R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-3-87 of the Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa, whereby, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1985, arising out of Crime No. 34 dated 8-2-1985, Police Station Harsood, District Khandwa, appellant Ramkumar was convicted of abeting suicide by his wife Bimla Bai on the night between 13-1-1985 and 14-1-1985, punishable under S. 306, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 4 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, further R. I. for six months. ( 2 ) THE trial Court found that the appellant and the deceased were married 20 years back when the deceased Bimla Bai committed suicide. The appellant had been treating her with cruelty, in so far as he ordered her to leave the house and threatened to kill her unless she agree to divorce him. He restrained her from taking any produce of the land for herself from the field. So, she consumed poison (A poisonous medicine used for spraying on the cotton crop ). She died, She was thus abetted by cruel treatment of the appellant-husband to kill herself, Bimal Bai was aged about 40 years. The couple had two sons Vinod Kumar, aged about 22 years to 24 years and Pradeep Kumar, aged about 19/20 years. She died a day before Sankranti. The couple had been married in the year 1960. They had been living together thereafter. Differences erupted between them since the year 1980. Ramkumar wanted to divorce Bimla Bai but she was opposing. So Ramkumar started beating and otherwise harassing her. She informed her brother Murlidhar at Poona about it. In the year 1981, she along with her younger son Pradeep Kumar went from Indore to Poona and started living there. But in the year 1983, her elder son Vinod Kumar brought her back to live with them in the ancestral house. Ramkumar still continued to press her for divorce. In the year 1984, Narmada Prasad, elder brother of Ramkumar-accused, called Bimla Bai and her son to Mhow and asked them to look after the agricultural land in Sonpura. He sent them to Sonpura. Bimla Bai had apprised Narmada Prasad about the conduct of Ramkumar and that he was clamouring for divorce. Ramkumar went to Sonpura and threatened Bimla Bai to get out of the house and again pressed her for divorce. He sent them to Sonpura. Bimla Bai had apprised Narmada Prasad about the conduct of Ramkumar and that he was clamouring for divorce. Ramkumar went to Sonpura and threatened Bimla Bai to get out of the house and again pressed her for divorce. She informed her brother Murlidhar about it. On 11th January, 1985, Ramesh, younger brother of Ramkumar, sent his servant Prahlad to Sonpura to fetch the produce. Vinod asked him not to do so. There was dispute and Ramesh lodged a report at Police Station, Harsood. Faced with these circumstances, Bimla Bai consumed poison on the night of 13th January, 1985 and died. The deceased had written a suicide Note Ex. P-11, which was found under her pillow. Before her death and at the time of dispute between her son and her brother-in-law, Ramesh, the police officer, Incharge of Police Station, Harsood, recorded her statement which is Ex. P-31 ). A number of letters written by the deceased to her brother Murlidhar (Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-12) were proved on record. Similarly, number of letters written by Vinod Kumar, son of deceased Bimla Bai, to his maternal uncle-Murlidhar have been proved on record as Ex. P-17, Ex. P-18, Ex. P-19, Ex. P-20 and Ex. P-21. ( 3 ) THE case set-up by the accused-appellant was that the deceased had left his house and gone to Poona to live with her brother Murlidhar who was asking for Rs. 40,000/- from him, but he was not obliging Murlidhar about it. Bimla Bai was not returning with him inspite of number of requests made by him to her. So he threatened to divorce if she does not return. His case is that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Murlidhar. ( 4 ) THE autopsy Surgeon had found no injury on the body of the deceased. Her viscera was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, where on examination, it was found to be Thiodan 35 EC. It is a pesticide used for spraying on cotton. It is a poison. So she died of poison. The suicide note Ex. P-11 records that she was committing suicide because she never wanted to divorce her husband and on this issue, her husband had harassed her and her children to the extreme. Statement Ex. It is a pesticide used for spraying on cotton. It is a poison. So she died of poison. The suicide note Ex. P-11 records that she was committing suicide because she never wanted to divorce her husband and on this issue, her husband had harassed her and her children to the extreme. Statement Ex. P-31 was given by Bimla Bai to police officer Ram Singh Jamra on 13-1-85 in the day time while he was investigating Sanha Report No. 452 (Ex. P-26 ). This report had been given by Ramesh, younger brother of the accused Ramkumar at 12-45 p. m. Complaint was that he was cultivating the land of Sonpura with the consent of his brother Ram Kumar, that Bimla Bai wife of Ramkumar and her son Vinod Kumar and Pradeep Kumar had come to Sonpura about 3/4 months back and had taken possession of one room in the house and had been living there, Bimla Bai was living separate from Ram Kumar for the last 3/4 years. These people were now stopping him from lifting his crop of grains-Urad, Jwar, Kapas and other crops. They became ready to fight with iron rods and started abusing him and Ramkumar. The same day, Sub-Inspector Ram Shankar Jamra went to Sonpura and recorded the statement of Bimla Bai which is Ex. P-31. In