( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8. 4. 1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S. T. No. 172/93 convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I. P. C.) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal.

( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 10. 5. 1993 Kalibai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was living in the house of her parents, ablazed herself. She was sent to the Hospital where a dying declaration of her was recorded. The investigating agency investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.

( 3. ) THE learned Trial Judge on going through the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 306 of the I. P. C. against the appellant. Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. His defence is of maladroit implication.

( 4. ) IN order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed certain documents on record.

( 5. ) THE Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

( 6. ) MR. S. Sharma appearing for appellant has submitted that if the entire case of prosecution is considered in toto it would be difficult to uphold the conviction. It has also been canvassed by him that the deceased was living along with her parents for near about last one year from the date of incident i. e. , 10. 5. 1993 and if that is the position, according to learned Counsel, the Court erred in convicting the appellant. It has also been put forth by learned Counsel that none of the ingredient of Section 107, I. P. C. is made out in the present case and, therefore, the conviction cannot be upheld.

( 7. ) ON the other hand, Mr. Desai learned Dy. AG argued in support of impugned judgment.

( 8. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

( 9. ) PLATO has said: Man is a prisoner who has no right to open the door of his prison and run away. . . . A man should wait, and not take his own life until God summons him.

( 10. ) AS per the prosecutions own case the deceased was living with her parents for last one year from the date of incident (incident occurred on 10. 5. 1993 ). In the dying declaration it has been stated by her that she herself lit the fire as she was being harassed by her husband.

( 11. ) THIS fact cannot be marginalized and blinked away that as per the prosecutions own case the deceased was living for last one year from the date of incident along with her parents, therefore, it is very difficult to connect the present appellant with the incident. There is nothing on record in order to hold that during this period of one year, the deceased was harassed by the appellant. Before holding an accused to be guilty of the offence envisaged under Section 306, I. P. C. , it should be proved that he had abated the deceased to commit suicide. The provision regarding abatement has been emphasized under Section 107 of the I. P. C. which reads thus: A person abets the doing of a thing, who--First--Instigates any person to do that 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. Explanation 1.--A person who, by w