An omission to dissuade another person from committing suicide is not an illegal omission under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code unless there is a law that requires the person to stop the other person from committing the crime.

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. Raj Kumar appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 158-SB of 1980 and Rajinder Kumar appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 183-SB of 1980 were tried together for the offence of abetment of suicide by Smt. Sita Devi wife of Rajinder Kumar appellant. They were both found guilty of the charge and were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment thereof to further rigorous imprisonment for four months each under Section 306, I.P.C. They have challenged their conviction and sentence through aforesaid two separate appeals.

2. These appeals being disposable by a single Judge in the first instance were laid before me. Considering the importance of the legal question particularly when viewed in the context of emerging scenario of what has come to be known in the daily press as dowry deaths, the decision of these appeals was referred to a larger Bench. That is how these appeals are before us which we propose to dispose of by a common judgment.

3. The prosecution case briefly put is that Sita Devi, married to Rajinder Kumar some five years prior to the occurrence had a son from him, who on the date of occurrence was about six months old. It appears that Rajinder Kumar appellant and his wife had stopped seeing eye to eye with each other with the result that for the last 22 days, prior to the occurrence, he had stopped returning to his house. He was employed, at the shop of Raj Kumar appellant. Sita Devi held Raj Kumar to be responsible for the discord between her and her husband and for the abnormal conduct of Rajinder Kumar of absenting from home. Her efforts of persuading Rajinder Kumar to come back to her appear to bear no fruit. At about 8 A.M. on the date of occurrence, Sita Devi deceased came to the shop of Raj Kumar to make a final bid at persuading Rajinder Kumar to resume normal visit to the matrimonial home. He, however, told her off saying that he would not come to house and would ill treat her, Sita Devi thereafter went back to her house and returned with a bucket of kerosene oil and again told Rajinder Kumar accused that if he would not accede to her request of returning to her she would burn herself. Both of them are said to have told her that she could go ahead with her plan, the same would not affect their health. Sita Devi then and there sprinkled kerosene oil upon her body and with matchstick set herself on fire right in front of the shop of Raj Kumar accused. Neither of the accused is said to have made any effort to save her by extinguishing fire or removing her to the hospital for medical aid. It was Sohan Lal P. W. 5 who happened to be present there who removed her to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. Tarlok Nath P. W. 1 who had admitted the deceased in the hospital at 9.45 A.M. sent ruqa to the police A. S. I. Jai Singh P. W. 7 who on receiving the telephonic message reached the hospital and at 11.10 A.M. recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence and hearing of Dr. Suresh Kumar P. W. 3, on being certified by the latter that she was in a fit condition to make the statement. On the basis of the said statement, the case was registered against the two accused. Sita Devi died on the same day at 3.05 P.M.

4. Prosecution case rests besides the statement of the deceased, which as a result of her death has assumed the status of a dying declaration, on the testimany of Sohan Lal P. W. 5 who had witnessed the conversation that took place between the deceased and the accused before she sprinkled oil upon her body and committed suicide, Sukhdev Singh P. W. 6 who had witnessed the deceased asking Rajinder Kumar to resume his visits to the house and telling him that if he did not then she would commit suicide and both the accused having told her that she could die any time and that would not affect them. When he tried to intervene, he was told by the accused to mind his own business, at this he is said to have left the scene of occurre