The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and highlights the conditional nature of the presumption of abetment under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the husband of deceased Radhikabai. She hanged herself in her matrimonial home on 5th of Jan. 86. The husband was tried for abetting the suicide punishable under S. 396, I. P. C. and has been found guilty of that offence vide judgment dated 15-1-87. He has also been convicted under S. 498-A, I. P. C. , for treating her with cruelty. He was sentenced to R. I. for 31/2 years for the offence punishable under S. 306, I. P. C. and R. I. for 2 years for the offence punishable under S. 498-A, I. P. C. The sentence are to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THERE is no clear evidence on record as to when the appellant and the deceased were married, nor there is any finding about it by the trial Court. However, the trial Court found the appellant guilty on proof of the following facts :i) That she (deceased) had given birth to four children from the accused, out of whom only one is alive. II) That the deceased had suffered an operation for removal of her womb after the last child, but she continued to be ill. III) That the husband was not providing her with sufficient maintenance although she had to live in the husband's house in the presence of the 2nd wife of the husband. IV) That she had to sell three Khandis of paddy to P. W. 3 Nanku in order to support herself and her child. V) That the husband accused suspected her of stealing this paddy and then selling to Nanku and obtained the price of paddy from Nanku so that she could not get the money. VI) That the husband was occasionally beating her and she complained about illtreatment to her brother and mother.

( 3 ) THE inferences of trial Court may be noticed that the deceased publicly humiliated his wife about the theft on 5th Jan. 97 or near about or a few days before. The trial Court inference and reasoning may be noticed from para 13 of its judgment which is as follows :-"how could a woman react otherwise than to commit suicide if firstly she had been deprived of her maintenance and subsequently a false accusation of theft has been hurled against her. I have already observed that it was not a small amount of paddy but weighed three Khandis and if an elderly woman sells this paddy to the neighbour's house, it could hardly amount to theft as she was also the owner of the Dhan. This accusation of theft was only made to publicly humiliate her and the accused has further beaten her publicly, in front of the house of Nanku (P. W. 3 ). What could be more a positive step in the direction as is contemplated in abetting under S. 306, I. P. C. There could hardly be any direct evidence in the facts and circumstances of such case. It has been proved in this case that the accused has brought a second woman and even the womb of the deceased had been removed and the deceased did not make any substantial improvement in her health and the circumstances compelled her to sell the paddy to the neighbour. If a woman, placed as she was, in difficult circumstances, reacts violently to the public humiliation, could it be said that the accused has not abetted the suicide? In my opinion, the public humiliation of the deceased amounted to positive step to create circumstances for the commission of suicide. The accused had made the life of the deceased almost unbearable and the step has been public humiliation. The deceased could not bear any more and committed the suicide. "

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel on both sides. The evidence of the brother of deceased namely Jagdish (P. W. 2) really shows that after marriage her, three children died and one is still alive which shows that the deceased had given birth to 4 children before death. It further shows that after marriage, 'gauna' has taken place when she was 16 years old and after birth of four children, the accused marriage another woman. He narrates that the appellant remarried about four years back. This witness was giving his statement on 9-10-86 which would put the time of remarriage around Jan. 1981. This lady had given bi