The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation or aid in committing suicide. The judgment also emphasizes the need for scrupulous examination of facts and circumstances in cases of alleged abetment of suicide.

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants Under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 08.04.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Churu Camp at Rajgarh in sessions Case No. 102/1992 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:-

1. under section 306 IPC - To five years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple additional imprisonment.

2. under section 498-A IPC- To Nine months Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple additional imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case are that PW/2 Umrao Khan complainant filed a written report in which he has mentioned that his daughter Chhoti @ Sarafat Bano was married with accused appellant Hanift Khan about ten years back. At the time of the marriage, he gave sufficient dowry along with gold and silver ornaments. After this wedlock, one son was born after about two years of the marriage. At that time also he gave gold and silver ornaments. After four years of the marriage, the accused appellant Hanif Khan went to Iraq, then his daughter visited her parental house and she narrated that her husband and mother-in-law both harassed her and demanded more dowry. Hanif Khan resided in Iraq about seven months and when he came , he sent back his daughter to her parental house. Then she again narrated that her husband and her mother-in-law both started beating and they also snatched her gold ornaments and demanded dowry. She also told that her "Nanad" Hamida told to her husband to leave her and arrange second marriage. His daughter resided about three years in her parental house because her husband Hanif Khan went for earning livelihood at Nasik and other places. About two years back, Hanif Khan promised the comlpainant that in future he will not harass Chhoti @ Sarafat Bano Consequently, the complainant sent back his daughter with Hanif Khan where she resided for about four months and again came back because her husband again went to Nasik. Hanif Khan visited the complainant's house about one year back and again he promised that in future he will not harass his daughter. After some time, the complainant's daughter wrote a letter. When she again visited her parental house, at that time she was not wearing any gold ornaments and she told that all the gold ornaments were kept by her husband. About two and half month back his daughter went to her in-laws house and she demanded her gold ornaments then her husband and mother-in-laws both starting quarrelling with her. The complainant received a letter that Chhoti expired on 18.07.1990.

3. The complainant also received some letters from his daughter as well as her husband in which he came to know that Hanfi Khan was having illicit relation with another woman and they killed my daughter Chhoti. On the said report, the Police registered the FIR No.180/1990 for offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC and started investigation. After due investigation police filed challan against the accused-appellant for the offence under section 306, 498-A IPC before the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Rajgarh. Later on this case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Churu Camp at Rajgarh.

4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, framed charges against accused-appellant for offences under Sections 498A & 306 IPC. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in all and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 On the defence side, statement of DW/1 Lal Mohd. Singh and Dw/2 Chandrabhan were recorded.

6. At the conclusion of the