S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Dwarika Prasad Soni has been convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- one thousand only) for this offence. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides the evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised. Deceased Vijaylaxmi was the daughter of Harishankar (P. W. 2) and sister of Govind Singh (P. W. 4 ). She was married to accused Dwarika Prasad on 8-2-1985 at Kanpur. The couple lived at Kanpur for sometime. In 1988 Dwarika Prasad and his wife shifted to Fatehpur and then started living at Morena in Madhya Pradesh. She consumed acid on 9-5-1991 at Morena and died on 10-9-1991 at Gwalior. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that the accused was demanding dowry from the father and brother of his wife and he was treating her with cruelty. The incidents of cruelty are said to have taken place when Dwarika Prasad and his wife were living at Kanpur. Then there was a compromise. Harishankar (P. W. 2) got a shop opened for accused Dwarika Prasad at Kanpur. There was again a quarrel between the husband and the wife. This led to a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and the Family Court at Kanpur by its order dt. 29-9-88 granted a maintainance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month to the wife. Again there was a mutual settlement. The couple lived for sometime at Kanpur and then went to Fatehpur. Then they shifted to Morena. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. His defence was that after the mutual settlement between him and his wife he always treated her with affection and never made any dowry demand or meted out any cruelty to her. ( 5 ) THE trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record has summarised its findings in para 39 of its judgment. The deceased was being treated with cruelty by the appellant in connection with his demand for dowry and she had started living with her parents. There was compromise between the husband and the wife twice. After the order of the Family Court dt. 29-9-88 (Ex. P/6) the wife started living with her husband at Kanpur. The deceased was being treated with cruelty by the appellant in connection with his demand for dowry and she had started living with her parents. There was compromise between the husband and the wife twice. After the order of the Family Court dt. 29-9-88 (Ex. P/6) the wife started living with her husband at Kanpur. To this extent the findings of the trial Court appear to be unassailable. ( 6 ) THE finding of the trial Court that Vijaylaxmi committed suicide at Morena by consuming acid is also beyond challenge. The point which has been seriously debated at the time of the hearing of this appeal is whether there is any definite evidence to establish that the appellant treated his wife with cruelty or demanded any dowry after there had been mutual settlement between the two and Vijaylaxmi started living with the appellant? The finding of the trial Court on this point has been challenged in this appeal and that requires close scrutiny. ( 7 ) TO begin with, the F. I. R. Ex. P/2 dt. 15-5-91 which was prepared after consultation with two lawyers by the father of the deceased does not contain a word on this point that there was any demand of dowry by the appellant after his wife started living with him after the mutual settlement which took place between them. In this report there is absolutely no mention that while living at Morena Vijaylaxmi had at any time complained to her parents or her brother that the accused was demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry to meet the expenses of the marriage of his sister. The allegation against the accused was that he committed murder of his wife. The charges which were framed against the appellant were under Sections 302, 304-B and 201, I. P. C. He has not been found guilty by the trial Court for any of these charges. He has however been convicted under Section 306, I. P. C. for abetment of suicide by his wife. ( 8 ) HARISHANKAR (P. W. 2) has stated in para 2 of his deposition that the accused used to beat Vijaylaxmi at Morena also. He does not disclose when his daughter made such a complaint to him at Morena. As already stated such an allegation does not find place in F. I. R. Ex. P/2. ( 8 ) HARISHANKAR (P. W. 2) has stated in para 2 of his deposition that the accused used to beat Vijaylaxmi at Morena also. He does not disclose when his daughter made such a complaint to him at Morena. As already stated such an allegation does not find place in F. I. R. Ex. P/2. He has further stated in para 3 that his daughter told him that the accused is demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage of his sister Suman. Again it is not stated when this statement was made to him by his daughter. He has further added that at the time of 'holi' his daughter had come to Kanpur and at that time she had demanded a cooker from him. He does not say specifically that his daughter when she came to Kanpur at the time of 'holi' complained to him that her husband is demanding Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage of his sister. This witness has further said that his daughter had given him a letter at that time but he does not say what were the contents of that letter. No such letter has been seized or produced in the Court. In cross-examination in para 5 he has stated that accused Dwarika Prasad had directly demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from him for the marriage of his sister and he had made such statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. but on reference to that statement marked as Ex. P/1, it is found that he never made a statement that either the accused had directly demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from him for the marriage of his sister or it was disclosed that his daughter had complained to him that the accused is demanding this amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. In his statement marked as A to A in Ex. D/1 he has stated that accused Dwarika Prasad had made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- from his son Govind Singh. Govind Singh (P. W. 4) does not support this statement of his father which he has made in Ex. D/1. According to Govind Singh (P. W. 4) his sister Vijaylaxmi had told him that her husband is asking for Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage of his sister. The statement of Govind Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. is Ex. D/-3. D/1. According to Govind Singh (P. W. 4) his sister Vijaylaxmi had told him that her husband is asking for Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage of his sister. The statement of Govind Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. is Ex. D/-3. In this statement he does not say that his sister Vijaylaxmi had ever said that her husband is demanding Rs. 10,000/- for the marriage of his sister. In the statement Ex. D/-3 he says that accused Dwarika Prasad had come to Kanpur when they were living at Fatehpur and at that time accused Dwarika Prasad had asked for Rs. 10. 000/- for the marriage of his sister. ( 9 ) THUS, the story of the prosecution regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused for the marriage of his sister is extremely doubtful. The evidence on this point is discrepant and contradictory. The trial Court has also not recorded any definite finding in its detailed judgment that there was any demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused for the marriage of his sister from the parents of Vijaylaxmi either directly or through her. The finding that the accused was demanding dowry and was harassing the deceased when living at Morena is very vague. There is no reliable evidence to support it. Therefore, this finding of the trial Court is not acceptable. A perusal of the entire evidence shows that the accused did not make any dowry demand or treat his wife with cruelty after the mutual settlement between them after the order of the Family Court in September, 1988. Thus, during the period of about three years prior to the commission of suicide by deceased Vijaylaxmi, there is no proof of any demand of dowry or treating her with cruelty by the accused. The past instances of cruelty which took place before the mutual settlement could not operate in the mind of the deceased to bring an end to her life. Those instances of cruelty of remote past had become stale enough to serve as the impelling force to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The past instances of cruelty which took place before the mutual settlement could not operate in the mind of the deceased to bring an end to her life. Those instances of cruelty of remote past had become stale enough to serve as the impelling force to drive the deceased to commit suicide. ( 10 ) IN the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 : (2000 Cri LJ 2993) the Supreme Court was dealing with a case under Section 304-B, I. P. C. The words 'soon before' used in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B, I. P. C. were the subject-matter of interpretation. It has been laid down that in relation to Dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough. ( 11 ) EARLIER in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 : (1994 Cri LJ 2104), it was held that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance dischord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance dischord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. ( 12 ) THOUGH in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act the words 'soon before' have not been used but the cruelty would become abetment if there have been instances of cruelty soon before the death of the woman. Cruel treatment in the long past could not be abetment if such a course of conduct has not persisted soon before the commission of suicide. In the present case, as stated above, the deceased was not treated with cruelty by the appellant at least during a period of about three years prior to the commission of suicide by her. Therefore the appellant could not be held guilty for the offence under Section 306, I. P. C. ( 13 ) IN view of the above discussion this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306, I. P. C. Appeal allowed. .