1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.8.2001 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No.239/94 by which the appellant and other co-accused Bhagirath (died during the pendency of appeal) have been convicted under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Ramkunwar is the mother of Bhagirath and appellant Radha is daughter-in-law of deceased. Deceased, appellant Radha and Bhagirath (dead) used to reside in different rooms of one house. Appellant and co-accused Bhagirath used to ill-treat, harass and beat the deceased in order to kick her out from the house and get the vacant possession of the room. On 4.6.1994 appellant and co-accused assaulted and gave beating to the deceased. Deceased was fed up with all these harassment and committed suicide on 5.6.1994 at about 12 O'clock in the noon by pouring kerosene on herself. Deceased was admitted in J.A. Hospital, Gwalior by Babulal her son (PW7). Dr. V.S. Tomar (PW11) and Dr. Y.K. Diwan (PW9) medically examined the deceased. Ex.P-15 and P-12 are their reports.

PW8 Chimansingh Jadon S.I. on receiving information from J.A. Hospital, Gwalior reached to hospital and recorded dying declaration (Ex.P-10) of deceased. Dying declaration (Ex.P-6) was also recorded at 1:40 p.m. by PW3 Dr. Mamta Gupta. Deceased died on 7.6.1994 in Kalma Raja Hospital. Marg No.21/94 (Ex.P-11) was registered by PW8 Chimansingh Jadon. Spot map was prepared by PW12 Ram Ujagar Singh Yadav S.I. and Katta, kerosene oil and match-box were seized as per Ex.P-5 from the place of incidence. Lash Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) was prepared. Autopsy of dead body was conducted by Dr. R.C. Upadhyay (Ex.P-10). Cause of death was found to be burning. Ex.P-14 is post-mortem report. SI Ram Ujagar Singh Yadav lodged Ex.P-16 FIR after marg intimation. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Gwalior, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. Appellant and other co-accused were charged for committing offence punishable under section 306 IPC and after conclusion of trial the learned 10th ASJ convicted the appellant and co-accused under section 306 IPC and sentenced them as stated above, hence this appeal.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Dying declarations Ex.P-6 and P-10 in no way establish that appellant had abetted he suicide. These dying declarations atmost disclose that relation of appellant and deceased were not cordial. They were always disputing. It may be that deceased committed suicide on account of this but this cannot be taken to be an act of abetting the suicide and appellant is liable to be acquitted.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

6. In case of Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 AIR SCW 4570], it is held that in case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be number of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that husband treated the wife with cruelty is not enough.

7. In case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal [AIR 1994 SC 1418], Hon'ble apex Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court