Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or abetment, mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

ORDER :

1. The appellant State has filed the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 29.02.1992 passed by learned Special Judge, Women Attrocities Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 55/1990 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted from the offences under Section 306 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written complaint before the S.H.O, Police Station Khanda Falsa with the allegation that his daughter Pushpendra was married to respondent Manohar Singh and the respondent even prior to marriage, was having illicit relationship with his niece Mahendra. The deceased found the letters exchanged between the accused respondent and Mahendra, therefore, the accused started torturing his daughter and she committed suicide. On this report a FIR No. 45/1982 was registered against the respondent for offence under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, challan was presented against the respondent before the competent court.

3. The trial Court framed charge against the accused respondent for offence under Section 306 IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of seventeen witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded but he did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondent for the charge under Section 306 IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondent for the offence charged against him. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses and documents in correct perspective. It is submitted that the letters exchanged between the respondent and his niece proved that there was extra marital relations between them due to which the deceased got mentally tortured. It is further argued that the accused respondent had even taken away mangalsootra from the deceased and also used offensive words against the wife. Further as per provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, since the suicide was committed within seven years of marriage, presumption has to be drawn against the husband. It is argued that there were direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence which proved the guilt of the accused respondent however, the trial court ignored the statement of prosecution witnesses. It is argued that the cumulative behaviour of the accused respondent towards the wife compelled the deceased to commit suicide but the learned trial court ignored the medical evidence brought on record which resulted into erroneous acquittal of the accused respondent. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the offence charged against him.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent accused argued that the prosecution primarily relied upon the extra marital relationship between the accused and niece Mahendra Kumari whereas, the exchange of letter happened between them till marriage of accused and last time in the month of September, 1978 whereas, the deceased committed suicide in the month of June, 1982. Moreover, the deceased had knowledge about these letters in the month of November, 1978 itself and same were hidden by the deceased herself, therefore, it cannot be said that due to exchange of these letters and illicit relationship, the deceased committed suicide. Thus in order to bring home the conviction for the offence under Section 306, IPC, the evidence of abetment by the accused respondent would have to be viewed in the light of the provisions of Section 107, IPC. It is submitted that in the present case, Clause (1) of Section 107 IPC alone is applicable and the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent had instigated the deceased to commit s