IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the deceased's suicide and the accused's abetment under Section 306 IPC, which influenced the court's decision to acquit the accused respondents.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.02.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi in Sessions Case No.94/2003, whereby, the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 120B, 306 and 494 IPC.

2. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons were continuously harassing the deceased Manju and after the delivery of three daughters, the accused persons subjected her to cruelty. Manju was thrown out of her marital house. Afterwards accused Radhyshyam filed a suit for restitution of conjugation rights. During the trial accused Radhyshyam documented a compromise with the deceased resulting retrieval of the deceased to her marital home. Thereafter deceased again became pregnant and presuming that the deceased would again deliver the baby girl her pregnancy was terminated. She was again subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of the marital house on 29.10.2021.

3. Afterwards, Radhyshyam filed a suit for divorce against the deceased and again took the deceased to the marital house. Thereafter, within three months accused persons hatched a conspiracy and murdered her.

4. The prosecution also alleges that fifteen days before the deceased death, Radhyshyam got married to another lady and was living with her. The police after an investigation charge-sheeted accused persons under Section 306 I.P.C. and did not find allegations of murder true.

5. Before dealing with the facts of the case it would be relevant to refer to the law concerning the abetment of suicide. The relevant provision contained in Section 306 I.P.C. reads as under:-

“306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

6. “Abetment of a thing” has been described in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:-

“107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who –

First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. — A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

7. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it implies that to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely whether the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC has to be established.

8. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential fact that the deceased Manju committed Suicide. PW-1 Ganeshlal is the complainant and the brother of the deceased. In his relevant cross-examination, he admitted that after getting the information about the deceased death, he went to the place of occurrence, where police officials were also present. At that time he did not submit any written report about the incident and even after conducting the postmortem of the deceased, he did not endeavour to file a written complaint against the accused persons. He also admitted that her niece Mamta was also present at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that the report was filed 5 to 6 days after the incident in consultation with the advocate. He stated his unawareness about mentioning the allegations of murder in the complaint. He also admitted that he does not know Kamla and he has not seen the Nata