JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- Ranbir father, Udeyvir son and his wife Anita were prosecuted for the offences under Section 306 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC for abetting omwati (wife of Ranbir) to commit suicide. 2. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged to be illicit relations of Ranbir with his own daughter-in-law Anita. 3. In his statement before the police on 18.09.1997, complainant Ganga Ram Rathore (herein referred as ‘the complainant’) disclosed that her sister Omwati was married to Ranbir. Out of their wedlock, two sons namely Sukhbir Singh and Udeyvir and one daughter Guddi were born. Sukhbir Singh has been serving in the Army and Udeyvir, who was married to Anita, was residing with his father Ranbir whereas Guddi was already married. Another sister of the complainant and his nieces are also married in the family of Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh had been maltreating Omwati from the very beginning and used to compel her to bring money from her parents. Once he was paid Rs.30,000/- for purchase of land again he had demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Udeyvir was unemployed and used to do no work. He was totally dependent upon Ranbir, as such, he could not speak against him. Ranbir had developed illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Anita. Whenever Omwati objected, she was beaten badly and was not served with meals. Udeyvir was motivated to accede to the advances made by Ranbir. At the time when the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was raised for purchasing a Commando Jeep for Udeyvir, Omwati refused to accede to the same on the ground that he had already made her life hell because of his illicit relations and that she had already brought substantial amount from her parents. At this, she was beaten by Ranbir and Anita and was turned out of her matrimonial home. She disclosed the woeful story to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and maternal aunt (mami). Two months thereafter, Ranbir went to bring Omwati back but she refused. Sometime thereafter, on assurance given by Ranbir that he would separate himself from Udevir and Anita, she came back to her matrimonial house. However, one month thereafter i.e. on 30.08.1997 at about 10:00 a.m., Jaiwanti informed through a telephonic message to the complainant that Omwati had expired. On receipt of this information, complainant alongwith several persons of the village went to village Manheru and found Omwati lying dead in the house. However, one month thereafter i.e. on 30.08.1997 at about 10:00 a.m., Jaiwanti informed through a telephonic message to the complainant that Omwati had expired. On receipt of this information, complainant alongwith several persons of the village went to village Manheru and found Omwati lying dead in the house. Ranbir represented that Omwati was suffering from illness, therefore, she had expired. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the reply, therefore, he lodged the report which was followed by the investigation. Ultimately challan was presented against all the three accused. 5. They were charged under Sections 306 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Mohorir Head Constable Shree Krishan (PW1), Constable Virshakti Singh, Draftsman (PW2), Sub Inspector Jai Kishan (PW3), Dr.Mahender Singh (PW4), Shiv Lal (PW5), Sub Inspector Ram Rattan (PW6), Ganga Ram Complainant (PW7), Kanshi Ram (PW8) and Assistant Sub Inspector Atma Ram (PW9). 7. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Jaiwanti (DW1) and Jaipal (DW2). 8. Ultimately, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. It is one of the unique cases where prosecution has been lodged against husband and his son for killing their own wife and mother respectively. Omwati was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any such disease much less depression which may be the cause to commit suicide. She died of hanging on 30.08.1997. The allegations that she was put into harassment at the hands of the accused on account of demand of money as well as she was preventing the accused Ranbir not to indulge in illicit alliance with his own daughter-in-law stand established from the testimony of Ganga Ram complainant (PW7) and Kanshi Ram (PW8). Both have consistently testified that their sister used to remain perturbed on account of her husband’s illicit relations with her daughter-in-law Anita. Both have consistently testified that their sister used to remain perturbed on account of her husband’s illicit relations with her daughter-in-law Anita. Since she was feeling shy of disclosing about such illegal intimacy at her own house, therefore, she conveyed about the said facts to the women folk i.e. her sisters-in-law Leela Devi, Sunder Devi, Chhoto Devi and maternal aunt Jag Roshani. Ganga Ram, being the real brother-in-law of the accused Ranbir and maternal uncle of Udeyvir would be the last persons to level such shameless allegations against them and Udeyvir’s wife Anita particularly when his own nieces and other sister were married in the family of accused Ranbir. This fact of illicit intimacy finds impetus in view of the fact that previously accused Ranbir had raised the demand of money for purchasing the land and the said demand was conveyed through Omwati to her parents and on that occasion Ranbir was paid Rs.30,000/- with which he had purchased the land. The witness further states that since the accused Udeyvir was unemployed, therefore, he was puppet in his father’s hands and silent, being helpless to illicit relations with his wife which Omwati did not tolerate. However, she continued bearing the atrocities committed by the accused. The accused was forceful enough to compel Omwati to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for purchase of commando jeep. It has also come in his statement that Omwati refused to oblige which again led to her maltreatment. The accused also did not fulfil his promise for establishing a residence but he repeated the same behaviour again. It appears that having fed up with the behaviour of the accused and having failed to bear the maltreatment, she committed suicide. Notwithstanding the fact that Leelawati and Jag Roshani did not appear in the witness box yet Ganga Ram (PW7) and Kanshi Ram (PW8), both brothers of the deceased, had no axe to grind while levelling such allegations and they withstood the test of cross-examination. They had least fear rather had the courage to expose about the activities of the accused. They dared to make such statements knowing fully well that their another sister namely Rajwati and nieces were also married in the same family. Had the allegations been a little bit false then they would not have come up with such allegations. 10. They had least fear rather had the courage to expose about the activities of the accused. They dared to make such statements knowing fully well that their another sister namely Rajwati and nieces were also married in the same family. Had the allegations been a little bit false then they would not have come up with such allegations. 10. The argument that the story with regard to the demand of money is concocted one, is devoid of any truth but again at the cost of reputation, it would have to be observed that both the witnesses are consistent with regard to the demand of money by the accused Rajbir for purchase of land and Commando jeep for providing the same to Udeyvir. In any case, it cannot be ignored that the dispute was going on in the family, she was turned out of the house number of times, however, on the promises that they would mend themselves, she came to her house. But her husband continued his illicit relations with Anita. Both the witnesses have stated that the demand of accused was not satisfied. It is further established beyond doubt that accused Ranbir had joined hands with his son Udeyvir and Anita in torturing the deceased on financial as well as sexual issues. It has been categorically stated by both the witnesses that Omwati used to remain perturbed over such unfortunate activities going on in the family. All this goes to show that Omwati was surrounded by such numerous problems including the maltreatment, demand of money as well as torture at the hands of her husband, son and daughter-in-law and she started considering that when her own blood had gone white, she had no place worth living in this world. Ocular version of these two witnesses stand corroborated by PW4 Dr.Mahender Singh and PW9 Assistant Sub Inspector Atma Ram (Investigating Officer). 11. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is to establish instigation to commit suicide by one to the other. When one actively suggests, advises, aids or instigates the other by any act or omission or by any means of language direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or by hints, insulation or encouragement then one can be said to have abetted the offence. When one actively suggests, advises, aids or instigates the other by any act or omission or by any means of language direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or by hints, insulation or encouragement then one can be said to have abetted the offence. Similarly, in the instant case also, the commission of suicide by Omwati has been duly established by Dr.Mahender Singh (PW4), who had conducted the postmortem examination and had opined that asphyxia, caused by hanging was the cause of death; she was in custody of her husband when she committed suicide other than in normal circumstances and her own son and daughter in law had joined hands with her own husband in committing atrocities upon her, thus, she having compelled by such circumstances had no other point to think but committed suicide. As such, it would be quite safe to conclude that the trial Court was justified in holding all the three accused guilty of abetting the deceased to commit suicide. No other argument has been raised. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ------------