at about 2 pm. Based upon merg intimation, FIR was registered on 10.04.1999 by the Investigating Officer (PW8). After completion of investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction against appellants for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC and they were put to trial.

3. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, such as PW1 Dhanesh Das, PW2 Chandrahas, PW3 Dr KK Sharma, PW4 Anjoriya Bai PW5 Maniram, PW6 Sawaldas, PW7 Bhuneshwar, PW8 SSS Bhadoriya and PW9HC Nag; and exhibited 22 documents, ExP1 & P7Spot Map, ExP2 Information to Police Station by Doctor, ExP3 MLC report of Shiv Kumari, ExP4 Medical Case Report, ExP5 Application for medical examination of victim, ExP6 Application for recording dying declaration of victim, ExP8 & 18 Seizure Memo, ExP9 & 10 FIR, ExP11 Merg intimation, ExP12 to P16 Arrest memo, Ex.P17 Request for FSL report, Ex.P19 Agreement, Ex.P20 Postmortem report, and Ex.P22 Dying declaration to prove charges levelled against appellants. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court, discussing evidence available on record, held that prosecution proved charges levelled against appellants and convicted them for commission of offence and sentenced as mentioned above.

4. Ms Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Court erred in convicting appellants under Section 306 of the IPC, without there being any proof of ingredients under Section 107 of the IPC. She submits that to bring home the guilt under Section 306 of the IPC, prosecution is required to prove that appellants/accused instigated the deceased; the persons engaged in conspiracy for doing of that thing, intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. None of aforementioned three ingredients is present in the facts of case. She submits that witnesses examined by prosecution before the trial Court have not stated in specific terms that appellants have instigated deceased to commit suicide or they have intentionally aided by means of any act to do the said act. But from the evidence it appears that deceased was not having cordial relationship with her in-laws as she was having suspicion upon character of her husband. She also pointed out that witness-1 and 2, Ghanesh Das and Chandrahas, who are residents of same village where deceased was residing, have clearly stated that there was some quarrel of deceased with her husband on account of suspicion raised by her on the character of her husband. No admissible piece of evidence is brought on record by prosecution that appellant Ramavatar, husband of deceased, is having illicit relationship with any other woman, but bald allegations have been levelled against appellant-Ramavatar. Referring to evidence of PW4 Anjoriya Bai, mother of deceased, she would argue that allegations levelled against appellant of ill-treatment and harassment is false because mother of deceased in her evidence before the trial Court has stated that her daughter is residing properly in her matrimonial home. In her evidence, this witness further stated that whenever deceased used to visit her parental home, she informed her that she is residing properly in he