JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal has been directed by Vikram Singh, father-in- law, Surender, husband and Smt. Sahbo, mother-in-law of Pushpa (since deceased) against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby they were found guilty and convicted under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and a fine of Rs. 8,000/- each under Section 306 Indian Penal Code; in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years; to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered that out of the fine realised 80% would go to the father of the deceased, Pushpa. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Pushpa was the third daughter of PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She was married to appellant Surender in village Aasan in the year 1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. At that time, Dilbag Singh had given sufficient dowry but the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry given. They started harassing her. In order to make them happy, PW-10 Dilbag Singh used to give some money to his daughter Pushpa whenever she visited him but the demand of the appellants remained always on the increasing side. They used to beat her. Smt. Pushpa used to tell to her father about the atrocities committed upon her, whenever she visited him. After about two and half years of the marriage, Pushpa had given birth to a daughter, namely, Garima and at that time also, PW-10 Dilbag Singh had given sufficient gifts but the appellants were not satisfied. 3. About 3 months back, Vikram and Smt. Sahbo, appellants, sent their son, Surender to PW-4 Sombir, maternal uncle of Pushpa, with a demand of Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of tractor but PW-4 Sombir refused to oblige him and informed about it to Dilbag Singh, who also told him not to oblige Surender as he and his father would spend the amount on liquor. 4. 80,000/- for purchase of tractor but PW-4 Sombir refused to oblige him and informed about it to Dilbag Singh, who also told him not to oblige Surender as he and his father would spend the amount on liquor. 4. It was further averred that after their demand was not fulfilled, they became more harsh towards Pushpa and started beating her. Pushpa, then came to Village Khudan and apprised of the cruelty of her in-laws towards her to PW-10 Dilbag Singh. She remained in her parental house for about three months and was taken back by Surender, appellant, only 10 days prior to the occurrence, after giving assurance that she would be treated nicely in the matrimonial house. 5. On 23.4.2002, PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh received a telephonic message at about 6/7 PM through PW-3 Krishan from Vikram, appellant, that Pushpa had ended her life by committing suicide by hanging. 6. Upon receipt of this information, PW-10 Dilbag Singh along with his wife, PW-2 Prem, brother-in-law Sombir PW-4 and others reached Village Aasan and found the dead body of Pushpa hanging in the room of first floor of their house. Broken pieces of her bangles and her chappals were also lying there. 7. Case bearing FIR, Ex. PH, was registered upon the statement, Ex. PG of PW-10 Dilbag Singh. PW-12 Ram Kishan, ASI, investigated the case. He got the hanging dead body of Pushpa photographed from PW-7 Raj Pal, Photographer. He prepared inquest report, Ex. PC. He took into possession the broken bangles in match-box, Ex. P7 and Chaplas Exs. P-5 and P-6 by making separate sealed parcels vide recovery memo Ex. PD. He prepared rough site plan, Ex. PK of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post mortem examination with police application, Ex. PA. 8. PW-1 Dr. Mahesh Parkash, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Pushpa and gave his report, Ex. PB. He stated that the cause of death of Smt. Pushpa was due to asphyxia and congestion as a result of hanging, which was ante-mortem in nature and the time between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and post mortem examination was within 12 to 48 hours. He further stated that Smt. Pushpa was carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks and on cutting, a male foetus had come out. 9. He further stated that Smt. Pushpa was carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks and on cutting, a male foetus had come out. 9. PW-5 Constable Samit Kumar prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PF. The appellants were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up by PW-6 ASI Vijay Singh. Challan was initially put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, who vide her order dated 2.8.2002, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 10. Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellants were charged under Sections 498A and 306/34 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 23.8.2002, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. 12. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. Surender, appellant, in his statement stated that he and his wife Pushpa lived separately from his parents and Pushpa had committed suicide as she was mentally perturbed due to pregnancy. He next stated that he did not harass her on account of demand of dowry. He further stated that there was no demand of dowry from his parents. Vikram and Sahbo wife of Vikram, in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, also denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that their son Surender and their daughter-in-law Pushpa were living separately from them and they had never harassed Pushpa on account of dowry nor any demand of dowry was ever made from her and Pushpa committed suicide due to mental tension owing to pregnancy. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 13. After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his judgment dated 19.10.2002 found the appellants guilty and convicted them under Sections 306/34 and 498- A/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 14. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused have filed the present appeal. 