Point of Law: In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide. Mere fact that husband treated deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in S.C. No. 618 of 2007, dated 17.02.2009, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years, further under Section 306 of IPC appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and were married six years prior to the incident. The deceased gave birth to a son and daughter. At the time of marriage Rs. 10,000/- was given towards dowry and the appellant and his parents (A2 and A3 who were acquitted), were harassing the deceased for additional dowry. For the said reason, a ‘panchayat’ was held in the presence of village elders and the accused were admonished. However, the harassment continued, for which reason on 07.11.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, when the appellant in a drunken state poured Kerosene on her from a lamp, the deceased set fire to herself.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW-1 who is the mother of the deceased, police filed charge sheet against this appellant/A1 and his parents for the offence under Section 304- B of IPC. However the learned Sessions Judge having framed charge under Section 304-B of IPC on 18.03.2008, again framed charges under Section 498-A, 307 and 306 of IPC on 12.09.2008.

4. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 16 and also marked Exs.P1 to P12. The learned Sessions Judge after adjudication found that A2 and A3 who are parents are not guilty of any of the offences, however found the appellant/A1 guilty as stated above.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that apart from the Dying Declaration of the deceased, there is no evidence on record to substantiate any harassment or subsequent attempt to murder the deceased or abetting her to commit suicide. The mother PW-1, brother PW-2 of the deceased, village elders PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 turned hostile to the prosecution case. The witnesses for inquest PW-6 and PW-7, the witnesses for the scene of offence and seizure panchanama PWs. 8 and 9 were also declared hostile to the prosecution case.

6. PW-10 M.R.O. Suryapet who conducted inquest stated that Ex.P6 inquest proceedings were drafted. The Doctor-PW-11 confirmed that the death was on account of burning.

7. The only evidence on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant is the Dying Declaration which was recorded by the Magistrate PW-12.

8. The Dying Declaration as stated by the deceased reads as follows:

“Today night i.e. 7.11.2006 at about 10/10.30 P.M. my husband came to house in drunken condition, for which I quarreled with him as to why he came by drinking and quarrel took place between us, wordy quarrel raised and he slapped me and on my back. After that he scolded me to die, by saying “he has no death” and poured kerosene on me. I kept that kerosene in lamp for the purpose litting lamp if power supply fails and poured that kerosene on me and when tried to lit fire, I said I set fire myself by saying why do you. As he several times abused to die, for saying no one question him if I die, I set fire myself. My husband is only responsible for my death, there is no interference of anybody.”

9. The leaned Magistrate PW-12 has taken the consent of the duty doctor before recording the Dying Declaration. The doctor endorsed that the patient was conscious and fit for Dying Declaration. The statement made before the Magistrate by the deceased discloses that on the date of incident, the appellant/A1 went home in a drunken condition and there was a quarrel between them. The appellant scolded and asked her to die and poured Kerosene on her from the Kerosene lamp which is used during power failure. When the appellant said that he would light fire, she said that she would bur