Abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code requires a direct instigation or engagement in circumstances compelling the victim to commit suicide, which was not established in this case.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment dated 14th July, 1995 and the order dated 15th July, 1995, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who convicted the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Kuldip Kumar appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant Shanti Devi was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

2. The brief facts of the case can be described as follows :

Smt. Parwati Devi was married to Kuldip Kumar. She had no issue. She was maltreated by her mother-in-law Smt. Shanti appellant. Due to the consistent maltreatment and continued harassment, on 28th November, 1990 at about 4 p.m. when she was living with the appellants, Smt. Parwati put herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. She suffered severe burns. She was taken to General Hospital, Chandigarh, from where she was shifted to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where she died on account of burn injuries. Before her death she made a statement before a Magistrate mentioning about her maltreatment by the accused. She also stated therein the cause of her committing suicide. She stated that she did not want to live as her husband and mother-in-law doubted her character. A case was registered against the accused. Investigations were conducted. The spot was inspected and the post-mortem examination of the body of the accused was got done. After completion of the investigation, challan under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied copies of the documents to the accused and vide order dated 28th September, 1991 committed that accused to the Court of Session. Vide order dated 4th November, 1991 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, framed charges against the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. As many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial stage. PW1 Dr. Ajay Verma conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Parwati - a female lady of 27 years. According to this doctor there were deep and superficial burns all over the body (100%). Singering of hair was present. The tongue of the deceased was protruding out. In the opinion of this doctor, the death was due to shock on account of extensive burns, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time which lapsed between injury and death was within 24 hours and between the death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. Ex. PA is the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report. It has been stated by this doctor in the cross-examination that the condition of a patient with 100% burns is most precarious and most agonising. PW 2 Dr. D.V. Krishna Rao deposed that Parwati came to P.G.I. Hospital on 28th November, 1990 at about 6.45 p.m. with 95% bums. Intimation about her admission was sent to the Police Post P.G.I, and this very doctor on the same day sent a requisition informing the Police to arrange the services of a Magistrate so that the dying declaration of the deceased could be recorded. The Executive Magistrate came with the police and this doctor gave his opinion (Ex. PC) on the request of the police to know whether Smt. Parwati was fit to make a statement or not. The doctor certified that she was fit to make a statement. Resultantly, Shri Jarnail Singh, Executive Magistrate recorded her statement (Ex. PD). It was read over and explained to her and she thumb-marked the same in token of i