this statement, she had complained that her husband was beating her for the last 4/5 years under some misconception about her, she lived for about 11/2 years in Poona due to these quarrels. Then she returned to Indore to her son who lived separate from his father. Her husband approached her with a recorded draft paper in which it was recorded that she wanted divorce from him and did not want any right in his property and he obtained her signature on that paper forcibly. Later on, the husband again approached her and her Jeth Narmada Prasad intervened and asked her to look after the land at Sonpura and that Ramesh would provide maintenance to her. Ramesh provided maintenance to her for 3 months only and then stopped, on the instructions of her husband. Her husband approached her 2 months back and directed her to leave that place and asked her to divorce him. She refused to agree. He beat her. He slapped her. Some people came and intervened again that day i. e. 13-1-85. Ramesh provided maintenance to her for 3 months only and then stopped, on the instructions of her husband. Her husband approached her 2 months back and directed her to leave that place and asked her to divorce him. She refused to agree. He beat her. He slapped her. Some people came and intervened again that day i. e. 13-1-85. Her Dewar Ramesh wanted to take away the crops. She refused to permit him to do so. Her husband insisted on obtaining divorce from her. ( 5 ) THUS, in this background, she had taken poison and committed suicide. This remains undisputed. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on legal aspects of the case. He urges that S. 113-A of the Evidence Act was introduced with effect from 26-12-1983, introducing presumption of abetment in cases of suicide by women. This presumption, however, can arise only when the suicide is committed within 7 years of marriage and if there is further proof that the husband had subjected her to cruelty. This presumption is available against her husband or relative. In fact, the court has been given a discretion to take the presumption having regard to all other circumstances of the case. Presumption, which can be raised, is that the husband or his relative, who treated her with cruelty, had abetted her for suicide. 'cruelty' for this purpose was given the same meaning as in S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the marriage was more than 20 years old, when suicide was committed by Bimla Bai. So the presumption is not available. ( 7 ) ARGUMENT is that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abetted suicide. Abetment is defined in S. 107 of the Indian Penal Code as under :- 107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing who - (I) instigates any person to do that thing; or (II) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (III) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation to this section lays down that doing anything to facilitate commission of an act and thereby facilitating commission thereof, is said to be aiding the doing of that act. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that but for the presumption, the mere fact that a husband quarrelled with his wife and gave her threat or demanded divorce from her or even gives her slaps would not lead to an inference that he instigated her to commit suicide. There is no allegation that he, in any manner, abetted her to commit suicide, nor has he facilitated commission of such act against her and even if his brother wanted to take away the the crop in exercise of his right, it would not amount to instigating her to commit suicide. Even threatening to kill her would not be such an instigation. Argument is that in spite of her suicide note Ex. P-11 and her statement Ex. P-31 to police, revealing the circumstances of cruelty against her by her husband, would not raise an inference of aiding or persuading her to commit suicide. Refrain of the suicide note Ex. P-11 was that her husband was pressing her for divorce and was harassing her for the same and she did not want it and so she was ending her life. Demand of divorce because she was living separate from her husband for 4 years, according to the learned counsel, is not a circumstance which would lead a reasonable wife to commit suicide. It cannot be called a circumstance suggesting instigation of suicide. It is also argued that, in fact, sons of the deceased narrated in Court that the relations between their mother and father were good. It cannot be called a circumstance suggesting instigation of suicide. It is also argued that, in fact, sons of the deceased narrated in Court that the relations between their mother and father were good. ( 9 ) THE trial Court, on the basis of number of letters written by Bimla Bai to her brother Murlidhar and the evidence of Murlidhar and other witnesses, held that after the year 1981 accused Ramkumar had been beating his wife, had been threatening her, due to which she had to live with her brother Murlidhar for about 11/2 years, and then returned to her sons to live with them and then went to village Sonpura to look after the cultivation of the land there with her son and there also the accused wanted to throw her out of the house and used to beat her and was threatening her to divorce which she declined to do and he raised a dispute about the crop also and got a report lodged by his brother Ramesh Kumar. Pressed by these circumstances and finding no way out, she committed suicide, as is suggested by the suicide letter Ex. P-11. Thus, the trial Court held that it amounted to abetment of suicide. ( 10 ) IT may be noticed that the trial Court has not