JUDGMENT Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) Both the accused, who are appellants herein, have been charged and convicted for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). I advert first to the facts which are not disputed. Both the accused are husband and wife and deceased Sanjeeda Begum daughter of Mohammad Ishaak was their daughter-in-law. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Sanjeeda Beguam was married to Nazeer, PW8 about 17 to 18 years prior to the incident. Her father-in-law Bashir Ahmed contracted second marriage with Phoolo Begum, who was the wife of Shri Sageer Ahmed. In net shell the prosecution case in brief is that both the accused used to quarrel, harass, maltreat and beaten up the deceased, which ultimately drove Sanjeeda Begum to commit suicide by jumping into the canal near the power house at Kulhan. First information report Ex.PW2/A was lodged by PW1 Mohammad Issak, the father of the deceased. He states that his daughter was married 15-17 years prior to the incident and have five children from this marriage. Bashir Ahmed was the father-in-law of the deceased, who was remarried with Phoolo Begum. Ali Hassan, second accused is the son of first accused from the previous marriage. He states that for about a year preceding her death, both of them were harassing the deceased. She visited him 10 -12 times when she complained about both the accused. He says that they were harassing her mentally and physically. According to him, he persuaded his daughter to return to his in-law’s house, where one khangi Panchayat was also held and the matter seems to have been sorted out. He says that his son in law, Nazeer Ahmed (PW8) also used to ask/persuade the accused not to trouble/harass the deceased. On 14.6.2011, the deceased rang him at about 10-11 a.m. in the morning that both the accused thrashed her and threatened with dire consequences and turned her out of the house. They held out threats that they would kill her. She complained that even he (informant) did not help her, she was driven to end her life by both the accused. Immediately thereafter he went to search her and ultimately on 16.6.2001 when he was near the Power of house he saw a “Chaadar” (head scarf) stuck in the wire mesh. The police was informed. She complained that even he (informant) did not help her, she was driven to end her life by both the accused. Immediately thereafter he went to search her and ultimately on 16.6.2001 when he was near the Power of house he saw a “Chaadar” (head scarf) stuck in the wire mesh. The police was informed. The body of the deceased was fished out from the canal and sent for post mortem. 2. The prosecution produced 12 witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on the evidence of PW1 Shri Mohammad Ishaak, PW6 Kumari Noor Jahan, daughter of the deceased, PW7 Shri Ramjan, PW8 Shri Nazeer Ahmed, husband of the deceased, PW9 Smt. Reham Nisha, the mother of the deceased and PW10 Shri Ram Pal concluded that there was irrefutable evidence on record and that both the accused had driven the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced each of the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and were fined Rs.5000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. 4. There is no dispute so far as lodging of the FIR Ex.PW2/A by PW1 Shri Mohammad Ishaak is concerned. There is also no dispute about the body of the deceased being fished out from the canal and cause of the death as proved by Ex.PW3/A. The question which arises for decision is as to whether it was the accused who were responsible for driving the deceased Smt. Sanjeeda Begum to commit suicide or not. 5. PW1 Shri Mohammad Ishaak stated that he has three daughters and five sons. The deceased Smt. Sanjeeda Begum was the youngest and was married to Shri Nazeer Ahmed, PW8 about 18 years prior to the incident. He then narrates about the fact that Smt. Phoolo Begum was married to Shri Bashir Ahmed, father-in- law of the deceased after his first wife had died and other accused Ali Hassan was his son from the previous marriage. The deceased used to complain to him that both the accused used to maltreat and beat her. He says that he sent his wife Smt. Reham Nisha, PW-9 and daughter Safora to sort out the problems. The deceased used to complain to him that both the accused used to maltreat and beat her. He says that he sent his wife Smt. Reham Nisha, PW-9 and daughter Safora to sort out the problems. One Khangi Panchayat was also convened in which efforts to sort out the problems interse the parties were made. In June, 2001 deceased Sanjeeda Begum rang up his grand daughter and told her that the accused had beaten her up, turned her out from the house and threatened to kill her. She said that she was fed up and was being compelled to end her life. She stated that she is going to end her life by drowning because nobody has helped her or intervened to alleviate the situation. On that evening when he returned home, his grand daughter Kumari Noor Jahan, PW6 telephoned him and enquired as to whether the deceased had visited him or not. He became suspicious and inquired as to what had happened; she told him that the deceased was beaten up and turned out from the house. He states that he immediately hired a vehicle and rushed to Bangran (the place where the deceased was residing). He started searching for the deceased but he was unsuccessful. Next morning, he went towards Kulhal Power house where he met Nayaz Mohammad, PW4, who informed him that one woman, had jumped into the canal. He immediately rushed to the Kulhal Power House and identified the dupatta (head scarf) and the body was fished out from the canal. In cross-examination he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A with respect to certain contradictions, but I do not intend to go into the details of those contradictions. 6. PW-3 Dr. S.N. Sachan, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib has proved the post mortem report Ex.PW3/A stating that the deceased Sanjeeda Begum died due to asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory failure caused by drowning. The duration of time between death and post mortem was 72 hours. In cross-examination he states that the injury on the left side of the deceased was post mortem injury. The injury on the knee could be caused by jumping into the water or by brushing against a hard surface. 7. PW4 Shri Nayaz Mohammad states that on 14.6.2001 he was proceeding to work when he saw one woman jumping into Kulhal canal. The injury on the knee could be caused by jumping into the water or by brushing against a hard surface. 