JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:- Present appeal has been preferred by Gurmeet Singh. He along with his parents, was tried in a case FIR No.269 dated 16-08-1999 registered at Police Station Samana under Section 306/34 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide its impugned judgment dated 5th February, 2002, acquitted parents of the appellant, but held him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The appellant was married with Paramjit Kaur eight years before the occurrence. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on the night intervening 15th and 16th August, 1999, when Paramjit Kaur consumed Aluminum Phosphide, an insecticide, and died as a result of poisoning. Chanan Singh, father of the deceased Paramjit Kaur, made a statement Ex.PD before Inspector Manjit Singh, SHO Police Station Samana, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered. 3. Chanan Singh stated that he was a resident of village Dhadrian Kalan and was doing agricultural work. His daughter Paramjit Kaur was married eight years before with Gurmeet Singh son of Balkar Singh according to sikh religious rites. His daughter had given birth to two sons aged 6 ½ years and 4 years respectively. After a few days of the marriage, mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the deceased started harassing her for bringing less dowry and demanded a scooter. The complainant had given dowry articles beyond his capacity. Two years after the marriage, when husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased Paramjit Kaur came to the village of the complainant, they told that they were respectable persons and they required a scooter, otherwise their reputation would stand lowered in the society. Family of the complainant made entreaties and after 2/4 months, purchased a scooter from Sangrur and gave it to the in-laws of their daughter. A month before the occurrence, deceased Paramjit Kaur along with her husband Gurmeet Singh, came to village Dhadrian Kalan and disclosed that they required Rs.20,000/- for constructing the house, upon which the complainant stated that he was not having this much amount and he would make an arrangement and send the money after 2/3 months. A month before the occurrence, deceased Paramjit Kaur along with her husband Gurmeet Singh, came to village Dhadrian Kalan and disclosed that they required Rs.20,000/- for constructing the house, upon which the complainant stated that he was not having this much amount and he would make an arrangement and send the money after 2/3 months. Due to certain limitations, the amount could not be arranged. The complainant also requested his brothers-in-law Satnam Singh and Jarnail Singh for extending a loan of Rs.20,000/- to satisfy the demand of the accused. It is stated that for not fulfilling this demand, son-inlaw of the complainant used to beat and maltreat the deceased Paramjit Kaur. On the day of occurrence, complainant along with his relations Satnam Singh and Jarnail Singh reached the village of the accused to explain his difficulty in arranging the money and found that Paramjit Kaur was lying on a cot. Her dead body was kept in the ice. At that time, mother- Criminal Appeal No.338-SB of 2002 in-law and father-in-law of Paramjit Kaur stated that she has consumed some poisonous substance, due to which she has died. 4. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. 5. As stated earlier, parents of the appellant have been acquitted. 6. Dr. Karan Singh PW-1 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Paramjit Kaur. He had sent viscera of the deceased to Chemical Examiner and on receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, he opined that deceased had died due to consumption of Aluminum Phosphide. 7. Chanan Singh complainant appeared as PW-2 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. However, a perusal of examination-inchief and the cross-examination of this witness reveals that the allegation in the FIR that for not giving Rs.20,000/-, the deceased was harassed and given beatings, was lacking. Thus, this witness in Court has not stated that the deceased was harassed or was given beatings by her husband for the reason that demand of Rs.20,000/- was not satisfied. Similarly, Jarnail Singh, who is husband of sister of the complainant Chanan Singh, while appearing as PW-3 had not stated that after an amount of Rs.20,000/- was demanded, the deceased was given beatings or was harassed by the accused. Similarly, Jarnail Singh, who is husband of sister of the complainant Chanan Singh, while appearing as PW-3 had not stated that after an amount of Rs.20,000/- was demanded, the deceased was given beatings or was harassed by the accused. This witness only stated that when he counseled the accused Gurmeet Singh that Rs.20,000/- is not available, he retorted by saying that he has committed a mistake by accepting the daughter of a destitute fellow. 8. Satnam Singh Lamberdar, another relation of complainant Chanan Singh, appeared as PW-4. He also had not stated that the deceased was ever given beatings or was harassed by her husband when the money demanded was not paid to him. 9. HC Sahib Singh PW-5 tendered his affidavit Ex.PF to prove link evidence. Randhir Singh, Halqa Patwari PW-6 proved scaled site plan Ex.PG. SI Manjit Singh PW-7 investigated the case. 10. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same. Appellant Gutmeet Singh gave the following version: “I am innocent. Myself and my wife were separated by my father and we were living separately, having separate kitchen and separate cultivation. I used to sell my crop to a separate Commission Agent. My wife Paramjit Kaur was strong headed lady and was an extravagant. She used to compel me to sell my share of land in village and shift to Sangrur city or Samana. Paramjit Kaur used to remain depressed because of her living beyond means. She accidentally consumed something and died and myself and my parents have been falsely involved in the case.” 11. In defence, two witnesses were examined to prove the fact that accused had already purchased a scooter and therefore, the allegation that they were demanding a scooter, was unfounded. 12. Mr.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has stated that it has come in the evidence of complainant Chanan Singh PW-2 that parents of the appellant, namely Balkar Singh and Sinder Kaur, were residing separately with his brother Kala and this part of the prosecution evidence has also been taken into consideration by the trial Court to cause acquittal of parents of the appellant. Learned counsel has submitted that prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated parents of the appellant, therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon their testimony regarding demand of a scooter and other allegations levelled in the FIR that the accused used to beat his wife for non-payment of Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house. Counsel has further referred to the defence evidence to contend that allegation that the accused was demanding a scooter, is also unfounded, as the scooter was purchased by the appellant himself, after getting the same financed in the month of August, 1996. Thus, counsel for the appellant has contended that on this material aspect also, prosecution witnesses are false. Mr. Sidhu has urged that even if the allegations levelled by the witnesses that about one month before the occurrence, the appellant along with his wife had gone to the house of the complainant and had requested for grant of a loan of Rs.20,000/- for construction of