dealt with the question as to what is the effect of non-availability of presumption under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act against the accused and how the inferences of abetment would arise by cruel treatment due to which a wife may feel extremely harassed. ( 11 ) CERTAIN fact situation and background emerge on perusal of the letters Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-12 written by the deceased suicide note Ex. P-11 written by her, statement Ex. P-31 given by her to the police before death and from the evidence of her brother Murlidhar and also from a number of letters written by her son Vinod Kumar to her maternal uncle Murlidhar. Sons Pradeep Kumar and Vinod Kumar have become hostile to the prosecution case as they deposed against what they stated to the police about the conduct of their father-accused and relationship between their father and mother and his conduct towards them. Vinod Kumar has also spoken nothing about the letter written by him to his maternal uncle. Vinod Kumar admitted that he had scribed the letter Ex. Vinod Kumar has also spoken nothing about the letter written by him to his maternal uncle. Vinod Kumar admitted that he had scribed the letter Ex. P-10, P-18, P-19, P-20 and P-21. These are inland letter and bear the seal of Post Office. These letters record his reaction against his father's attitude and conduct which were violent towards him and his mother. He has not narrated that conduct in court and has stated that relations between his father and mother were good and congenial. The question is what is the evidentiary value of these letters written by him on the face of his statement in Court. Letter Ex. P-17 bears two postal stamps one of 31st December, 1984 and another of 2nd January, 85. So this appears to be the last letter written by him to his mother. It narrates the events of 15 days back. He records that 15 days earlier, his father had come and had told him that he (Vinod) and his mother would not be allowed by him to live there and that if they wanted to live, they should conduct themselves in the manner he desires and only then they could live peacefully. He refused to accept his conditions and said that he would not go anywhere from there and father may do whatever he likes. Father asked mother to go away to Hersood. She refused. Then father started beating her and pushed her out of the house. They (Vinod and Pradeep) continued to look on. Her mother continued to bear this beating. Father took out a revolver from his bag, loaded with six bullets, and threatened them to go out of the house or else he would shoot them. Vinod Kumar ran out of the house on a cycle out of fear and anger and shouted to the people who gathered and were looking on and he asked his mother to suffer a fire-shot instead of going out of the house and not to succumb to the order of the father and he threatened to report the matter to the police. At this Munna led his father away (Munna is the nephew of the accused ). If this letter is admissible in evidence, it would suggest that the father was beating his mother to oust her from the house and even threatened her to shoot. At this Munna led his father away (Munna is the nephew of the accused ). If this letter is admissible in evidence, it would suggest that the father was beating his mother to oust her from the house and even threatened her to shoot. Vinod Kumar has not supported these threats in evidence, although he admitted to have written this letter. He was not asked his explanation as to the contents of this letter. The prosecution did not confront him with its contents. All these letters were seized by the police from Murlidhar, brother of the deceased. Letter Ex. P-21 was of earlier date. It was of 2nd March, 83 and it records the hostile attitude of his father against him asking him to get out of his house and not to show his face. While he and his mother had gone to see his father, he threatened to him with a lash or hunter and pushed them out of the house. Letter Ex. P-19 is of 23rd July, 1984 to the effect that his father wants to oust his mother and leave her without support and he could not bear this. These letters cannot be treated as conduct of the son admissible under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. Question is whether these letters are admissible evidence under any provisions of the Evidence Act. The trial Court has taken certain inferences from the contents of these letters. It is no doubt established that these letters were written by Vinod Kumar to his maternal uncle. But since the writings of these letters are not the relevant factor and the relevant factor is cruel treatment of husband to the wife, these letters will have the status of previous statements of the son of the accused deceased. These statements in writing made to his maternal uncle were recorded not at the time of a particular transaction but days thereafter. In that context, they cannot fall under the scope of relevant pieces of evidence under any provision of the Evidence Act. So it is impermissible to take any inference or support from them. These may be used to contradict the son. ( 12 ) ON a close scrutiny of the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents, it appears clear that only evidence with regard to cruel treatment of the accused towards his wife are suicide note Ex. So it is impermissible to take any inference or support from them. These may be used to contradict the son. ( 12 ) ON a close scrutiny of the evidence of all the witnesses and the documents, it appears clear that only evidence with regard to cruel treatment of the accused towards his wife are suicide note Ex. P-11, written by the wife before her death, letters Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-12, written by her to her brother and the statement Ex. P-31 given by her to the police. Apart from this, there is evidence of Murlidhar, brother of the deceased, who narrates about the conduct of the parties, and what the deceased told him. Letters written by the deceased are admissible under S. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act, as disclosing circumstances under which the deceased committed suicide. There is no dispute at this stage that she committed suicide by consuming poison. Ex. P-11 is the suicide note, she writes that she is committing suicide because of her husband (Jiska Karan Mere Pati Hain ). She narrates that she never wanted divorce between her husband. But her husband had harassed her and her children on this issue to a great extent. She desires that her husband should not harass her children and should give his property to her both the children whose life should be improved. She also records that very day she had given separate statement (it had been given to police Ex. P-31 ). ( 13 ) EX. P-31 is the statement given to the police that very day. She was called to the police station on the complaint made by Ramesh, brother of her husband. She narrated that she came to live at Sonpura along with her elder son Vinod Kumar about 6 months back to look after the cultivation of the land there. Ramesh had cultivated the land this year. Ramesh comes to her house at the time of harvesting the crops. Her husband used to take liquor and, about 4 or 5 years back had turned her out of the house and even used to beat her. He had some misunderstanding towards her. Due to his beating, she went to her Maika about 3 years back and stayed there for about 11/2 years. Then she came to Indore and started staying with her son who was living separate from his father. He had some misunderstanding towards her. Due to his beating, she went to her Maika about 3 years back and stayed there for about 11/2 years. Then she came to Indore and started staying with her son who was living separate from his father. Her husband came to that house. He came with a typed draft paper recording that she wanted divorce and had no right to the property. He forced her to sign the draft. After 3 months, his Jeth Narmada Prasad tried to pacify her and her husband and asked them to live peacefully although separately and he persuaded her to go to Sonpura to look after the cultivation there and that Ramesh would pay maintenance to her. Ramesh paid maintenance only for 3 months and then refused. About two months earlier, her husband came to Sonpura and Munna (son of Ramesh) was also with him. He ordered them to leave Sonpura and forced her to divorce him. She refused to concede. He beat her. He kicked and slapped her. Then two days back, Laxmi Narayan and others came and tried to pacify the matter. She refused to part with the crop. Then on the day of incident, about 2-30 or 3 p. m. her husband, her Dewar Ramesh and Pratap came there and tried to carry away the produce of Urad. Her son stopped them from doing so. Her husband again said that he wanted divorce from her, but she declined. Thus, there were differences between her and her husband. Same night she committed suicide. ( 14 ) LETTER Ex. P-12 is addressed to her brother Murlidhar by the deceased. This letter bears postal, stamp of 4th January 1983. Murlidhar had stated on oath that he received this letter from her sister Bimla Bai and confirmed her writing. Ex. P-9 was also written to him by Bimla Bai on 16-11-81. But this letter is not an inland letter, but is stated by Murlidhar to be the writing of Bimla Bai. In these letters, she complained that her husband was beating her and she requested her brother to take her with him to his own house from the house of her husband. ( 15 ) THIS witness P. W. 21 Murlidhar narrates that the deceased and the accused were living amicably till 1981. In these letters, she complained that her husband was beating her and she requested her brother to take her with him to his own house from the house of her husband. ( 15 ) THIS witness P. W. 21 Murlidhar narrates that the deceased and the accused were living amicably till 1981. It was in 1981 that she wrote to him about beating to her by her husband. Then in December, 1981 or early 1982, she came to his house in Poona with her younger son and she told him that her husband used to beat her daily under the influence of liquor and was pressing for divorce. She was having the marks of injuries on her back at that time. At that time, Pradeep was aged about 18 years. Pradeep had also confirmed the story of her mother. Bimla Bai and Pradeep Kumar had stayed for about a year in Poona. Pradeep had gone away after about 6 months and started running a pan shop in Indore. Then after about a year, her elder son Vinod Kumar also came and took her to Indore to live separate with her. They started residing in Bholanath Nagar, Indore. Thereafter he came to know about the happenings of her family from the letters of Vinod Kumar. These letters are Ex. P-17 to Ex. P-21. According to this witness, about 15 days prior tlo her death, Bimla Bai had come to live in Poona and had told him that her husband was again harassing her and that those days, she was residing in village Sonpura and after staying for a week, she came back from Poona. On 17th January, 1985, he learnt about her death. ( 16 ) IT may, however, be noticed that in cross-examination he was asked if in police statement he said that in the year 1981, his sister told him