7. PW4 Shri Nayaz Mohammad states that on 14.6.2001 he was proceeding to work when he saw one woman jumping into Kulhal canal. He threw a piece of cloth which was with him so that the lady could catch it but she could not cover the distance and drowned. PW5 Shri Janardan Dass, who is the lamberdar and resident of Village Bangran, states that he knew the deceased, who was living in a separate house and the accused were residing in a different house. He states that they had some dispute upon which one khangi panchayat was held on 13.1.2001. The dispute was with regard to a mango tree. He states that when they reached the house of the deceased, the accused were quarrelling with Sanjeeda Begum, who was in a perplexed state of mind. In cross-examination he stated that deceased and the accused reside separately in different houses. Shri Ali Hassan stays with his family in a separate house, which is about 100-150 meters from the house of the deceased. He did not see the deceased being beaten up by the accused and he has no knowledge of any past history of physical violence being used by the accused. 8. PW-6, Kumri Noor Jahan is an important witness, she is the daughter of the deceased. She states that the accused used to beat up her mother. She was lodging complaints about this fact with her grand father, PW 1 Mohammad Ishaak, who used to send her back with Shakura Begum. On 14.6.201 one bullock belonging to Phoolo Begum died and she held the deceased responsible for causing its death which ultimately turned into a full-fledged quarrel. The accused thrashed her and turned her out of the house. She states that “uske ek dam baad main pathshala chali gai jab main pathshala se karib 4.30 baje vapas aayi to apni mata ko ghar par na paya. Tab maine apne nana ko phone kiya ki kya meri mata uske ghar aaie hai ya nahi usne na me javab diya”. (Then I went to school and when I returned from school at about 4.30 p.m., I did not find my mother at home and I rang up grand father and enquired from him as to whether my mother had come there. (Then I went to school and when I returned from school at about 4.30 p.m., I did not find my mother at home and I rang up grand father and enquired from him as to whether my mother had come there. He replied in the negative.) She was cross-examined at length in which she states that her mother was slapped by Phoolo Begum and beaten up with a stick by Ali Hassan. According to her three blows were given with danda (stick) on the back of the deceased as a result of which she got “neel” (contusions) on the back. She further stated that her mother and the accused were residing separately and had separate fields for the last 8-9 years. 9. PW7 Shri Ramjan states that the accused and deceased used to quarrel but he had never seen them beating her. PW-8 Shri Nazeer Ahmed, husband of the deceased corroborates the complaint against the accused. He states about quarrels etc., taking place. He states in cross-examination that on the fateful day on 14.6.2001, he left the house in the morning and returned in the evening at about 4 O’clock. He did not witness any quarrel/fighting between the parties on that day. About two years prior to the incident, he had filed a complaint with the police regarding the maltreatment of his wife. PW9 Smt. Reham Nisha states about the quarrel between the parties. PW10 Shri Ram Pal is resident of Village Bangran and states only about the dispute over a mango tree and states that no quarrel took place in his presence. 10. DW1 Shri Pal Singh was produced as defence witness. He states that he never saw the parties quarrelling. In cross-examination he states that his house is at a distance of 15 feet from that of the accused. This is the entirety of the evidence. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the evidence on record is insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. He submits that according to the prosecution if the version is believed there is a long history of quarrels, beatings etc., by the accused and these complaints have been made to PW1 Shri Mohammad Isaak, the father of the deceased as also PW-9 Smt. Reham Nisha and Smt. Shafora Begum, who was not produced as a witness. He submits that according to the prosecution if the version is believed there is a long history of quarrels, beatings etc., by the accused and these complaints have been made to PW1 Shri Mohammad Isaak, the father of the deceased as also PW-9 Smt. Reham Nisha and Smt. Shafora Begum, who was not produced as a witness. PW1 Shri Mohammad Issak to whom the deceased was complaining about her maltreatment by the accused had not taken any action against the accused. He submits that the prosecution story cannot be accepted for the reasons that the accused and the deceased were residing separately and there was no occasion for them to enter into domestic conflict. In any event, even the case of the prosecution is accepted, the dispute is over a mango tree etc., there is no particular instance of property which is the bone of contention between the parties. The evidence only points out to the dispute with respect to one mango tree which has been corroborated by PW10 Shri Ram Pal and PW5 Shri Janardan Dass but there is no evidence on record with respect to the maltreatment, quarrel and beatings etc. Adverting to the evidence of PW8 Shri Nazeer Ahmed, learned counsel submits that he had behaved in a most unnatural manner as also PW6 Ms. Noor Jahan, who rang up her grand father, (PW1 Mohammad Ishaak) and had not contacted her father informing him that her mother is missing. In fact the entire family i.e father, mother, husband and sister have behaved in a nonchalant manner. Adverting to the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC, learned counsel placed reliance upon Bhagwan Dass v. Kartar Singh and Ors, AIR 2007 S.C. 2045 , wherein the Supreme Court holds: “15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her-in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. “16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the high Court. “16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the high Court. We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her death then Section 304B IPC may be attracted, whether it in a case of homicide or suicide. Vide Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors, 2000(5) SCC 207 ,Satvir Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab &Anr 2001(8) SCC 633 , Smt. Shanti & Anr v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1261.” (p.2047). 