A conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires proof of clear mens rea and active instigation or direct incitement to commit suicide; mere allegations of domestic cruelty, harassment, or ordinary marital discord are insufficient to sustain a conviction without specific evidence of such provocation.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral):

This appeal against conviction is arising out of judgment dated 23.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mansa. The above mentioned judgment was rendered in a case arising out of FIR No.99 dated 09.10.2001, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’, only, Police Station Sardulgarh. By virtue of above mentioned judgment both the accused (appellants herein) have been held guilty and convicted, accordingly. Thereafter vide order on quantum of sentence, of even date, following sentence has been awarded to them:

Heard.

It has been contented on behalf of appellants that an error of judgment has been committed by the learned trial Court, while believing the unreliable & inconsistence evidence adduced by the prosecution which was full of contradictions. According to learned counsel for the appellants merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises the learned trial Court has observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact, there were numerous deficiencies in the prosecution evidence, which would have rendered it unreliable, and that the evidence so adduced by the prosecution was not good enough to qualify the standard prescribed for proving a charge in criminal case. While arguing that, merely, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions a finding of conviction has been returned by the leaned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has sought for intervention of appellate jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that in the present case for the sake of arguments even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken as a gospel truth, the above mentioned allegations do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. According to learned counsel for the appellants although the evidence adduced by the prosecution was far below the standard prescribed for proving a charge in criminal case, yet, if the facts projected in the FIR do not amount to offence under Section 306 IPC, for which the appellants/convicts, hereinafter being referred to as ‘appellants’ only, have been convicted.

It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the entire prosecution case was resting upon the plea that on 09.10.2001 when ‘Smt. Parveen Rani’ set herself ablazed had suffered a statement which comes within the definition of dying declaration. According to learned counsel for the appellants the above mentioned dying declaration proved by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, as Ex.PA, in itself was showing that the deceased felt aggrieved of an act of appellant No.2, who had asked her to leave home, and thereafter, was turned out of her matrimonial home. As per learned counsel for the appellants except the above mentioned act there was nothing on record to show either against the appellants No.1 or against the appellant No. 2, that there was any kind of instigation or abetment to commit suicide.

While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat ’, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 947 and ‘ Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ’, Criminal Appeal No.702 of 2011 (decided on 30.05.2023), the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the appellants, and therefore, and error of judgment was committed by the learned trial Court while holding the appellants guilty and convicted them for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

During the course of arguments, it has