For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the elements of abetment, including clear mens rea and direct, proximate acts of instigation or incitement; mere allegations of harassment or vague assertions are insufficient to establish a causal connection to suicide.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

While taking cognizance on a private complaint filed by ‘Shanti Devi’, with regard to dowry death of her daughter namely ‘Smt. Raj Rani’, hereinafter being referred to as victim, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi committed a case to the Court of Sessions for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B , 498-A, 306 and 120-B IPC. The accused namely ‘Ram Saran’ father-in-law of victim, and ‘Hans Raj’, the appellant faced the above mentioned trial. By virtue of judgment dated 16.10.2004 the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’, acquitted the accused ‘Ram Saran’ but convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306/498-A IPC. As a consequence thereof, by virtue of order dated 20.10.2004, the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar sentenced the appellant as under:-

The pith and substance of the story is that ‘Smt. Shanti Devi’ had filed a complaint before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, who appreciated the preliminary evidence, and refused to pass any order for summoning of accused, i.e. the appellant and his other family members. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.09.1990. However, the above mentioned order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi was set-aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar by virtue of judgment dated 07.02.1991 in revision petition. In view of above mentioned verdict of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi vide order dated 06.09.1991 summoned all the 5 accused arrayed in the complaint. However, on 23.04.2003, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the complaint qua accused ‘Urmila’ and ‘Neelam Rani’ who were arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4. Thus, thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate made efforts to procure the presence of remaining three accused but the presence of accused No.5 ‘Des Raj’ could not be procured in the Court, and therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, committed the case to the Court of Sessions which led to the above mentioned verdict.

In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that originally the complaint was filed by ‘Smt. Shanti Dvei’, who died during the pendency of complaint and therefore, substituted by Yashpal, the PW-1. It was alleged in the complaint that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the appellant on 29.06.1986 at Hansi. According to complainant, at the time of marriage the expense of Rs.70,000/- were incurred by them, which was befitting to their status. According to complainant, in the initial few months of her married life her daughter, i.e. the victim, remained happy but later on the appellant and his family members harassed her on the pretext of insufficient dowry, and therefore, the victim had conveyed the difficulties being faced by her in her matrimonial home.

It was further alleged by the complainant that accused No.5 ‘Des Raj’ used to instigate the in-laws of victim to coerce her to bring money from her parental home as her victim grand-father was a rich man. As per complainant on one occasion when the accused No.5 ‘Des Raj’ was instigating the appellant and his other family members to raise the demand of Rs.1.5 lac from the family of victim to facilitate the marriage of ‘Urmila and Neelam’, the victim protested and conveyed to her parents. The complainant had also claimed that on one occasion, i.e. in December 1987, when the victim heard a conversation between the appellant and his family members, wherein the a