The necessity of credible evidence and proximate instigation for conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Mukta Gupta, J.;—

1. By the present appeal, the Appellants impugn the judgment dated 9th November, 2010 convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 and 306/34 IPC and the order dated 16th November 2010 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 5000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC. In case of default in payment of fine the Appellants were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the deceased died due to hanging on 6th December, 2005 however the FIR was registered belatedly on 9th January, 2006 after a period of 35 days as the SDM could not fix the responsibility on anyone. Thus, the FIR itself was an afterthought wherein on the basis of false allegations the Appellants and the husband of the deceased were implicated. The husband of the deceased has been acquitted on the same evidence and the Appellants who are the two sisters-in- law and the mother-in-law of the deceased have been convicted and sentenced to maximum punishment. No suicide note was left by the deceased. The version of the PWs even regarding alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/- is a clear improvement from their previous statements and they have been duly confronted with the same. As a matter of fact, the crossexamination of each witness shows that their examination-in-chief is full of material improvements. The Appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 306 and 498AIPC for the reason that they used to taunt the deceased for having relations with the cousin of the husband who was living in the same house. Even as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses the alleged taunts took place before Raksha Bandhan and there is no evidence that the deceased was taunted thereafter. The deceased committed suicide on 6th December, 2005 and thus there is no instigation by the Appellant which led the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations of demand of Rs. 50,000/- are against the husband Anil Kumar who has been acquitted and thus the Appellants are also liable to be acquitted on the same parity. Learned Trial Court has relied upon Ex.P-1, a list of demanded items prepared at the time of Karva Chauth. The list Ex.P1 are items which are required for rituals and are not costly items for which demand of dowry could have been alleged. PW10 the cousin of the Appellant No.1 & 3 has denied that there was any alleged relationship between him and the deceased or that the deceased was taunted for the same. Reliance is placed on Ashok Vishnu Davare Vs. State of Maharashtra II (2004) SLT 2004 to contend that if glaring material improvements are there in the statement of witnesses, the same affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case and it is not safe to base the conviction thereon. Relying on Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana IX (2006) SLT 639 it is contended that purported demand should have a direct nexus or immediate cause for commission of suicide by the deceased, otherwise the same would not amount to abetment of suicide. Reliance is also placed on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 687 (SC).

3. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the marriage between the parties lasted only for 10 months. On the date of incident itself the statement of mother was recorded. Since SDM did not specifically write the Sections under which action was to be taken, there was delay in registration of FIR which has been clarified by PW14 the investigating officer and the two Police officials called as Court witnesses CW1 and CW2. Besides the harassment caused to the deceased alleging relations with the cousin of the husband, the continuous course of mental cruelty was inflicted on the deceased by demanding Rs. 50,000/-. The deceas