about beating by her husband under the influence of liquor. He affirmed that he said so. An attempt was made to show that it was not recorded in the statement to the police (Ex. D-1 ). I have perused the statement Ex. D-1 and I find that it was actually recorded there. So this confrontation is of no help to the defence. He affirmed that he said so. An attempt was made to show that it was not recorded in the statement to the police (Ex. D-1 ). I have perused the statement Ex. D-1 and I find that it was actually recorded there. So this confrontation is of no help to the defence. It was further attempted to confront him with the fact that he has not stated to police that about 15 days before death, she came to him and complained about her beating by her husband. But a perusal of the statement Ex. D-1 revealed that he stated so, although the time given is about a month before her death and at that time, she had told him that her husband was still demanding divorce. ( 17 ) THESE pieces of evidence establish the following factors clearly : (I) that ever since 1981, the accused had been beating the deceased to the extent of causing marks of injuries on her body and because of that, she had to live separately. He was pressing her to divorce him and she was refusing for that. (II) She was not provided any maintenance by the husband and she had no source of income of her own. (III) She was even threatened to be killed by her husband. He did so in Sonpura also where she was finding escape from him while she was residing there. She was sought to be displaced from there also. (IV) Even 2/3 days before her death, she was beaten and threatened by her husband, apart from demanding divorce and police report was made by her son. On the date of her death, she made a statement to police putting forth how she was being treated. Her beating had continued for the last 4 years, as and when the occasion arose for the husband to meet her. This is the only inference from the letters written by her, read with the statement of her brother. The letters certainly have the value of believable dying declaration and have been properly proved by Murlidhar and they were affirmed by Murlidhar. The facts narrated therein are also independently confirmed by Murlidhar. She told Murlidhar about being beaten, harassed, ousted and being pressurised for divorce. The letters certainly have the value of believable dying declaration and have been properly proved by Murlidhar and they were affirmed by Murlidhar. The facts narrated therein are also independently confirmed by Murlidhar. She told Murlidhar about being beaten, harassed, ousted and being pressurised for divorce. These statements of the deceased to her brother, made earlier, are also her dying declarations showing circumstances of her death within the meaning of S. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. (V) She felt so fed-up by the conduct of her husband that she found no escape to her misery and misery of her children, except to end her life. She thought it as the only course open to avert her misery. ( 18 ) THESE factors establish cruelty of the husband on her. There is no justification coming forth about such cruelty. Of course, there was no question of any demand of dowry, but whatever is revealed, it indicates that the treatement was cruel which she was unable to bear. ( 19 ) TRUE, presumption of abetment to suicide, as argued by the learned counsel, under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act, is not available in this case and cannot be raised. But the question is whether from these circumstances, created by the husband and such conduct on his part towards the deceased, can it be said that he persuaded her to commit suicide or was instrumental for the same. The Supreme Court in a recent case of the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 : (1991 Cri LJ 1897), was faced with the situation where there was cruel conduct of the husband continuously towards his wife, but the marriage was more than 7 years old before the suicide by the wife. So presumption under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act was not available. It was found that there was pressure of dowry by the husband on her and on her mother. A divorce-deed was executed, but was not acted upon. The wife had apprehended danger to her life and sought even police protection. Their Lordships observed, after referring to the various provisions introduced in the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act, such as the provisions of Ss. A divorce-deed was executed, but was not acted upon. The wife had apprehended danger to her life and sought even police protection. Their Lordships observed, after referring to the various provisions introduced in the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act, such as the provisions of Ss. 498-A and 304b of the IPC and S. 113-A of the Evidence Act and S. 113-B of the Evidence Act and propounding on their implication, dealt with the situation, where presumption was not available, and observed :"then we have a situation where the husband or his relative by his wilful conduct creates a situation which he knows will drive the woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, the case would squarely fall within the ambit of S. 306, IPC. In such a case, the conduct of the person would tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the woman into desparate situation of no return. It would compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide. "their Lordship enumerated various cruelties committed by the husband on his wife and continuous demand of dowry and found