JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No. 35/82 on punishing the accused-appellants as under, the appellants have preferred this appeal:- Accused-appellartts Jugal Kishore and Smt. Kani Bai each have convicted for offence under section 306 I.PC. and each has been sentenced to imprisonment for three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- has been imposed on each appellant and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Smt. Kani Bai w/o Shiv Lal, mother of accused-appellant No. 1 Jugal Kishore died and, therefore, appeal by her abates. No orders in that regard are, therefore necessary. The appeal, therefore, survives only in regard to Jugal Kishore and it is taken up for adjudication accordingly. 3. The prosecution story as revealed on reappreciation of the evidence is that Sonu was married to accused Jugal Kishore and was harassed by her husband and other in-laws, as a result and consequence of which harassment, Sonu committed suicide on 26.8.1982. During the investigation of this suicide, the police suspected that the suicide was committed due to instigation and harassment of the in-laws and therefore, proceeded to prosecute the accused-appellant Jugal kishore and his mother Kani Bai for offence under section 306 I.PC. After investigation, challan was put up and several witness were examined by the prosecution to prove the case of Abatement of suicide by the accused persons. The learned Judge as aforesaid came to the conclusion of guilt and recorded conviction as aforesaid. In appeal several contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as are mentioned in the memo of appeal and also were verbally canvassed before me. The evidence on the basis of which Conviction has been recorded by the learned judge is in the shape of evidence of RW. 2 Bherumal, PW. 7 Ram Singh, P.W. 8 Om Prakash, PW. 11 Munni Devi and RW. 12 Ratni Bai, all of whom are close relations of the deceased Sonu. The evidence of RW. 7 Ram Singh, brother of the deceased; RW. 8 Om Prakash, brother of the deceased, PW. 2 Bherumal, PW. 7 Ram Singh, P.W. 8 Om Prakash, PW. 11 Munni Devi and RW. 12 Ratni Bai, all of whom are close relations of the deceased Sonu. The evidence of RW. 7 Ram Singh, brother of the deceased; RW. 8 Om Prakash, brother of the deceased, PW. 11 Munni Devi, sister of the deceased and P.W. 12 Ratni Bai, mother of the deceased, is natural and consistent. All of them have deposed that on 12 8.1982, the accused had come to Ajmer to take back Sonu to the marital home and when he was taking her away, he demanded from his in-laws a radio, which demand of radio was earlier conveyed by him through the letter which he had addressed to Sonu when she was in her parental home. The letters have been duly proved by PW. 11 Munni Devi, who is sister of the deceased and who was told of the letters and was shown the letters by the deceased. Apart from the letters, all the relations present on 12.8.1982 had deposed that the accused Jugal Kishore demanded a radio from his in-laws. There is, therefore, clear cut unequivocal and abundant evidence on record to whom that a dowry demand in the shape of a radio was made by the accused on 12.8.1982. 4. In order to bring home conviction under section 306 I.PC., it is necessary to prove that : (i) suicide was committed; and (ii) victim committed suicide because of the abetment officer by the accused. In the present case, there is no dispute that Suicide was committed and the only question which comes up for consideration is whether the accused abetted commission of that suicide. Abetment is defined in Section 107 I.PC. According to this provision, abatement under the Penal Code involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence, and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist the principal culprit towards the commission of the offence. Actual commission of the offence thereafter is not necessary for the purpose of bringing home the charge of abetment. Abatement is a separate and distinct offence provided, of course, the thing abetted is an offence. There cannot be any dispute that commission of suicide is an offence. Actual commission of the offence thereafter is not necessary for the purpose of bringing home the charge of abetment. Abatement is a separate and distinct offence provided, of course, the thing abetted is an offence. There cannot be any dispute that commission of suicide is an offence. However, the person perpetrating the offence cannot be punished at all. Consequently, abetment of suicide has been made an independent offence by Section 306 I.P.C. but for which it would not be an offence. In order to bring home charge under section 306 I.PC. therefore, it is necessary to prove that abetment has been committed by the accused by instigating Sonu to commit suicide or by forcing Sonu to commit suicide. 