JUDGMENT PW4 Parmanand wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 09.01.2000 to Station Officer, police station, Kotwali Jhulaghat, Pithoragarh regarding death of his daughter. As per complaint, complainantâ daughter Hari Priya was married to Satish Chandra about two years ago (from the date of writing of complaint). On 09.01.2000, at 08:30 p.m., Neela Dhar, Suresh and an unknown person came to PW4 house and informed about the death of his daughter. The victim went to her matrimonial home on 09.01.2000, at 04:00 p.m. (from her parental home). PW4 suspected unnatural death of his daughter. He went to the matrimonial home of his daughter along with some persons. According to PW4, the victim was killed and thereafter hanged. PW4â„¢s daughter had the apprehension that she would be killed. She used to tell PW4 that her mother-in-law Smt. Devki Devi and husband Satish Chandra Bhatt harassed her for want of bringing sufficient dowry. On the basis of the complaint of PW4, chik FIR was registered on 10.01.2000, at 04.15 a.m., at police station Jhulaghat, District Pithoragarh, under Section 304B of IPC against Devki Devi and Satish Chandra Bhatt. The incident allegedly took place on 09.01.2000. The distance between the place of incident and police station concerned was 14 kilometers. FIR was lodged on 10.01.2000, at 04:15 a.m. and hence there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. FIR was promptly lodged. 2. After the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15) was submitted against Smt. Devki Devi under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC was framed against the accused (mother-in-law) on 26.09.2000. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. PW1 Dr. M.D. Bhatt (Medical Officer), PW2 Smt. Devki Devi (mother of the deceased), PW3 Chandra Shekhar (brother of the deceased), PW4 Parmanand (informant and father of the deceased), PW5 Vishram Singh (I.O.) and PW6 S.O. Lokesh Sharma (I.O., who initially investigated the case) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which she said that she was falsely implicated in the case. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which she said that she was falsely implicated in the case. Accused also stated that her nephew Krishnanand used to harass Hari Priya (deceased) and, therefore, she did not lodge FIR in order to avoid embarrassment to the family. She also stated that Hari Priya used to live with her husband and she came to the village on the selfsame day. It was further stated by the accused that there was no question of demand of dowry. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2001, convicted the accused under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 498A of IPC. The accused was also sentenced to undergo three yearsâ„¢ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 306 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2001, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict. 3. PW1 Dr. M.D. Bhatt was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Pithoragarh on 10.01.2000. On that day, at 02:00 p.m., he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Hari Priya. PW1 found ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The size was 24 cm. x 2.5 cm. PW1 also found haemorrhagic spot underneath muscles, interrupted on left side 4 cm. below mastoid bone. Direction upward. Obliquely placed. Mark was situated behind Hyoid bone. PW1 proved post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-1). According to him, cause of death of the victim was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Thus, according to PW1, it was a case of ante mortem hanging and not strangulation. 4. PW2 Smt. Devki Devi was the mother of deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that her daughter Hari Priya, was married to Satish Bhatt four years ago (from the date of her deposition). The name of the mother of Satish Bhatt was also Devki Devi. PW2 said that her daughter died about a year and five months ago. Her daughter and son-in-law used to live together. Whenever PW2 daughter came to her (at her parental home) she used to complain that her mother-in-law harassed her. The name of the mother of Satish Bhatt was also Devki Devi. PW2 said that her daughter died about a year and five months ago. Her daughter and son-in-law used to live together. Whenever PW2 daughter came to her (at her parental home) she used to complain that her mother-in-law harassed her. Earlier mother-in-law demanded a scooter, thereafter fridge and still thereafter, she demanded cash worth Rs. 20,000/- for construction of a house. PW2 used to console her daughter, and used to defer the matter. Mother-in-law of the victim treated her with cruelty. Mother-in-law used to ridicule the victim on the pretext that she did not beget a child even after two years of marriage. On 09.01.2000, PW2 daughter came to her and asked for Rs. 20,000/- for construction of house, which money was demanded by her mother-in-law. Since PW1 had no money, therefore, she told her daughter that the money would be paid subsequently. The victim returned to her matrimonial home. Distance between the matrimonial home and parental home of deceased was 15-10 kilometers. On the same day, three persons came from the matrimonial home of the daughter of PW2 and informed PW2 that her daughter was killed. PW2 son and co-villagers rushed to the village where deceased was married. PW2 son returned and informed PW2 that the victim was killed and thereafter hanged. 