Abetment to committ suicide--It is not enough that the husband treated the deceased with cruelty--There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 3.11.1995 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra, whereby he convicted and sentenced Kashmiri Lal accused- appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 306 of IPC.

2. The minimal facts of the prosecution case are that at the time of marriage of Satya Rani (since deceased), her father Hargobind complainant gave dowry beyond his means. After marriage, Satya Rani along with accused started residing at Kurukshetra. About 4-5 months later, when Hargobind came to Kurukshetra, he told that brother of the accused had broken the key of the almirah of his daughter. The accused and his brother used to harass her. The accused wanted money to run the shop. To keep alive his daughters married life, he gave Rs. 5,000/- to the accused on 11.8.1990 after withdrawing the same from the bank. Whenever he visited Kurukshetra, his daughter used to complain about ill treatment and beatings being meted out to her by the accused as she had refused to fulfill his demands. A female baby Seema was born from their wedlock. The complainants wife had given Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- on two different occasions to the accused. The accused came to Kaithal and put forth demand of Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 25,000/- to run the shop, which he refused to pay as he was financially hard up and was living on Pensionary benefits. On 26.4.1993, she was given beatings by her husband with a bludgeon in relation to which he lodged report with the police. She ended up her life on 30.4.1993 when she was overrun by a running train along with her daughter Seema. He could not come to Kurukshetra as he had become unconscious on hearing the news of his daughters death and was lying hospitalized. He regained consciousness after 4-5 days whereafter he lodged report, Exh.P1/A with the police at Kurukshetra. On the basis of the same, the case registered. The accused was put under arrest. The autopsy on the dead bodies of Satya Rani and Seema was performed. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate.

3. On commitment to the Court of Sessions, the accused was charged under Sections 304-8 and 498-A of IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sanjay Kumar, Photographer but he was given up as the photographs were not on the judicial file. Further, the prosecution examined PW-2 Isham Singh, Draftsman, PW-3 Dr. S.N. Bansal, PW-4 Krishan Lal (retired) driver of Indian Railways, PW-5 Raj Kumar, PW-6 Om Parkash, PW-7 Hargobind, father of the deceased, PW-8 Krishna Wanti, PW-9 Dr. D.S. Saini, PW-10 Dr. Tej Pal Nagar, PW-11 Surinder Kumar, PW-12 Waryam Singh Ahlmad, PW-13 Dhanna Ram SI, PW-14 Sureshta Rani, PW-15 Gurdeep Singh SI and closed its evidence by giving up PWs Ramesh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar being unnecessary.

5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He has put forth that he has been falsely framed in this case because he was the sole surviving heir of the deceased, who met an accidental death as she was overrun by a train when she was escorting her daughter to school on the fateful day.

6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence, he has preferred this appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, beside perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

8. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, appearing as amicus curia