The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict a person under Section 306 of I.P.C. for abetment of suicide, there must be a clear mens rea and active instigation or intentional aid to push the victim into committing suicide. The court also emphasized the need to scrutinize the evidence and circumstances to determine the impact of cruelty and harassment on the victim's decision to commit suicide.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 25.4.2011 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.215/2010, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-with default imprisonment.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the deceased Biharilal was an old and infirm person and had two daughters and they were already married and were residing in their matrimonial home. The deceased had 5 Bigha of land which was being cultivated by Ballu, Puran and Bihari. It is the prosecution case that the daughter-in-law of the deceased as well as the wife of the appellant, had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, and both of them lost. On this issue, the appellant used to abuse the deceased. On 1.6.2010, at about 4-4:30 P.M., the appellant was abusing the deceased and his brother Sokal. When the deceased objected to it, the appellant slapped him and also assaulted him by fists and blows. As a result of beating given by the appellant, the deceased felt insulted and humiliated and started provoking the appellant to beat him. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into well. The nephew of the deceased, namely Ballu had gone to attend a marriage and when he came back on 2-6-2010, then he came to know about the incident of beating. He searched for the deceased, but he could not be found. Thereafter, his dead body was found in the well, and accordingly, the complaint was made by Ballu. The inquest enquiry was conducted. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The spot map was prepared. 100 M.L. of water from the well was seized. The bone of the deceased was sent for diatom test. The police registered the Crime No.125/2010 for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

3. The Trial Court framed charge under Section 306 of I.P.C.

4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Ramesh @ Ballu (P.W.1), Smt. Neema Bai (P.W.2), Ram Sewak Shukla (P.W.3), Prahlad Singh (P.W.4), Rajiv Kumar (P.W. 5), Amarlal (P.W.6), Chunnilal (P.W.7),Dr. Vijay Singh (P.W.8), R.K. Singh (P.W.9), and Gopal (P.W.10). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 25.4.2011, passed in S.T. No.215/2010, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, with default imprisonment.

7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, recorded by the Trial Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that even if the entire allegations are accepted as they are, then it would be clear that no offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is made out. Merely because, the appellant is said to have beaten the deceased by fists and blows, would not amount to abetment of suicide.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent/State, that when the deceased felt insulted and humiliated, then it was the duty of the appellant to stop the deceased from committing suicide and in spite of the request made by Smt. Neema Bai (P.W.2) to stop the deceased from committing suicide, the appellant simply replied that the deceased may die and no one can harm him. It is submitted that thus, it is clear that the appellant, not only had beaten the deceased, but in spite of the request made by Smt. Neema Bai (P.W.2), did not try to stop the deceased from committing suicide, therefore, it is clear that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

9. Heard the learned Co