The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or provocation for a conviction under abetment of suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3^rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 174/2007 on 29.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 7 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "Dowry Act" for short).

1.1 Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala for the respondents submits that the respondent no. 2 – Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Makadia has expired on 12.06.2015 and submitted the copy of the death certificate issued by the Department of Health (Birth & Death), Rajkot Municipal Corporation which is taken on record. The certificate shows that the respondent no. 2 – Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Makadia has expired on 12.06.2015 and the death has been registered with Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Department of Health (Birth & Death) on 15.06.2015. In view of the above, the case against the respondent no. 2 stands abated.

1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 That the accused no. 1 - Rakesh Mansukhbhai Makadia was the husband of deceased Shilpaben, accused no. 2 was the father-in-law of Shilpaben, accused no. 3 was the mother-in-law and accused no. 4 was the sister-in-law of deceased Shilpaben who had married the accused no. 1 before 09.09.2007. That all the accused were illtreating the deceased Shilpaben for dowry and they used to taunt and mentally harass her to bring dowry from her parental house. On 09.09.2007 at around 10:30 hours, deceased Shilpaben took her 1½ year old son Siddh in her lap and sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself and her son Siddh ablaze and she committed suicide due to the mental and physical harassment of the accused and a complaint was filed by Gajendrakumar Maganbhai Makhansa - the brother of deceased Shilpaben before the Dy.S.P Jetpur which was registered at Bhayavadar Police Station 1 – C.R. No. 42/2007 under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 and 7 of Prohibition of Dowry Act on11.09.2007.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 174/2007.

2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 2 to 5 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced 14 oral evidences and 17 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 45, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step