Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellant along with his father Kirpal Chand, mother Bhagwani Bai and Ram Sarup were put to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 498a and 304b/34 IPC. All the three persons named above, were acquitted, however, trial Court found appellant guilty for commission of an offence under Sec.304b IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years. Hence, this appeal. 2. Fir in this case was recorded at the instance of Lal Chand, father of the deceased. As per prosecution story, marriage of Kanta Rani Madhu Bala was solemnised with appellant/accused on 21.2.1988. Thereafter, she started living with her inlaws. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given to the appellant and his family members. They, being greedy persons, used to demand more dowry items, again and again. He asked for a tempo/money to purchase the same from the complainant, which the complainant, due to his meagre financial resources, failed to pay to the appellant. Due to this reason, all family members had been maltreating his daughter. She had written letters to the complainant that her inlaws were very greedy people and they were demanding money from her for the purchase of tempo. 3. In the month of June, 1989, appellant alongwith his wife Kanta Rani had gone to village Nehlas to attend marriage of a relatives daughter. Even at that time, appellant demanded from the complainant money to purchase a four wheeler, failing which it was told that the complainant may keep his daughter in his house. On refusal, appellant left his wife and she was taken to her parents house at Ludhiana, where she lived for a month. She was taken back by the appellant/accused when he received a message of the complainant that if his daughter is not taken immediately, he will be compelled to initiate legal proceedings against appellant and his family members. Even thereafter, attitude of inlaws family did not change. They continued to harass the deceased and demand money for purchase of a four wheeler. 4. Fed up with their attitude and repeated demands, Kanta Rani had committed suicide by consuming poison on 6.9.1989. On getting information, parents reached Panipat, where, they came to know that their daughter had died on 7.9.1989. They continued to harass the deceased and demand money for purchase of a four wheeler. 4. Fed up with their attitude and repeated demands, Kanta Rani had committed suicide by consuming poison on 6.9.1989. On getting information, parents reached Panipat, where, they came to know that their daughter had died on 7.9.1989. On the basis of statement made by Lal Chand, father of the deceased, FIR was recorded. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted and viscera was sent for chemical examination. In report received, viscera was found to have contained poison i. e. aluminium phosphate. Cause of death ultimately was opined as poisoning. 5. Investigation was completed as per law and on completion of investigation, final report was put up before competent Court. Chargesheet was framed against the appellant and others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498a and 304b IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then produced 8 witnesses to support its case and also brought on record documentary evidence. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant and other accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , wherein they admitted marriage of the deceased with the appellant, however, they denied all other accusations appearing against them in prosecution evidence. They took up a stand that they were innocent. No dowry including four wheeler was ever demanded at the time, before or after the marriage. They further stated that deceased was never harassed and mal treated, she was of sentimental nature and used to lose temper on trifle matters, that in those days in connection with marriage of a relative of the appellant, clothes were bought for the deceased, she was not satisfied with the quality and quantity of clothes, she was frustrated and appears to have committed suicide due to that reason. It was further stated that other family members had no concern with the marriedlife of the deceased and the appellant since they were living in a separate portion of the house like other brothers of the appellant. They also led evidence in defence. 6. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, acquitted other accused, however, appellant was convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. Mr. They also led evidence in defence. 6. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties, acquitted other accused, however, appellant was convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has wrongly been convicted for commission of an offence under Sec.304b IPC. By referring to statements of witnesses and documentary evidence on record, including letters written by the deceased to the complainant, he submitted that there is no specific allegation of cruelty being committed against the deceased by the appellant. In the alternative, he stated that even as per allegations of the prosecution, no cruelty, alleged to have been committed soon before the death of deceased was made out. He further argued that there existed no independent corroboration to the allegations levelled by the complainant. 8. Without admitting any fault, counsel further stated that even demand of money for the purchase of four wheeler after marriage cannot be termed as demand towards dowry in connection with marriage. By referring to various contradictions in the statements of witnesses, counsel stated that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 9. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgments in Sham Lal V/s. State of Haryana , Sunil Bajaj V/s. State of M. P. , Satvir ingh and others V/s. State of Punjab and another, Mangeshwar Prasad Chairasia V/s. State of Bihar, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Han Singh. State of Punjab and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Surinder Kumar V/s. State of Punjab. He also argued that since no charge was framed for commission of an offence under Sec.306 IPC, appellant could not be convicted for the same. He prayed that appeal be allowed, judgment and order under challenge be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 10. State counsel has vehemently controverted the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. He, by referring to evidence on record, stated that the guilt of the appellant/accused was proved on record. He has further stated that admittedly death had occurred within 7 years and it was unnatural death, there existed sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was being maltreated and harassed for bringing money to purchase a tempo. He, by referring to evidence on record, stated that the guilt of the appellant/accused was proved on record. He has further stated that admittedly death had occurred within 7 years and it was unnatural death, there existed sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was being maltreated and harassed for bringing money to purchase a tempo. That demand started immediately after marriage and continued till the time of death. He further stated that the discrepancies, as indicated by counsel for the appellant, are minor in character and were not fatal to the case of the prosecution, He prayed that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed. 11. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is to be determined as to whether on the basis of evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for commission of an offence under Sec.304b was justified or not. 12. Honble Supreme Court in Sunil Bajajs case (supra), after analysing the provisions of Sec.304b IPC, opined that the following essentials must be satisfied before any death can be termed as a dowry death: (1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. To the same effect is the opinion of the Honble Supreme Court in Sham lals case (supra ). 13. Now it is to be seen whether on the basis of evidence, as led by the prosecution, in this case, above mentioned four essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec.304b IPC were satisfied or not. It is an admitted fact that in this case, Kanta Rani Madhu Bala had died due to poisoning, as such, death had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Marriage of the appellant was solemnised with the deceased on 21.2.1998, she had died on 7.9.1989, which clearly established that she had died within 7 years from the date of marriage. In view of evidence, as referred to above, two essential ingredients, as laid down, by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sunil Bajajs case (supra), to constitute an offence under Sec.304b IPC, are complete. 14. In view of evidence, as referred to above, two essential ingredients, as laid down, by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sunil Bajajs case (supra), to constitute an offence under Sec.304b IPC, are complete. 14. Now, it is to be seen whether remaining two essential ingredients were made out from the evidence on record or not. FIR in this case was recorded on the basis of statement Ex. PW3/n made by Lal Chand, father of the deceased, wherein he had stated that at the time of marriage, he had given sufficient dowry, despite that inlaws of her daughter were not satisfied. It had further been stated that appellant Dalip Kumar used to raise a demand for purchase of four wheeler time and again. Due to meagre resources of income, he refused to oblige the appellant. He had further stated that his daughter, the deceased had been writing letters to him wherein, she had stated that her inlaws were greedy persons and they were demanding money from her for purchase of tempo. It was specifically mentioned that in the month of June, 1989, his daughter Kanta Rani, the deceased and the appellant had gone to village Nehlas in order to attend marriage of a relative. At that time also, appellant raised a demand for tempo and told him that if it was not possible, he would have to keep his daughter with him. Since his demand was refused to be met by the complainant, appellant refused to take his wife alongwith him, due to that, she was brought by the complainant to Ludhiana. 15. After one month, he sent a message to the appellant through Des Raj that he should take his daughter, otherwise he would be compelled to initiate legal process. After that, Dalip Kumar, appellant brought his daughter to Panipat. It had further been stated that during this period, all family members joined hands and started demanding money for tempo. Fed up with this situation, his daughter committed suicide by consuming poison. In his statement before Court, PW3 Lal Chand had reiterated averments made by him in his statement, on the basis of which, FIR was recorded. He had also brought on record letters written by his daughter Ex. PW3/e and Ex. Fed up with this situation, his daughter committed suicide by consuming poison. In his statement before Court, PW3 Lal Chand had reiterated averments made by him in his statement, on the basis of which, FIR was recorded. He had also brought on record letters written by his daughter Ex. PW3/e and Ex. PW3/f. He had further stated that he had been sending money to his daughter upto June, 1989 and one such money order of Rs.100/ was also sent in the month of August 1989. To the same effect is the statement of PW4 Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased. 16. Reading of statements made by father and mother PW3 and PW4 of the deceased, clearly indicates that the demand regarding money for purchase of tempo is somewhat vague. Furthermore, as per their version, deceased was left with them in the month of June and remained with them for about a month and she was taken away by the appellant thereafter. It means that wife went with her husband at the beginning of August, 1989. Both these witnesses had failed to say a word as to whether even thereafter, till the date of death i. e.7.9.1989, deceased was maltreated or any demand was raised by the appellant. PW4 Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased had made following statement in her examinationinchief : Thereafter we received letters from Kanta Rani from Panipat. In those letters Kanta Rani wrote about demand of dowry by the accused and for that reason they also maltreated her. No such letter was brought on record at the time when evidence was led, as such, there is no evidence on record that when deceased was taken back by the appellant to her inlaws in the month of August 1989 till the date of death any alleged act of cruelty was committed upon her. A reading of two letters, Ex. PW3/e and Ex. PW3/f dated 15.8.1988 and 2921989, respectively, also indicates that there was some talk regarding purchase of tempo but regarding harassment and cruelty nothing had been said in those letters. Prosecution witness Maan Singh PW1 had failed to support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. It is further coming out from the record that other independent witness was also given up. There existed two affidavits, executed by PW3 and PW4 i. e. Lal Chand and Savitri Devi, respectively, Ex. DA and Ex. Prosecution witness Maan Singh PW1 had failed to support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. It is further coming out from the record that other independent witness was also given up. There existed two affidavits, executed by PW3 and PW4 i. e. Lal Chand and Savitri Devi, respectively, Ex. DA and Ex. DB on record, wherein both these witnesses had exonerated the appellant and his family members from any allegation. 17. All these facts clearly indicate that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant or his family members soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. There is slightest indication that some demand was made regarding money for purchase of tempo but whether the same demand would fall towards dowry in connection with marriage is a disputed point. 18. In Han Singhs case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this court that demand of money for construction of house, cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. 19. Same is the situation in this case. No date and month had been given as to when deceased was subjected to cruelty, as had been alleged in FIR. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Satvir Singh and others case (supra) have held that there should be perceptible nexus between death and harassment or cruelty inflicted on wife. 20. Similarly, in case of Sham Lal (supra), their Lordships, after taking note of Sec.113b of the Evidence Act, have held as under: 11. It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal presumption, to prove that soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment. Here, what the prosecution achieved in proving at the most was that there was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash and on account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry, Neelam Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a half years before her death. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which the panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house. Further evidence is that an attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for which the panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was taken by the husband to his house. This happened about ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. There is nothing on record to show that she was either treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the period between her having been taken to the parental home and her tragic end. To the same effect is the ratio of judgment in Mungeshwarpnasad Chaunasias case (supra ). 21. Keeping in view of facts of this case and ratio of judgments, as referred to above, other two essential ingredients were not made out, as such, conviction of appellant under Sec.304b IPC, was not justified. 22. However, at the same time, he cannot be absolved of his liability in compelling her wife to commit suicide. It is apparent from the record that soon after marriage, appellant and his family members had started raising demand for money for purchase of tempo. This fact clearly emerges from the evidence of PW3 Lal Chand and PW4 Savitri Devi. It seems that the deceased might have been treated in a cruel manner when her father showed his inability to pay that amount. At one time in the month of June, 1989, when the appellant and the deceased had gone to attend marriage of a relatives daughter, she was not taken back and rather left with her parents. She was taken back only when Lal Chand, PW3, threatened that he would initiate some legal action. 23. Cruelty, as defined under Sec.498a IPC does not amount to only physical cruelty but it also attracts mental cruelty. This Court feels that the conduct of appellant was such, which had forced his wife, the deceased, to commit suicide. 24. Under these circumstances, appellant can be guilty of abetment for commission of an offence of suicide under Sec.306 IPC. Abetment can be by performing a positive act or may be by conduct or may be by omission. This Court feels that the conduct of appellant was such, which had forced his wife, the deceased, to commit suicide. 24. Under these circumstances, appellant can be guilty of abetment for commission of an offence of suicide under Sec.306 IPC. Abetment can be by performing a positive act or may be by conduct or may be by omission. The evidence, as existed on record, would lead this court to an irresistible conclusion that appellant had vitiated the family atmosphere to such an extent, leaving no option for the deceased but to adopt an extreme step of committing suicide. 25. A Single Bench of this Court in Naveen Kumar etc. V/s. State of Haryana, had observed as under: No sane lady would try to finish her life until and unless she is subjected to cruelty to such an extent that it had compelled her to finish herself for all times to come from this beautiful world. When a woman agrees for a marriage, she does not expect death under unnatural circumstances but the expectations are that she would get love and affection and financial security at the hands of her husband. If her those hopes are frustrated by the positive act of the husband or by wilful negligence of the husband, in my opinion, it will constitute abetment within the meaning of Sec.109 IPC, punishable under Sec.306 IPC, if in pursuance of that abetment, the death of a person takes place. To the same effect is the opinion of another Single Bench of this Court in Gurbachan Singh and others V/s. The State of Punjab. 26. In the cases, referred to above, this court came to a definite conclusion that since cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before death was not proved, conviction of the accused in those cases, under Sec.304b IPC was not justified. However, keeping in view facts and circumstances of those cases, accused were found to be guilty of commission of an offence under Sec.306 IPC. 27. Now, the question is whether appellant in this case, can be convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Sec.306 IPC or not. However, keeping in view facts and circumstances of those cases, accused were found to be guilty of commission of an offence under Sec.306 IPC. 27. Now, the question is whether appellant in this case, can be convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Sec.306 IPC or not. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in K. Prema S. Rao and another V/s. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others, while dealing with the similar situation, came to a conclusion that even though the charge was framed only under Sec.304b IPC, the person can be convicted under Sec.306 IPC in a case where all ingredients necessary for framing of a charge under that section are available on record. Honble the Supreme Court, after discussing facts in that case, had opined as under: 22. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal Procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the statement of charge framed under Sec.498a IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence under Sec.306 IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention Sec.306 IPC with Sec.498a IPC does not preclude the court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed under Sec.498a IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provisions of Sec.221 Cr. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Sec.221 Cr. P. C. needs reproduction.221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. P. C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence. Sec.221 Cr. P. C. needs reproduction.221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of subsection (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. 23. The provision of subsection (2) of Sec.221 read with sub section (1) of the said section can be taken aid of in convicting and sentencing accused of offence of abetment of suicide under Sec.306 IPC alongwith or instead or Sec.498a IPC. 24. Sec.215 allows the criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the charge and it has not occasioned a failure of justice. See Sec.215 Cr. P. C. which reads: 215. Effect of errors. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Navin Kumar and Gurbachan and others (supra ). 28. On reading of evidence in this case, Court is satisfied that necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec.306 IPC are made out. To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Navin Kumar and Gurbachan and others (supra ). 28. On reading of evidence in this case, Court is satisfied that necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sec.306 IPC are made out. From the very beginning attitude of appellant was unreasonable, and cruel towards his wife. Persistent demands of money to purchase tempo, when refused, leaving his wife with her parents at the time of a relative marriage, clearly indicates that his conduct was such which had forced his wife to commit suicide. 29. Accordingly, keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for commission of offence under Sec.304b is set aside, however, he is found guilty and convicted for commission of an offence under Sec.306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years. With the above mentioned modifications, appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.