12. In Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, (2005)6 SCC 281 the Court holds : “11. One other provisions which is relevant to be noted is Section 306, IPC. The basic difference between the two section i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended.” (p.285) 13. In Bhup Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2010(2) Him.L.R.771, this Court holds: “17. For attracting the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court must be satisfied that the accused persons(s) by their conduct created such an inhuman situation or were subjecting the deceased to such cruelty which amounted to abetment and led to the death either unnatural form or as a suicide. 20. To constitute abetment, abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of crime. The intention to aid the commission of the crime is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid. To make out a case of abetment there must be instigation which in common parlance would mean to “to go” to urge forward or to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. 21. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 2007 SC 2045 that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, if the wife commits suicide.” (p.774) 14. 21. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 2007 SC 2045 that mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, if the wife commits suicide.” (p.774) 14. I find that in Mohammed Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010)1 SCC 750 the Supreme Court has considered this law in extenso holding: “6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out Section 306 of the Code : “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.” 7. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere defined in the penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. “Sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”, thus implying an act of self killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. 8. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a felony in English. In England, the former law was of the nature of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types:” Degradation of corpse of the deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through its chest. Forfeiture of property of the deceased by the State. This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide, has been abrogated. 9. However, currently there is no punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide, has been abrogated. 9. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 IPC. 10. “Abetment” has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 107, which reads as under “ “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 doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing” Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with Section 107 reads as under : “Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731. In Mahendra Singh, the allegations leveled were as under (SCC p. 731, para 1) “1… My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.” The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. 12. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . A three Judge Bench of this Court had on occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you life”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in para 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 13. In State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswasl (1994) 1 SCC 73 , this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 14. The Court in Ramesh Kumar case (2001) 9 SCC 618 , came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. 15. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. 16. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (pp.752-755) 17. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (pp.752-755) 17. I find that the law on the point is well settled and does not require any further reiteration. The learned Sessions Judge has been remiss in assessing the evidence for convicting the accused. He should and ought have realized that the evidence is to be assessed/evaluated as a whole and not in the manner as he has done by reproducing some parts and no taking the entire evidence into consideration. The law with respect to assessment of the evidence by now well settled in C. Magesh and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2010)5 SCC 645 and Param Jeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 . These principles have not been followed by the learned Sessions Judge. Moreover, I find that the ingredients of Section 306, IPC have not been established on record. I find that (a) that long sustained behaviour/acts of the accused have not been proved on record to establish that both the accused had driven the deceased to such a situation where she had no other option but to end her life, (b) the incidents referred to which were the trigger/stimulus for the deceased to jump into the canal are vague and if considered even without any cross-examination only relate to a dispute with respect to a mango tree and death of a bullock. Some normal quarrel ensuing from such incident even between enemies cannot be considered sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide unless the gravity of those acts are as such that they leave no choice to a person except to end his life and (c) the conduct of the father of the deceased PW1 Mohammad Isaak, husband PW8 Nazee Ahmed, and PW9 Smt. Reham Nisha is also inexplicable. It does not stand to reason that the deceased was complaining about her maltreatment to them who were in fact her father, husband, and did not take any action to put a cloak of protection around the deceased. It does not stand to reason that the deceased was complaining about her maltreatment to them who were in fact her father, husband, and did not take any action to put a cloak of protection around the deceased. So far as PW6 Kumari Noor Jahan is concerned, she being a child, she could not react as expected from an adult but what I find from her evidence is that she was quite unconcerned about the fact that her mother had been beaten up in the morning and soon thereafter she went to school and when she returned in the evening her mother was not there. The same is the role of PW8 Nazir Ahmed, husband of the deceased who did not know anything about the incident and about the deceased being beaten up by the accused. When all these factors are considered together, there is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the accused stand discharged.