Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; the prosecution must prove intentional abetment, with clear evidence linking the accused's conduct to the victim's suicide.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. This criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), has been preferred by appellant, Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, against judgment and order dated 31.01.1985 passed by Mr. Badri Niwas, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1983 (State Vs. Lachia Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 259 of 1982, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant-Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and awarded a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, with default stipulation.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the first informant Paras Nath Gupta, son of Late Kedarnath Gupta, resident of Dildarnagar, Police Station Dildarnagar, District Ghazipur, filed a written application (Tahrir) dated 13.12.1982, at Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia, stating therein that his daughter, Manju, was married to Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, son of Awadh Prasad, resident of Hanumanganj, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia, about two years ago. After the marriage, his daughter Manju was harassed by her sister-in-law (Jethani) for want of dowry. On 08.11.1982, his daughter wrote a letter to him, in which, she demanded a radio or Rs.2000/- for her in-laws. On 19.11.1982, Jagannath, from Hanumanganj, came and informed him that his (first informant’s) son-in-law, Rameshwar, is seriously ill and asked him to go to Sadar Hospital, Ballia. Thereupon, the first informant went to District Hospital, Ballia and also to the shop of his son-in- law, where he came to know that his daughter had been set ablaze and her last rites have also been performed. Thereafter, he kept inquiring about his daughter’s cause of death and came to know that she was burnt by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law for want of dowry. Upon this information, FIR was registered under Case Crime No. 259 of 1982, under Section 306 IPC against the appellant, Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, co-accused Lallan Prasad Gupta, Smt. Lachia Devi and Smt. Sushila Devi.

4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.O. Hari Nath Sharma, Police Station, Sukhpura. The Investigating Officer reached at the place of occurrence and collected some articles and a letter written by deceased Manju Gupta addressed to her mother. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site-plan (Ext. Ka-6). He recorded statements of the first informant and other witnesses and, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against all the four accused, under Section 306 IPC, before the concerned Magistrate.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. They appeared before the Court and were furnished copies of relevant prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellant and other co-accused persons appeared before the Trial Court and charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined P.W.1 Paras Nath Gupta, (father of the deceased and first informant), P.W.2 Radhika Devi, (mother of the deceased), P.W.3 Kailash Singh, (scribe of FIR), P.W.4 Hari Nath Sharma, (Investigating Officer) and P.W.5, Dr. G.K. Tripathi, (who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased). Their testimony, in brief, is enumerated as under.

7. P.W.1 Paras Nath Gupta, is th