The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence such as harassment, suicide notes, and expert reports in proving the elements of abetment under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC, emphasizing the requirement of mens rea and specific intent for abetment.

Heard Mr. S. Muthalraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. J. Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I) Thoothukudi in S.C. No. 221 of 2007 dated 23.11.2007.

3. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo further two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and the trial Court ordered the sentence to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.1995, the deceased married the accused and they had two male children and one female child. The accused used to harass his wife demanding more dowry. On 22.11.2003, the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused before the All Women Police Station, Pudukottai. Even after being compromised, the accused assaulted and harassed the deceased. On 27.07.2005, the accused assaulted his wife and scolded his father-in-law and deceased and thereby, inducing her to commit suicide.

5. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 turned hostile and except P.Ws.1,2 and 5 other occurrence witnesses are hostile and rest of the witnesses are official witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses. The eye witness P.W.6 is the minor boy of the deceased who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased.

6. It is further argued that the marriage took place 10 year prior to the date of the occurrence. There cannot be presumption as the date is not within 7 years from the date of marriage.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court convicted the accused merely on the basis of the suicide note and on the basis of the earlier complaint lodged by the deceased before the All Women Police Station.

8. P.W.5 has deposed that the accused was found with the body of the deceased at the time of occurrence. If the accused induced the deceased to commit suicide, there was no possibility for the accused to be near the body of the deceased. The Police arrested the accused only on the next day. P.W.6 has also deposed that the accused was with the deceased at the time of occurrence and he tried to save the deceased and the accused also had injuries on his right hand in the attempt to save the deceased.

9. P.W.2 in his evidence, has stated that when the accused was arrested, he got burn injuries and he was taken to the hospital before he was sent to judicial custody. The accused undertook treatment for 2 days for the burn injuries caused to him. AIR relating to the accused is not marked by the prosecution. It is further stated that there is no mens rea for the accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide. All the neighbours and P.Ws.3, 11 and 13 turned hostile and that only on the basis of hostile witnesses, on the basis of the complaint before the All Women Police Station and on the basis of Ex.P7 suicide note, the trial Court has convicted the appellant.

10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.W.8 has deposed that suicide note was given to him. P.W.10 Village Administrative Officer deposed that the Investigating Officer seized the suicide note. The suicide note, Ex.P7 is not reliable. P.W.20, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the suicide note was addressed to the Police and not to P.W.1. The deceased has completed 10th standard. There is difference in the sig