that these cruelties were stemming from non-fulfilment of dowry and finally observed :"the last straw on the camel's back fell when she was severely beaten on the previous day, i. e. 6th June, 1983, as is evident from her letter dated 7-6-83. An atmosphere of terror was created to push her into taking extreme step. It seems it was carefully chalked out strategy to provoke her into taking extreme step to kill herself and her children as she apprehended that they will be much more miserable after she is dead and gone. In this fact situation, can it be said that the husband had not been responsible in creating a situation which would provoke or force her into taking the only alternative left open to her namely suicide? Can it be said that the husband did not realise where he was leading her by his willful conduct? We think in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had rightly convicted the husband under S. 306, IPC. We think that the High Court committed an error in reversing the conviction. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the High Court's order and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. We think in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had rightly convicted the husband under S. 306, IPC. We think that the High Court committed an error in reversing the conviction. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the High Court's order and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. " ( 20 ) THUS, the approach of the Apex Court in the above case clearly shows that the inference of abetment of suicide is permissible in cases of ill-treatment by husband towards wife even if presumption under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act is not available. It will be, however, dependent on the nature of creulty and continuous conduct of the husband towards wife to force her to take such step. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rules have been laid. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that merely demanding divorce from the wife, who wants to live separate from husband, or may be for any reason, cannot be taken as giving cause to the wife to commit suicide. She may not agree to the divorce, but this would not mean that the husband asked her or provoked her to commit suicide. He may or may not have a legitimate right to seek divorce, he was not called upon to explain the legitimate cause in the present proceeding. Even her son had stated that father wanted them to live according to his dictate and was wanting them to do what he proposed. But as they were not agreeing, they had to live separately. They denied cruel treatment of the father with their mother. The argument is that their evidence cannot be ignored and they give good reason of the conduct of the father towards his wife and towards them. ( 22 ) THIS is not a case of engaging in conspiracy for suicide or otherwise intentionally aiding her in suicide by any act or legal omission. If anything it had to be a case of instigation for suicide. The word 'instigate' in the literary sense means incite, urge, stir-up, goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc. ( 23 ) A Hindu wife is dependent for her maintenance, solace and day to day life on her husband. If anything it had to be a case of instigation for suicide. The word 'instigate' in the literary sense means incite, urge, stir-up, goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc. ( 23 ) A Hindu wife is dependent for her maintenance, solace and day to day life on her husband. She lives with her husband for her safety and for up-keep of the home and welfare of the children. Marriage is sacrosanct in her mind. She is devoted to children for their welfare. If ever there is any conflict between husband and children, she more likely chooses to show favour towards her children. Since a Hindu wife is not independent, she finds no other palce to go to without the husband for her livelihood or safety. If the husband becomes physically cruel and obstructs her source of maintenance and of her children and adopts brutal means to harass her, the common experience is that she feels constrained to end her life, seeing no way out. This lady was educated only up to 4th or 5th class, as stated by her brother. First she went to her brother to seek shelter and maintenance and then came to her son who had hardly any effective source of livelihood. Husband had already outraged her and wrought atrocity upon her. Because she was living with her son separately from him (husband) and he would not keep them he threatened her elder son and wanted them to leave Indore. Untoward incidents provoked the elder brother of the husband to suggest a way out and she was made to live in Sonpura and look after the land and get maintenance from the younger brother Ramesh who was looking after the land, to provide maintenance. Ramesh provided maintenance for 3 months and then stopped, apparently at the instance of her husband. Husband came at Sonpura and was forcing her to leave that place and to leave the house and did not allow her to cultivate the land or get its crop. He was doing all this and at the same time, demanded divorce also. He would approach her, under the influence of liquor, and would heap cruelty on her, including beating. So it is not merely a demand of divorce or taking liquor, which had created a situation leading to her suicide. Cruelties of various types, as noticed above, along with the demand of divorce, have done this. He would approach her, under the influence of liquor, and would heap cruelty on her, including beating. So it is not merely a demand of