To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement; mere harassment lacks sufficient immediacy to constitute such abetment.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.1991 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.241 of 1990. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and R.I. for four years for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1991. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Panda.

3. Heard Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in terse and brief is that the deceased, Sobha, sister of the informant, was married to the appellant in June (Asadha), 1986, according to the “Tolakanya” form of marriage. At the time of final marriage negotiations, the informant, accompanied by one Kapila Patra, visited the appellant’s house and, as per the demand of the groom’s side, paid a sum of Rs.3,000/-, one gold chain, and certain wooden furniture, including a cot and an almirah. It is alleged that, subsequent to the marriage, the appellant and his family members again demanded an additional gold chain and further wooden furniture. Due to non-fulfilment of these demands, the appellant is said to have subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. The deceased allegedly informed her father of the continued demands and the ill-treatment meted out to her, but the informant, owing to poverty, expressed his inability to meet the additional demands. The prosecution further alleged that about five days prior to the death of the deceased, the father of the deceased (P.W.3) had visited her marital home, then the deceased reiterated the appellant’s continued assaults for non-supply of the aforesaid articles. On the night of 22.04.1989, the deceased’s life came to an end. In the early morning of 23.04.1989, her body was found hanging from a branch of a mango tree situated in the bari of P.W.3. Her cousin, Ramakant Swain, thereafter lodged a report before the Officer-in- Charge, Kujang Police Station, stating that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said report (Ext.4), U.D. Case No. 23 of 1989 was registered, and an enquiry commenced. After conducting the inquest, the police forwarded the body for post-mortem examination. The autopsy was conducted by P.W.6, the doctor of Jagatsinghpur Sub-Divisional Hospital, who opined that the death was due to hanging and that the injuries noted on the body were ante-mortem in nature.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charge examined eight witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 was the independent witness, P.W.2 was the neighbor of the informant, P.W.3 was the father of the deceased, P.W.4 was the brother and informant of this case. P.W.5 was the mediator of the marriage, P.W.6 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 was the A.S.I. of Kujang Police Station, who was also a seizure witness. P.W.8 was the I.O. of the case. The defence examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.1 and D.W.2. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial.

6. On the analysis of the evidence brought on record by th