IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide for conviction under Section 306 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-11-1998, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.173/1997, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. It is noteworthy that under the decision in question above, the trial court had acquitted the accused of the said offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 304-B of IPC as it was not proved against the appellant.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant-Dilip Kumar Gupta was married to Sunita on 11/05/1995. After the marriage, the appellant herein continuously demanded color TV, VCR, scooter, gold chain and money in the form of dowry, and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the appellant, after consuming liquor used to give physical and mental torture to his wife Sunita. As a result of which, on 04/01/1997, Sunita set her ablaze by pouring kerosene upon her, thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. After examination by Dr. S.P. Vaishya (PW-9), Sunita was found fit to give statement, on which her dying declaration Ex.P-18 was recorded by Executive Magistrate B.C. Ekka (PW-16), in which, she stated that her husband/appellant-Dilip Kumar Gupta used to come in drunken condition and, hence, she set her ablaze. As a result of death of his wife-Sunita within 07 years, merg was registered. The post-mortem of dead body of Sunita(deceased) was conducted. Broken bangles, half-burnt clothes etc. were seized from the spot and the same were sent for chemical examination to FSL. The crime was registered at P.S.- Balrampur vide Ex.P-11 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Statements of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied circumstances appearing against him in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. He stated that he married to Sunita without any demand of dowry, he was not at home when his wife-Sunita set her ablaze. He does not drink alcohol and has not assaulted his wife-Sunita. In defence, the appellant Dilip Kumar Gupta has examined Ram Gopal Pandey, Head Constable of Balrampur police station, who has given information about the dying declaration of deceased (Sunita) by submitting rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P-19 recorded on 04/01/1997, according to which, Sunita(deceased) dying declaration of Sunita (deceased) was recorded on that date.

5. After hearing both the parties, the trial court did not find it proved that Sunita was tortured for dowry soon before her death. It was also found that the relationship between husband and wife was cordial. The statement of the father and brother of the deceased-Sunita was found to be an exaggeration but on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased- Sunita, it was found to be proved that the appellant used to drink alcohol and as a result of the said act of the appellant, his wife-Sunita committed suicide and hence, the appellant-Dilip Kumar Gupta was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced for the offense under Section 306 of IPC, which has been challenged in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for abetment under Section 107 of IPC, some instigation, conspiracy or assistance is necessary, which has not been proved in this case. Jugal Prasad Sahu (PW-1), father of Sunita(deceased) has admitted in paragraph 52 of his evidence that his daughter-Sunita was unhappy due to the death of her child at the time of birth and thus, in fact, the reason for suicide by Sunita was being disappointment, due to the death of her newborn baby girl. The appellant was not induced to torture her in an