divorce or taking liquor, which had created a situation leading to her suicide. Cruelties of various types, as noticed above, along with the demand of divorce, have done this. In fact, he was heaping cruelties under the garb of forcing her to give divorce and even obtained her signature on some papers projecting them to be divorce papers, as narrated by her. She was mentally and physically tortured. Statement of the sons in court explaining away the conduct of their father is contradictory to what they stated to police and as to what they recorded in their letters to their maternal uncle. So these statements of the sons do not provide any probability in favour of the father. They have to be discarded as stemming from a desire to save their father from the clutches of law, when their mother was no more. Wife's suicide note (Ex. P-11) that she was dying because of her husband, cannot be ignored. Reasons were explained in the statement to police (Ex. P-31) and in the earlier letter written to her brother and what was narrated to her brother orally and as confirmed by her brother which he noticed personally. ( 24 ) INFERENCE from all such pieces of evidence are clear that a situation like that of 'rat in a trap' was created for the wife by the cruel treatment of the husband towards her. It is common knowledge that innumerable ladies, under the grip of such cruel conduct, find their way-out in putting off the flames of their lives, by suicide. In a set of proved circumstances, such inference that cruel conduct of the husband towards his wife leads to her suicide is permissible, without any legal presumption being available under the Statute. The Supreme Court observed so in the earlier cited case. In the present case, the fact situation leads to such an inference. ( 25 ) THE charge in this case was specific that the reason for suicide by Bimla Bai, wife of the accused, was that the accused stopped her from taking the crop, asked her to go away from the house, threatened to kill her, used force to obtain divorce from her and threatened to kill if she did not agree to divorce. For all these reasons, she took poison and ended her life and thus the accused-appellant provoked her to commit suicide. ( 26 ) CRUELTIES enumerated in the charge are certainly cruelties, as defined in S. 498-A of the IPC. They have been established and, in fact, further cruelty has been established that the accused was actually beating his wife and depriving her of maintenance and was causing hurt and harassment. In these circumstances, inference is natural that these cruelties led her and provoked her to commit suicide. They are not only reasons for suicide, but further the suicide was the only outlet open from the life of misery of a wife and so these cruelties provoked her to commit suicide. ( 27 ) THE accused has stated in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. that Murlidhar, brother of his wife, was deposing against him, because Murlidhar wanted Rs. 40,000/- from him and he was not paying and so he felt aggrieved and deposed against appellant. However, all these suggestions have been denied by Murlidhar and no basis for these suggestions have been brought by the accused. He is trying to find escape from the facts staring in his face. He has also explained in his statement in Court that Bimla Bai was residing separate from him for 4/5 years, but he was not harassing her and that while she was staying at Indore in Bholanath colony, he sent for her twice or thrice, but she refused to join him and so he had asked her to divorce him. ( 28 ) ASKING for divorce by itself cannot be called a provocation for suicide, even if the wife actually committed suicide as a result of such asking. But it is the cruelty and over all atmosphere created by cruelties precedent and antecedent of such demands of divorce which are material and which had an effect of leading this lady to take poison. The meaning of word 'instigate' used to S. 107, IPC, which defines the meaning of the word 'abets', cannot be restricted to the use of actual words, instigating to commit suicide. It has to be given wider meaning commensurate with the common experiences of life. The Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh (1991 Cri LJ 1897) (Supra) has given such wider meaning commensurate with common experience of life. It has to be given wider meaning commensurate with the common experiences of life. The Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh (1991 Cri LJ 1897) (Supra) has given such wider meaning commensurate with common experience of life. So, 'instigation' in the context of conduct of husband towards wife means creating a situation by conduct whereby a victim (wife), who is in complete dependence and at the mercy of the accused, sees no other way out, except to end her life. Of course, every case is dependent on its own facts and circumstances. Relationships of husband and wife are sacred and traditional among Hindus. The facts and circumstances of the present case lead to the only conclusion that due to cruel conduct of the accused, Bimla Bai was provoked to commit suicide. So the appellant abetted suicide by cruelty. He has been rightly convicted for the offence under S. 306, IPC. His conviction is affirmed. ( 29 ) AS regards the sentence, the trial Court has been quite lenient. There is no scope for reducing the sentence further. So the sentence is also confirmed. ( 30 ) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, Warrant of confirmation of conviction and sentence be sent. The appellant shall surrender to his bonds to suffer the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .