Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5/1/1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai Distt. Sagar in S. T. No. 161/93 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that all the custodial sentences shall run concurrently convicted under Sentenced to section 451 of the IPC undergo R. I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer S. I. for 1 month. 354 of the IPC undergo R. I. for 2 years. 306 of the IPC undergo RI. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to suffer S. I. for 3 months. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story, in short, may be narrated thus - (i) The prosecutrix (since deceased), a girl aged about 15 years, was the daughter of Basant Kushwaha and sitabai (PW6) and the elder sister of Jagdish (PW4 ). At the relevant point of time, they were residing in a house situated in Ram Ward at Bina. House of the appellant, who was 20 years of age, was also located in the same vicinity. (ii) On 10/3/1992 at about 11 a. m. , finding the prosecutrix all alone in her house, the appellant suddenly entered thereinto and closed the door from inside. However, shakun Bai (PW3) [hereinafter referred to as "shakun"], one of the inhabitants of the locality, was able to witness his misdeed. She, accordingly, informed Chanda Bai (PW1) [for short "chanda"], who was also living in the neighbourhood. Both of them came to the house of Basanta and called the prosecutrix by name. Thereupon, the appellant came out of the house and ran away. (iii) On being asked, the prosecutrix explained that at the time when she was absorbed in studies, the appellant trespassed into the house and after shutting the door, squeezed her mouth and gave threats to defame her and thus, continued to remain inside the house. While narrating what had happened in the room, she also started weeping. After consoling her, both Chanda and shakun returned home. (iv) At about 12, on his return from school, Jagdish (PW4), not being able to get any response to his repeated calls and knockings at the door, peeped through the window and found that body of the prosecutrix was hanging from roof with the support of her dupatta. After consoling her, both Chanda and shakun returned home. (iv) At about 12, on his return from school, Jagdish (PW4), not being able to get any response to his repeated calls and knockings at the door, peeped through the window and found that body of the prosecutrix was hanging from roof with the support of her dupatta. His cries attracted attention not only of Chanda and Shakun but that of other neighbours including Ram Ratan Rao (PW5) and Sunil Kumar (PW9) also, who immediately caused the body to descend. However, by then, the prosecutrix had already expired. (v) Being informed about the incident, T. R. Ahirwar (PW12), posted as ASI in P. S. Bina, reached the spot. He registered a merg (death case) by scribing Dehati marg Intimation (Ex. P-1) at the instance of Chanda. (vi) After inquest proceedings, dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem. It was conducted by a panel of doctors comprising Dr. Anil Dubey (PW2) and Dr. A. K. Gupta. They opined that cause of prosecutrixs death was asphyxia due to hanging. (vii) During investigation, the appellant was apprehended and was subjected to medical examination. Dr. Ashok jain (PW8) found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. ( 3. ) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity. In the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he further asserted that it was chanda, who was solely responsible for driving the prosecutrix to commit suicide. According to him, while scolding the prosecutrix, chanda not only threatened to defame her but also to make a false complaint to her parents. Ashok Kumar (DW1), a resident of Ram ward only, came forward to support the assertion. An alternative defence of alibi was sought to be proved by summoning Pramod kumar Vyas (DW2) and Gulsher Khan (DW3), respectively the owner of Prabhat Talkies and Cinema Operator. Nevertheless, their evidence only indicated that, at the relevant point of time, the appellant was required to remain present in the Talkies to work as an Assistant Operator. ( 4. ) TO bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including Chanda and Shakun, sunil and Ramratan. Nevertheless, their evidence only indicated that, at the relevant point of time, the appellant was required to remain present in the Talkies to work as an Assistant Operator. ( 4. ) TO bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including Chanda and Shakun, sunil and Ramratan. Learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, concluded that evidence on record was sufficient to prove all the charges beyond a reasonable doubt whereas probability of none of the alternative pleas of defence was established. ( 5. ) LEGALITY and propriety of the impugned convictions have been challenged inter alia on the following grounds (a) Even if the allegations made against the appellant are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence under S. 306 of the IPC would be made out. (b) The incriminating facts regarding other offences said to have been communicated by the prosecutrix to chanda and Shakun were not admissible in evidence as dying declaration. (c) Love letters seized by the Investigating Officer clearly suggested that the appellants entry into the house of the appellant was not unlawful. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while inviting attention to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, has submitted that the convictions in question were well merited. ( 6. ) NO serious dispute was raised as to the medical opinion that asphyxia due to hanging was the cause of prosecutrixs death. Reaffirming the view expressed by the Panel, that performed autopsy, Dr. Anil Dubey (PW2) also described external and internal physical features. Relevant findings, as recorded in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-2), may be reproduced as under - (i) No mark of struggle or violence over mouth, throat, wrist, arms, beasts, thighs and inner aspect of thighs or genitalia. (ii) Hymen intact. A blood-stained piece of cloth inside underwear was (ii)overlying the vaginal orifice; dried and clotted blood was deposited on inner aspects of labia majora and minora, inner aspects of thighs and at the vaginal orifice. ( 7. ) EVEN in the light of the improvement made by Chanda by deposing that before hanging herself, the prosecutrix had also revealed about the attempted rape, the appellant was not charged with the offence of rape or attempt thereof. Even otherwise, the fact that Dr. ( 7. ) EVEN in the light of the improvement made by Chanda by deposing that before hanging herself, the prosecutrix had also revealed about the attempted rape, the appellant was not charged with the offence of rape or attempt thereof. Even otherwise, the fact that Dr. Ashok Jain (PW8) did not find any stain or blood mark or mark of struggle or tear on appellants glans penis also did not assume any significance as his medical examination was conducted 6 days after the incident in question. However, the above-mentioned findings clearly suggested that the prosecutrix was not subjected to sexual intercourse. ( 8. ) TESTIMONY of Sitabai (PW6) to the effect that she had gone to the hospital at 10 a. m. leaving no-one else than the prosecutrix, involved in her studies at home, was not challenged in the cross-examination. Her son Jagdish (PW4) also corroborated the fact that he was first to see body of his sister hanging from the ceiling. As per his statement, hearing his shouts, Sunil (PW9), Ramratan rai (PW5), Chanda and Shakun had arrived at the spot and the door of the house was broken by Sunil and Ramratan Rai, who also rendered assistance in disembarking the dead body. It is relevant to note that Jagdish was not subjected to cross-examination at all. ( 9. ) IN the light of these facts and circumstances surrounding her death, it was clearly established that the prosecutrix had met with a suicidal death. ( 10. ) SITABAI (PW6) clearly asserted that Chanda had apprised her of what had transpired in the house during her absence. Corroborating Sitabais version, Chanda reiterated the facts, as recorded in the Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex. P-1) by ASI T. R. Ahirwar (PW12) at the place of occurrence only. Chanda claimed to have witnessed the appellants exit from door opening in courtyard of Sitabais house and also to have been informed in the presence of Shakun about his misdemeanor in making entry in to the house at the time when she was occupied in reading. According to her, the prosecutrix had described as to how the appellant had prevented her from responding to calls or opening the door by pressing her mouth and catching hold of her hands. According to her, the prosecutrix had described as to how the appellant had prevented her from responding to calls or opening the door by pressing her mouth and catching hold of her hands. Admission made by Chanda that she had not gone to the police station to lodge any report was not of much consequence as, apparently, the FIR (Ex. P-9) was scribed by Shivraj Singh (PW10)in the wake of the findings of the enquiry into the merg intimation. Chanda was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited so as to suggest that she was, in any way, interested in securing conviction of the appellant on absolutely false grounds. The plea that she had scolded the prosecutrix within public view was not only contradicted by her but also by Shakun. This apart, the plea also sounded improbable as Sitabai was emphatic in admitting that she was having family relations with Chanda. ( 11. ) ALTHOUGH Ramratan (PW5) and Sunil (PW9) did not depose any incriminating fact against the appellant yet, deposition of chanda drew ample support from Shakuns testimony. As per statement of Shakun, she had seen the appellant proceeding towards the door of the courtyard of Sitabais house as well as returning by the same route. Her admission that she was also not able to witness the appellants entry in to the house had not materially affected the substratum of the prosecution case, that stood substantiated from the remaining part of her evidence coupled with a cogent, consistent, creditworthy and motiveless testimony of Chanda. ( 12. ) INVITING attention to the contents of seizure memo (Ex. P-6), learned counsel has submitted that recovery of love letters from the house of the prosecutrix was suggestive that she was in love with the appellant. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial judge, the plea as to the love relationship was neither raised by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code nor in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Further, no love letter, said to have been written by the prosecutrix to the appellant, was tendered in evidence. Moreover, the alternative defence of being at work in Prabhat Talkies also ran contrary to the suggestion that the appellant was invited to her house by the prosecutrix only. These inconsistent and alternative pleas further strengthened the prosecution case connecting the appellant with the suicide in question. Moreover, the alternative defence of being at work in Prabhat Talkies also ran contrary to the suggestion that the appellant was invited to her house by the prosecutrix only. These inconsistent and alternative pleas further strengthened the prosecution case connecting the appellant with the suicide in question. ( 13. ) IN the wake of the overwhelming evidence on record, learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in holding that the prosecutrix had committed suicide after being noticed in an exclusive and closed door company of the appellant. ( 14. ) TO buttress the contention that the allegations made by shakun and Chanda, even if accepted as trustworthy, would not prima facie constitute the offence of abetment of suicide, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court - (i) Deepak Raghunathrao Shohle @ Shoe v. State of m. P. 1993 MPLJ 729 . (ii) Hariom v. State of M. P. 2007 (I) and (II) Cr. C. P. (M. P.)269. ( 15. ) SECTION 306 of the IPC provides punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide whereas abetment is defined in Section 107 thereof. Accordingly, a person abets to committing of a thing when he instigates any person to commit that thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for committing of that thing or intentionally aids by action or omission, the committing of that thing. In absence of any allegation as to conspiracy or intentional aiding, the point to be considered is as to whether the appellant intended commission of suicide by the prosecutrix. ( 16. ) IN Deepaks case (supra), the prosecutrix was with her paramour at late hour of night when both the accused had trespassed in to her room and tried to take advantage of the situation to commit sexual offence against her whereas in harioms case (ibid), the prosecutrix, in whose room the accused had allegedly entered, with intent to outrage her modesty, at about 1. 30 in the preceding night, had committed suicide in the next morning. However, facts of the case on hand are distinguishable. 30 in the preceding night, had committed suicide in the next morning. However, facts of the case on hand are distinguishable. The appellant, a Muslim boy, entered the house of the prosecutrix, an unmarried Hindu girl aged about 15 years, at the time when she was all alone and within an hour she committed suicide after disclosing that he had not only outraged her modesty by holding her hands but had also remained with her for a considerable period threatening her with injury to reputation. ( 17. ) IT is true that S. 306 of the IPC owes its origin to the custom of Sati but the corresponding legal position has undergone a substantial change. Accordingly, a person would be guilty of the offence in a case where he by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The result is that the provision now serves as a formidable framework to deal with Criminal liability for complicity in anothers suicide. ( 18. ) AS explained by the Apex Court in Brij Lal v. Premchand AIR 1989 SC 1661 , as to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Accordingly, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation, the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence on record with reference to contemporary standards of the Indian society. State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532 was again a case wherein suicide was committed by wife, who was pushed into taking the extreme step by creating an atmosphere of terror. In this factual scenario, despite non-applicability of the statutory presumption under S. 113a of the Evidence Act, the supreme Court restored the order of conviction holding that the husband had been responsible in creating circumstances which would provoke or force wife into taking the only alternative left open to her, namely suicide? ( 19. In this factual scenario, despite non-applicability of the statutory presumption under S. 113a of the Evidence Act, the supreme Court restored the order of conviction holding that the husband had been responsible in creating circumstances which would provoke or force wife into taking the only alternative left open to her, namely suicide? ( 19. ) IN a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Dammu Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2009 AIR SCW 4421, conviction of the accused/appellant who, admittedly, had illicit relations with wife of deceased and had taken her in presence of close relatives of deceased, for the offence of abetment of suicide was held to be justified as there was proximity and nexus between his conduct and behaviour and the suicide. ( 20. ) APPLYING the well settled principle to the facts of the case, it can easily be concluded that the appellant was rightly held abettor of the suicide as there was a proximate and live link between his offending acts and the extreme step taken by the prosecutrix. ( 21. ) MOREOVER, merely because the prosecutrix was dead and consequently, could not be examined can never be a ground to acquit an accused if there is evidence otherwise available proving the criminal act of the accused concerned (See. State of Karnataka v. Mahabaleshwar Gourya Naik AIR 1992 SC 2043 . The entire statement made by her to Chanda soon before her death was admissible under S. 32 (1) of the Evidence Act as dying declaration. Further, testimony of Chanda and Shakun was sufficient to bring home the charge of trespass with a guilty intention as contemplated by Section 441 of the IPC. In this view of the matter, the convictions for the offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC were also well merited in the wake of the evidence on record as re-appreciated above. ( 22. ) FOR these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the impugned convictions deserves acceptance. ( 23. ) COMING to the question of sentence, it may be observed that a period of more than 16 years has already elapsed. The appellant has already suffered a period of six months in custody. ( 22. ) FOR these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the impugned convictions deserves acceptance. ( 23. ) COMING to the question of sentence, it may be observed that a period of more than 16 years has already elapsed. The appellant has already suffered a period of six months in custody. Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case including that at the relevant point of time, he was below 21 years of age, interests of justice would be met if the term of jail sentence to be carried in execution is reduced from 7 years to 2 years. ( 24. ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While the impugned convictions under Sections 451, 354 and 306 of the IPC and the corresponding fine sentences are maintained, the terms of consequent custodial sentences are reduced from 2, 2 and 7 years to 1, 1 and 2 years respectively. The jail sentences, thus modified, shall run concurrently. ( 25. ) THE appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds before the trial Court on or before 09/12/2009 for being committed to the custody for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal partly allowed.