In order to establish the offence of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the necessary mens rea, which is the intention to instigate or persuade the victim to commit suicide.

1. - This is an appeal against the judgment dated 21st October 1974 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicting and sentencing the accused appellant Mst. Jeet Kaur under Section 306 Indian Penal Code to 15 days simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts briefly stated are these : The accused is step mother of Inderjeet Singh of Karanpur. Deceased Sahab Kaur was married to Inderjeet Singh 6 or 7 years before the incident. Illicit relations between Inderjeet Singh and his step mother were suspected by Sahab Kaur and therefore, the relations of Sahab Kaur with her mother-in-law were strained. On 30-6-73 at about 7 30 a.m. Mst. Sahab Kaur committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting fire to her body in the kitchen of her house at Karanpur. The shrieks of Sahab Kaur attracted neighbors including P.W. 2 Malkiyat Singh, P.W. 4 Preetam Singh, P.W. 5 Balwant Singh and P.W. 6 Ramgang. These witnesses and other neighbours extinguished the fire Mst. Sahab Kaur was removed to the Government Dispensary Karanpur where she succumbed to her injuries. Dr C.H. Sharma conducted the autopsy & confirmed the cause of death due to burns and reported the matter to the S.H.O. Karanpur The S.H.O. Jagmal Ram of Police Station, Karanpur conducted enquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that Sahab Kaur committed suicide, however nothing was found against Jeet Kaur. There was a public agitation that Jagmal Ram had not conducted the enquiry impartially &, then fore, on 17-7-73 the enquiry was entrusted to the Circle Officer Arjun Singh who sent a report to the police station, Karanpur with the allegation that Mst. Sahab Kaur had committed suicide and she was abetted by accused Jeet Kaur. After the case was registered under Section 306 Indian Penal Code against accused jeet Kaur, statements of the three eyewitnesses Mst. Ramlubhai, Malkiyat Singh and Satya Narain were recorded. A challan was filed in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Karanpur who committed the accused to face Sessions trial for the said offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. During the trial the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ramlubhai, P.W. 2 Malkiyat Singh and P.W. 3 Satya Narain as eye witnesses of the incident and P.W. 4 Preetam Singh P.W. 5 Balwant Singh and P.W. 6 Ramganga who reached the scene of incident soon after the incident. P.W. 7 Mehtab Kaur, P.W. 8 Harnam Singh and P.W. 9 Karan Singh were examined to prove the strained relation between Sahab Kaur with her husband Inderjeet Singh & accused Jeet Kaur. P.W. 10 Jagmal Ram is the SHO Karanpur who registered the case on the first information report made by the Circle Officer. Arjun Singh and also who conducted the enquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code. Strang-(sic), enough the Investigating Officer Arjun was not examined, by the prosecution.

3. The learned Sessions Judge somehow believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge repelled the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that there was no plausible explanation for the delay in lording the FIR on the ground that it was not possible earlier as Jagmal Ram did not conduct the enquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code impartially. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no positive evidence was led in this case to show that Jagmalram did not conduct the enquiry under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code impartially. Inquiry case the FIR was delayed and, therefore, the possibility of concocted case against the accused could not be ruled out and the learned Sessions Judge was in error in lot closely scrutinising the statements of the eye witnesses I am inclined to agree with the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant The learned Sessions Judge failed to advance any cogent reason to hold the three eye witnesses r