In order to establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide. The dying declarations of the deceased are admissible in evidence, but they must be recorded in accordance with the legal requirements and must be reliable. The evidence of other prosecution witnesses must be credible and sufficient to corroborate the dying declarations.

The subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal is the judgment and order dated 30.06.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1/1985 convicting the appellants under section 306 IPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. I have heard Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bhramanand Sandu, learned Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan.

3. The prosecution case is traceable to a statement made by the deceased Seema Devi w/o Naresh Kumar before Police on 29.09.1984 at Military Hospital, Jaipur (Exhibit-P7) to the effect that her brother-in-law Narottam nurtured a vulgar attitude towards her and for that the members of her in-laws family used to call her unchaste. She, however, stated that there was no demand for dowry. She alleged that when she disclosed the above to her husband, he also did not accept her version and instead started suspecting her and thus, being extremely depressed and frustrated, she had doused her in kerosene oil and set herself on fire to end her life. On this statement, the Police lodged a criminal case and on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant No.1 (brother-in-law of the deceased) and appellant No.2 (mother-in-law of the deceased). Noticeably, no charge-sheet was laid against her husband. The appellants were charged under Section 306 IPC, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the Police Officer, who had recorded a second statement of the deceased (Exhibit-P7) and also the Investigating Officers. The appellants, in course of their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, abided by their denial of charge. They also examined witnesses in defence. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court, however, convicted and sentenced them as above.

4. Mr. Bajwa has strenuously urged that the prosecution having failed to prove either the complicity of the appellants as alleged or the ingredients of the offence alleged, the learned trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing them as recorded in the impugned judgment and order. Referring to the charge framed against the appellants, the learned counsel has urged that it would be apparent therefrom that the same referred to one stray incident of 28.09.1984, purportedly instigating the deceased to commit suicide which per se is erroneous in law and on that count alone, they ought to have been acquitted. Mr. Bajwa drew the attention of this Court to the statement of the deceased recorded on the very same date i.e. 29.09.1984 at the Military Hospital, Jaipur earlier in point of time by Major J.B. Thottakury (PW-6) at the Military Hospital, Jaipur to highlight the variance thereof from one Exhibit-P7, thus, demolishing the case of the prosecution and insisted that on that count alone, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. Learned counsel has argued that it being apparent from the evidence adduced that prior to the recording of these statements, neither the physical and mental state of the deceased had been examined and certified by a doctor to be fit for making the same, the learned court below ought not to have acted thereon, more particularly, as those had not been recorded in presence of a Magistrate. Without prejudice to these, Mr. Bajwa has argued that even if, the contents of these documents Exhibits-P1 & P7 are accepted on their face value, these do not constitute the ingredients of Sections 107 & 306 IPC and therefore, the learned trial court, at the first instance, ought to have discharged the appellants. Learned counsel referring to the testimony of other witnesses of the prosecution, principally PW-1 to PW-5, has urged that the same being