house, will not amount to cruelty and it cannot be taken as an abetment to suicide within the meaning of section 107 IPC. 13. I have given my due consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellants. The maxim of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not available to the Indian Courts as a rule of appreciation. Therefore, the Court, while evaluating the evidence of witnesses, has to test the same on broad parameters. From the prosecution evidence, following facts emerge: (i) In the FIR, it has been stated that immediately after the marriage, the accused demanded a scooter and complainant Chanan Singh PW-2 gave the scooter after purchasing it two years after the marriage. (ii) It was further stated in the FIR that a month before the occurrence, deceased Paramjit Kaur accompanied by her husband accused Gurmeet Singh, came to the village of the complainant and demanded Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house. It was stated in the FIR that since the money could not be arranged, the accused used to beat and harass his wife Paramjit Kaur. However, the witnesses, while appearing in the Court, have not repeated the allegation that the accused used to beat and harass Paramjit Kaur. It was stated in the FIR that since the money could not be arranged, the accused used to beat and harass his wife Paramjit Kaur. However, the witnesses, while appearing in the Court, have not repeated the allegation that the accused used to beat and harass Paramjit Kaur. After the demand of Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house was not fulfilled, it is only Jarnail Singh PW-3 who stated in the Court that the accused retorted that he has married with the daughter of a destitute fellow. The statement Ex.PD made by the complainant Chanan Singh PW-2, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was recorded, is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to confront or corroborate the witnesses. Thus, from the testimony of witnesses in the Court, following facts emerge: (a) Accused Gurmeet Singh was addicted to liquor. Jarnail Singh PW-3 stated “Gurmeet Singh was addicted to liquor and used to give beatings to Paramjit Kaur”. Complainant Chanan Singh PW-2 also stated “accused Gurmeet Singh is addicted to liquor and while under the influence of liquor, he gives beatings to Paramjit Kaur”; (b) After two years of the marriage, on the demand made by the accused, a scooter was purchased by the complainant and was given to the accused; (c) One month before the occurrence, Paramjit Kaur and Gurmeet Singh came to the village of complainant and demanded Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house. Since there was a delay on the part of the complainant to give this amount, to explain the same when they reached the matrimonial home of deceased Paramjit Kaur, on the day of occurrence they found her dead. 14. Thus, after the demand of scooter was satisfied two years after the marriage, there was no incident or cause of discord relating to demand of dowry between the accused and his wife, and in-laws of the accused were not having any information regarding any demand of dowry, except that the accused, being addicted to liquor, used to give beatings to Paramjit Kaur under the influence of liquor. 15. Another feature, which is required to be noticed by this Court, is that in the present case when the occurrence took place, the marriage was eight years old. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not available to the prosecution. 16. 15. Another feature, which is required to be noticed by this Court, is that in the present case when the occurrence took place, the marriage was eight years old. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not available to the prosecution. 16. Thus, this Court has to ponder over two aspects of the case, (a) whether mere demand of an amount of Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house, after both the husband and the wife had approached the complainant, will constitute abetment to suicide or not, if it is not followed by any overt or other act on the part of the accused, from which cruelty could be inferred? and (b) whether giving beatings to wife under the influence of liquor will amount to abetment to suicide or not? 17. In ‘Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat’ [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 1950] : 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 947, it was observed that where husband, by writing letters, demanded Rs.40,000/- from his in-laws for purchase of the house, it will not constitute an offence of abetment to suicide, in case the wife commits suicide, but will constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Recently, in ‘Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal’ [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3874 : 2010(2) Marr.L.J. (SC) 659] : 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 643, it was observed by Hon’ble the Apex Court as under: “15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. The expression ‘abetment’ has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.” 18. In ‘Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra’ [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 965] : 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 678, it was held that where under the influence of liquor, husband used to give beatings to his wife, the act of a drunkard husband will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. In ‘Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh and others’ 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 87, their Lordships of Hon’ble the Apex Court held that disputes and discords are part of the matrimonial home and the fact that wife is often harassed by her husband, will in itself and without something else, will not attract an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. In ‘Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1294 (SC) : 2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1419] : 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 810, relying upon ‘State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal’ 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 186, it was held that the mere fact that husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty, is not sufficient to constitute offence of abetment to suicide. There must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement leading to the commission of suicide and cruelty must have the effect of inducing the victim to end her life. 19. In the present case, under the influence of liquor, husband used to give beatings to his wife, during subsistence of their marriage. Therefore, this instance in itself cannot be considered as an abetment to suicide. Furthermore, in the present case, both husband and wife had gone to the complainant, father of the wife, and demanded Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house. Nothing has come in the evidence that for nonfulfillment of this demand, accused said or did anything, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, it will not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC. However, giving beatings to the wife under the influence of liquor will constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 20. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside. Instead he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment whereof he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 21. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. ------------0.S.L.0------------