5. Torture of married woman by greatly in-laws is not a novelty any more in Indian society. It is pathetically afflicted by this evil. Availability of riches or non- availability of funds has no relevance in the present day set up. Women have been tortured in rich families women have been tortured in poorer surroundings, women have been tortured for more by greedy, women have been tortured for something by needy. The only common thing being torture being practiced on women in their marital homes. Instances are not lacking where many women so tortured become accustomed to it as though the experience is a normal feature of their life. It is not entirely intolerable to a tortured Indian woman. It is most unfortunate that a woman in our country is so subjected to torture. Unfortunately, women are taught by the parents that they have to tolerate everything after marriage. Their complains about cruelty by in-laws in vast majority of cases are subdued or ignored by sagacious advice of the parents that she has to be tolerant. Such cases do happen and she has to bear with it. It has been sculpted in the brain of Indian women that once she goes to the marital home, only her dead body leaves the place. She has to accept the marital home in whatever state it, good, bad or indifferent. It need not be said the most women are happily accepted. Indifferent environment becomes acceptable by the Indian women and it becomes a pleasant happening for them. She has to accept the marital home in whatever state it, good, bad or indifferent. It need not be said the most women are happily accepted. Indifferent environment becomes acceptable by the Indian women and it becomes a pleasant happening for them. It is only when a woman is tortured in her marital home and torture or cruelty is such that is becomes out of the capacities of the woman to tolerate it that the woman is forced to commit suicide. The law of Section 306 I.PC. of abetment of suicide has to be understood and interpreted in the light of this social background. 6. It is a consistent law that in order to sustain a conviction under Section 306 I.PC., the torture of abetment or instigation of suicide must accrue in immediate proximity of the suicide. Past instance of torture cannot be accepted as individual instigation for suicide at a later date. 7. In view of this position of law, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused contended that except for solitary instance of 12.8.1982 when the woman was taken by the accused and the letters of the husband to the deceased, there is no evidence or evidence of cruelty to prove cruelty, torture or dowry demand, A single demand of radio cannot be in the circumstances enough to lead a person to commit suicide and hence, conviction of the accused under section 306 I.PC. in the instant case is impermissible. 8. On reappreciation of the evidence on record as aforesaid, I am unable to accept this submission. In my opinion, there is ample proof and consequently evidence on record prove that she has been starved or driven to suicide by demand of dowry in the shape of radio by her husband. There is unequivocal evidence of P.W. 2 Bherumal to this effect. The entire evidence on record has to be appreciated cumulatively and not in isolation. 9. Evidence of RW. 2 Bherumal, therefore, needs consideration in extenso. He has deposed that he is connected with the family of the deceased Sonu and he regarded her as his sister and when he visited the town where Sonu was staying, went to see her. That was on 24.8.1982. When he met her the deceased Sonu was crying and while crying she told him that she has been tortured for last 10 days. That was on 24.8.1982. When he met her the deceased Sonu was crying and while crying she told him that she has been tortured for last 10 days. She has not been even fed for last 10 days. She lived starved and tortured. She told Bherumal that the accused has threatened her to kill if radio was not given. She, therefore, sent a massage with Bherumal for radio. The witness has then deposed that the next day he again went to the house of Sonu and tried to meet her but he has deposed that the family refused to permit to meet her on 25.8.1982. The witness has been extensively cross examined and there is nothing in his cross examination on the basis of which it could be said that the witness is not trust worthy. There is thus, evidence of RW. 2 Bherumal that he met the deceased Sonu on 24.8.1982 and was told by Sonu that she has been tortured for last several days, she has been straved for last 10 days and is likely to be killed by the husband. Then there is evidence of P.W. 7 Ram Singh, RW. 8 Om Prakash, RW. 11 Mohni Devi and RW. 12 Ratni Bai who depose that on 12.8.82, the appellant had demanded radio from his in-laws. There is, thus chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution leading to suicide of Sonu. 10. The Supreme Court in Gallu Sah v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1958 SC 813 ) has considered the question as to whether conviction under section 436 read with section 109 I.RC. is proper when the Court has acquitted the person of the substantive offence under section 436 I.RC. and held that there is no error in such conviction. In that case, the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to attack a certain but and commit assault on remonstrance. The accused was found to have given orders to one B, a member of the unlawful assembly to set fire to the hut. The hut was set fire to and burnt. Accused was charged, among other counts under Section 436 read with Section 109 I.RC. B was charged under B was acquitted of this charge because the evidence of the witnesses that B had set fire to the hut was not believed. The hut was set fire to and burnt. Accused was charged, among other counts under Section 436 read with Section 109 I.RC. B was charged under B was acquitted of this charge because the evidence of the witnesses that B had set fire to the hut was not believed. But their evidence that the accused had ordered to set fire to the hut and the hut was actually burnt by one of the members of the unlawful assembly, was believed and on it the accused was convicted under section 436 read with section 109. It was held that there was no violation of any rule of law in not accepting the evidence of the witness in so far as they said that B set fire to the hut and accepting it in so far as they said that is was the accused who ordered to set fire to the hut. It was further held that the hut was set on fire by one of the members of the unlawful assembly and it was in consequence of the orders given by the accused and, therefore, the conviction of the accused under section 436 read with section 109 was not illegal. 11. In coming to the above conclusion, the Supreme court has observed that merely because the witnesses were not found trustworthy in regard to their statements of setting hut on fire, their evidence in regard to involvement of accused was acceptable. Placing reliance on the famous maxim 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not necessary in every case. The Supreme Court went on maintaining the conviction in the said circumstances after observing as under:- "It seems to us, on the findings given in the case, that the person who set fire to the hut of Mst. Rasmani must be one of the persons who were members of the unlawful assembly and he must have done so in consequence of the order of the present appellant. It is, we think, too unreal to hold that the person who set fire to the hut of Mst. Rasmani did so irrespective, or independently, of the order given by the present appellant. It is, we think, too unreal to hold that the person who set fire to the hut of Mst. Rasmani did so irrespective, or independently, of the order given by the present appellant. Such a finding, in our opinion, would be unreal and completely divorced from the facts of the case and it is necessary to add that no such finding was given either by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge who tried the appellant or the learned Judge of the High Court. As we read the findings of the learned Judge, it seems clear to us that he found that the person who set fire to the hut of Mst. Rasmani did so in consequence of the abetment, namely, the instigation of the appellant." It will, thus, be seen that abetment can be proved by oral and circumstantial evidence. The oral evidence in this case of P.W. 2 Bherumal and those of other there relations regarding demand on 12.8.1982, it is proved forcible torture by the accused to the deceased from 12.8.1982 the date of her committing suicide. I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial judge that Sonu committed suicide because of torture on her by the accused of fulfilling his demand of radio. 12. Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and others ( AIR 1990 SC 209 ) is another judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to abetment. In fact, it is directly a judgment under section 306 I.P.C. The conviction of the accused was ultimately maintained by the Supreme Court. In this case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused and in appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused setting aside the order of acquittal as made by the High Court, the conviction was restored by the Supreme Court as aforesaid. In the present case, in my opinion, the evidence of RW. 2 Bherumal, RW. 7 Ram Singh, RW. 8 Om Prakash, RW. 11 Munni Devi and RW. 12 Ratni Bai is more than sufficient to prove abetment on the part of the accused. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in paras 27, 34, 41 and 42, I have no hesitation, therefore, in confirming the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in relation to guilt of the accused. 11 Munni Devi and RW. 12 Ratni Bai is more than sufficient to prove abetment on the part of the accused. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in paras 27, 34, 41 and 42, I have no hesitation, therefore, in confirming the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in relation to guilt of the accused. I, therefore, affirm the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 13. An argument was advanced that the accused are already on bail since 1984 and it would be too harsh a sentence now to require him to suffer imprisonment as ordered by the trial judge. In the case of the kind which is now dealt with, no punishment is harsh to a cruel and torturing husband as the accused. Such things should not happen In this country. Persons who deal in : cruelty and lead their near relations to suicide deserve harshest possible punishment. The conviction as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should be maintained. Unless such cases of suicide being abetted are strictly dealt with, the evil will not be stopped. I am also aware of the situation that only one example of maintaining the sentence is not enough to deter the greedy and torturing person and social refusal is the only remedy which certainly can act as a weapon and I am sure it will come somebody. For the present, I will be satisfied in maintaining the conviction and sentence as ordered by the learned trial Judge. 14. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The police is directed to take the accused in custody immediately and put him in jail to suffer the imprisonment ordered by the learned trial Judge, also direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur to look into the matter immediately and see that the accused suffer imprisonment: A copy of this Judgment may be endorsed to the learned Addl. Session . Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur City, as also Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural for appropriate action at their end.Appeal dismissed. *******