15. I have heard Mr. H.S. Hooda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent and carefully gone through the record. 16. 14. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused have filed the present appeal. 15. I have heard Mr. H.S. Hooda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent and carefully gone through the record. 16. It is an admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa was married to Surender, appellant, in the year 1994 and she committed suicide by hanging on the night of 23.4.2002. The case of the prosecution is that Pushpa was being harassed by the appellants on account of demand of dowry and due to that harassment, she was compelled to commit suicide. PW-2 Prem wife of Dilbag Singh stated that her daughter Pushpa was married with Surender son of Vikram, resident of Village Aasan in the year 1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and they had given dowry according to their capacity and after about 2 years of her marriage, Pushpa had given birth to a daughter. She next stated that the appellants, namely, Vikram, Surender and Sahbo started harassing her daughter, Pushpa, for bringing inadequate dowry. She next stated that 3-4 months prior to the occurrence, Vikram, appellant, had sent his son, Surender, to her brother PW-4 Sombir at Village Ritholi, asking him to make payment of Rs. 80,000/- as they were to purchase a tractor but her brother did not fulfil their demand and he sent information to her. She next stated that when her brother Sombir failed to fulfil the demand of Surender, appellant then they started harassing Pushpa more vigorously and even started giving beating to her. She further stated that when the appellants gave Pushpa severe beating, then Pushpa visited her parental house and stayed with her for about three months and at that time, she was pregnant. She further stated that Surender, appellant, came to take Pushpa with her and he promised not to harass Pushpa and then on his assurance, Pushpa was sent with him and after 10 days of sending Pushpa with him, she received a telephonic message at the residence of Krishan at about 6/7 PM that Pushpa had committed suicide by hanging. She further stated that on 24.4.2002, she along with Krishan, Sombir and her husband Dilbag went to village Aasan and found Pushpa hanging in the room of the first floor and her bangles were broken and chappals were also lying there. 17. She further stated that on 24.4.2002, she along with Krishan, Sombir and her husband Dilbag went to village Aasan and found Pushpa hanging in the room of the first floor and her bangles were broken and chappals were also lying there. 17. PW-4 Sombir stated that Smt. Prem was his sister and she was married in Village Khudan with Dilbag Singh. He next stated that Pushpa was the daughter of his sister Prem and had studied upto middle class and was married to Surender in the year 1994. He further stated that Surender, appellant, along with his parents started harassing Pushpa on account of bringing inadequate dowry and she was being taunted that she was not taking interest in the house-hold affairs. He next stated that she was shunted out of her matrimonial house on one or the other pretext. She gave birth to a female child after two and half years or three years of her marriage. He further stated that the appellants used to raise demand for bringing cash from her parents and about 5 to 6 months prior to her death, Surender, appellant, had come to him and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchasing a tractor and he consulted his brother-in-law, Dilbag Singh, who told him that he would not be responsible for re-payment as Surender and his father were habituated to take liquor. He next stated that when demand of Rs. 80,000/- was not met, then they started harassing Pushpa and beating her and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and she lived with her parents and then 10 days prior to the occurrence, she was sent to the matrimonial home with Surender, appellant, on his assurance that they would not harass Pushpa. To the same effect is the statement of PW-10 Dilbag Singh, father of the prosecutrix. 18. The letter, Ex. PE, has been produced on record during the cross- examination of PW-4 Sombir. He stated that his sister had received this letter and she had handed over this letter to him about 2-3 days of its receipt. A perusal of this letter shows that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had stopped saying anything to Pushpa but her husband, Surender, had given severe beating to her to the extent that she had become incapacitated and was unable to walk. This letter appears to be dated 2.6.1997 as per the stamp of the Post Office. A perusal of this letter shows that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had stopped saying anything to Pushpa but her husband, Surender, had given severe beating to her to the extent that she had become incapacitated and was unable to walk. This letter appears to be dated 2.6.1997 as per the stamp of the Post Office. It cannot be manufactured afterwards because it bears the seal of the Post Office and even it bears a seal for deficiency of stamp because it was found to be under stamped for Re. 1/-. The trial Court has found as a matter of evidence that all the appellants were living together jointly and not separately because the certificate furnished by the Sarpanch was not genuine and he himself did not have any personal knowledge about the family of the appellants because he was in service in Rajasthan and retired in 1998 and he did not visit the house of the appellants but only went once on the occasion of some marriage. 19. Counsel for the appellants contended that no offence is made out under Section 306 Indian Penal Code because there is no evidence that there was intentional abetment or active complicity to urge Smt. Pushpa to commit suicide. In order to appreciate it properly, it is useful to reproduce Sections 306 and 107 Indian Penal Code as under :- "306. Abetment of suicide : If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 107. Abetment of a thing :- A person abets the doing of a thing who - First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - 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 Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing". 18. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act. 18. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. To constitute instigation it is not necessary that express words should be used to indicate what should be done by the person to whom the directions are given. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is actually done by the person whom he abets. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetted was the instigation and nothing else, for it is humanly impossible for any tribunal to decide exactly how much the instigation actually weighed in the mind of the person abetted. 19. It would thus appear that the abetment defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code can be of instigation, conspiracy or intentionally aids. It is not enough that the act of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aid through active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. In the present case, it is proved on file that Pushpa had committed suicide by hanging. It is further proved from the statements of PW-2 Prem, PW-4 Sombir and PW-10 Dilbag Singh that Pushpa was being harassed on account of demand of dowry and about six months prior to the occurrence, Surender had visited the house of maternal uncle of Pushpa, namely, PW-4 Sombir where Pushpa had studied upto 8th Class and demanded Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of tractor but he had refused to pay the amount as father of Pushpa, Dilbag Singh, had told him not to pay the amount as he would spend the amount in taking liquor. 80,000/- for purchase of tractor but he had refused to pay the amount as father of Pushpa, Dilbag Singh, had told him not to pay the amount as he would spend the amount in taking liquor. It is also proved on file that after the refusal of PW-4 Sombir to pay the amount, the attitude of Surender became more harsh and he started giving beating to Pushpa and ultimately, she was turned out of the matrimonial house and then she stayed for about 3 months at her parental house and ultimately, she was taken by Surender, appellant, on the assurance that Pushpa will be treated nicely in future but after 10 days of it, she committed suicide. However, letter, Ex. PE, shows that Vikram, father-in-law and Sahbo, mother-in-law, had stopped saying anything to Pushpa and on the other hand, it was Surender, appellant, alone who harassed her and gave beating to her to such an extent in the field, when there was none to stop him and she became incapacitated even to walk. 21. Admittedly, Pushpa was pregnant at the time of committing suicide by hanging. She was carrying a male foetus. She was having earlier one daughter, namely, Garima. It is difficult to believe that she had committed suicide by hanging on account of tension of pregnancy. A young pregnant woman having one child does not commit suicide unless she is compelled to do so. In fact, there was nothing for her to feel depressed, if she had not been harassed on account of demand of dowry. The authority of this Court i.e. Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 115 cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above-mentioned case, it was simply proved that Saroj, deceased, had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil and at that time, her husband Rishi Kumar was carrying on illicit relations with Tarawati and he was under the spell of Tarawati and Rishi Kumar had forced Saroj to have common mess with Harijan couple, to which she opposed and to end that opposition, Rishi Kumar had abused and beaten her at intervals. It was held by this Court that it did not amount to intentional aiding and abetting. It was held by this Court that it did not amount to intentional aiding and abetting. Similarly, the authority of Honble Apex Court i.e. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 537 referred by counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case from the diary of the deceased, it was proved that she was ashamed of her own fault and as such, she committed suicide and further she wanted to visit her friends house but her husband stated that she could go alone and not with him and she was free to go anywhere and she was enraged by this saying of her husband. It was held that it did not amount to instigation and the accused was not guilty of abetment. Therefore, from the letter, it cannot be said that the father-in-law and mother-in-law also harassed Pushpa on account of demand of dowry or compelled her to commit suicide. 22. Hence, in view of the discussion above, the appeal qua appellant Nos. 1 and 3 is accepted and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving benefit of doubt. 23. However, it is proved on file that it was Surender, appellant No. 2, who harassed her on account of demand of dowry and even gave severe beating earlier and ultimately, Pushpa was expelled from the matrimonial home and had to live at her parental house for three months and was later on, taken back to the matrimonial home, 10 days prior to her death, by Surender, appellant, on the assurance that she would be kept nicely. The appellant, Surender, has not explained as to why she had committed suicide. Thus, Surender, appellant, had intentionally instigated or aided Pushpa to commit suicide by his acts as he started harassing her more vigorously after his demand of Rs. 80,000/- was not met. Smt. Pushpa had no other alternative except to commit suicide. Hence, Surender, appellant, has been rightly convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A and 306/34 Indian Penal Code. 24. Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion, the appeal qua Surender, appellant No. 2, is dismissed and qua appellant Nos. 1 and 3 is accepted as stated above. Order accordingly.