The main legal point established in the judgment is that for convicting an accused for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to show that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide, and the presumption under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act must be attracted.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J. –

Challenge in this appeal is the judgement and order dated 23.08.1996 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No.115 of 1991 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC with an imprisonment of five years rigorous imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the police personnels got information on 05.12.1990 that the wife of Narendra Kumar had died due to burn injuries, upon which the police personnels went to the spot and prepared the inquest report. On 06.12.1990, at about 3.30 pm, a case under section 306 IPC was registered and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. After the investigation, the offence punishable under section 306 IPC was found against the appellant and the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has examined Constable Ram Lal as PW-1; Constable Narain Bux Singh as PW-2; Ram Autar as PW-3; Som Nath as PW-4; Sundar Lal as PW-5; Dr. G. K. Singh as PW-6; Head Constable Ram Lochan as PW-7 and Sub-Inspector Siya Ram Mishra (retired) as PW-8.

4. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which she had denied the evidence but no evidence in defence was adduced.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned court below came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly sentenced her.

It is to be mentioned that the appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the deceased was found to be juvenile, who has been tried separately.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that for punishing the appellant for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC, the abetment or instigation should have been proved but in the present case, the only evidence against the appellant is that she resisted the deceased to go close to her husband because she wanted to get solemnise the marriage of her son with her niece. It has also been submitted that the offence punishable under section 306 IPC is not proved and the presumption under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act has been wrongly drawn.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has relied upon Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

"Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Section 306 I.P.C. under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 I.P.C. merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge."

Learned counsel for the appellant has again relie