5. PW2 stated in her cross-examination that when her daughter’s marriage took place, Satish (husband of PW2 daughter) was posted at Bareilly. Satish was employed in police. When victim died, her husband was posted at Pithoragarh. He was deputed in the office of Superintendent of Police. He took a house on rent after four months of his posting on Pithoragarh. PW2 admitted that no child was begotten by victim despite medical treatment. Whenever Satish went on tour, Hari Priya (victim) either used to come to her parental home or would go to her matrimonial home. When Satish went to Agra on tour, he instructed his wife (victim) to go to her matrimonial home. Victim went to her matrimonial home all alone. 6. The victim did not complain against her husband. Victim used to complain against her mother-in-law that she instigated her son to beat his wife (victim). No dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. Victim went to her matrimonial home all alone. 6. The victim did not complain against her husband. Victim used to complain against her mother-in-law that she instigated her son to beat his wife (victim). No dowry was demanded at the time of marriage. PW2 further said in her cross-examination that one Krishnanand and his companion knocked the door of her daughter (victim) in the night. They were drunk when they came. This incident took place two months before the commission of suicide by the victim. PW2 was not aware whether her son-in-law (Satish) reported the matter to the police or not. When PW2 sent her son to inquire about the matter, Krishnanand told that accused-appellant instigated him to do the same. Victim passed Intermediate and was married after one year of passing of her Intermediate examination. 7. Thus four important things came in the cross-examination of PW2: i) Appellant instigated her son to beat the victim ii) Victim did not beget a child iii) Victim’s husband was in transferable job in police department, and iv) One Krishnanand, in drunken state knocked the door of victim in the night, at the instigation of appellant. 8. PW3 was the younger brother of the deceased. PW3 also supported PW2 and said that her sister came to her parental home on 09.01.2000 and returned to her matrimonial home at 04:00 p.m. on the same day. Victim’s husband was employed as Class IV employee in the office of Superintendent of Police. Suresh and Neeladhar Bhatt informed PW3 that Hari Priya was killed. PW3 went to the matrimonial home of his sister only to find that she was killed and thereafter hanged. PW3 also stated that whenever her sister came to her parental home, she used to complain that her mother-in-law demanded fridge and cash. 9. In his cross-examination, although PW3 levelled allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant, but the point to be noted here is that no charge-sheet was submitted, and no charge was framed against the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. It will, therefore, be a futile exercise to deal with the question whether the appellant demanded dowry or not? Otherwise also, PW3 admitted, may be true, may not be true, that usually dowry is not demanded in (Uttarakhand) hills. PW3 further admitted that his sister did not beget a child till she committed suicide. It will, therefore, be a futile exercise to deal with the question whether the appellant demanded dowry or not? Otherwise also, PW3 admitted, may be true, may not be true, that usually dowry is not demanded in (Uttarakhand) hills. PW3 further admitted that his sister did not beget a child till she committed suicide. Victim’s mother-in-law (appellant) harassed her. PW3 was also a witness to the preparation of inquest report. Victim and her husband were in good relations with each other. 10. PW4 was the father of the deceased. He stated, in his examination-in-chief, that her son-in-law worked in police department at Pithoragarh. The victim used to come to her parental home after her marriage. She used to complain that her mother-in-law harassed her for not bringing scooter and fridge in dowry. The victim also came to her parental home for the last time on 09.01.2000 and complained that her mother-in-law demanded scooter, fridge and cash. PW4 expressed his inability to meet the demand, saying that the money will be paid on a later date. The victim went to her matrimonial home on 9.1.2000 itself at 4:00 p.m. 2-3 people came subsequently and informed PW4 that his daughter was killed (by her in-laws). PW4 wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-2) regarding the incident. He also submitted two letters (Ext. Ka-3 and Ext. Ka-4), which were written by the victim. 11. PW4 (father of the deceased) stated in his cross-examination that his daughter did not sustain any external injury. PW4 also admitted that custom of giving and demanding dowry was not prevalent among Brahmins in hills, although, of late, it has started. PW4 also made an attempt to propound a theory of dowry demand while lodging FIR, but the same is not evident on record. It is reiterated again that neither the charge-sheet under Section 304B of IPC was submitted against the appellant nor such charge was framed. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had put a condition at the time of marriage of his daughter that she will not help her in-laws in farming. PW4 admitted that his daughter did not beget a child. PW4 had no qualms against his son-in-law. Victim’s mother-in-law harassed the victim. Krishnanand was the cousin of Satish [Krishnanand was not arrayed as an accused]. PW4 denied the suggestion that Krishnanand knocked the door of victim in the night while he was drunk. PW4 admitted that his daughter did not beget a child. PW4 had no qualms against his son-in-law. Victim’s mother-in-law harassed the victim. Krishnanand was the cousin of Satish [Krishnanand was not arrayed as an accused]. PW4 denied the suggestion that Krishnanand knocked the door of victim in the night while he was drunk. It will be underlined here that while PW4 denied such fact, PW2 asserted the same by saying that Krishnanand did it on the instigation of appellant. 12. PW5 conducted inquest and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-5). PW6 was the Investigating Officer of the case. 13. In the letter dated 16.09.1998 (Ext. Ka-4) written by the victim to her husband Satish Chandra Bhatt, she did not indicate anything against her mother-in-law. When the victim wrote such letter to her husband, she lived with her mother-in-law at Pithoragarh, whereas her husband was posted at Bareilly. In her letter (suicide note) dated 09.01.2000 (Ext. Ka-3), the victim wrote as follows: I am going to die. Nothing should happen to my husband after my death, in-as-much as, my husband is not to be blamed for my death. He is like God to me. He loves me too much. But there is no respect for me in this house. My husband did not live in the house. All the things are to be heard by me day and night. Nothing should happen to my husband, but don’t spare others. Mummy, Papa and brother, you will be sad to hear the news of my death, but nothing should happen to your son-in-law (brother-in-law), but Don’t spare other members (of my matrimonial home). Don’t lament my death because the same was my destiny. I will continue to live with you even after my death. I will get rid of this life. Brother, you tell your brother-in-law that I am going far away from him. I am sad. Ask him to marry a beautiful girl and settle his family. I could not give anything to you, but such was my destiny. What can I do? Kindly excuse me. I tender apology from all of you. Oh God! kindly pardon me. 14. Brother, you tell your brother-in-law that I am going far away from him. I am sad. Ask him to marry a beautiful girl and settle his family. I could not give anything to you, but such was my destiny. What can I do? Kindly excuse me. I tender apology from all of you. Oh God! kindly pardon me. 14. Thus, there was no oral evidence on record to suggest emphatically that (i) appellant abetted commission of suicide by victim (ii) Krishnanand knocked the door of victim in the night at the instigation of the appellant (iii) appellant harassed the victim on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the rulings of Mahendra Singh & another v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : (1995 AIR SCW 4570); Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1775 ) and S. S. Chhena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another, (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465 : (2010 AIR SCW 4938). Hon’ble Apex Court held in Mahendra Singh's case (supra), Netai Dutta’s case (supra) and Sohan Raj Shrama v. State of Haryana, 2008 AIR SCW 3202 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2108 ), that mere cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken to be an act of abetting suicide and the ingredients of Section 306, IPC, in such cases, are not made out. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., 2007 (3) SCC (Cri) 701 : ( AIR 2007 SC 2457 ), held that mere torture by the accused and subsequent commission of suicide by the victim would not amount to an abetment or instigation to commit suicide. 16. Thus, even if the contents of suicide note and oral evidence brought on record be assumed to be true and correct, no offence under Section 306, IPC is established against the appellant. 17. But offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is proved against the appellant on the basis of evidence on record. It will be useful to reproduce herein the contents of the said Section: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 17. But offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is proved against the appellant on the basis of evidence on record. It will be useful to reproduce herein the contents of the said Section: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, “cruelty means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 18. It is a fact that the victim committed suicide. Why has she committed suicide, was displayed in her suicide note. Who could be the best witness to say as to why the victim committed suicide? The reply is the victim herself. The contents of Victim’s suicide note have been excerpted in paragraph 13 of this judgment above. Victim lamented that since her husband remains outside for most of the time, therefore, it was she, who had to hear everything, bear the brunt of her mother-in-law day in and day out. Victim also lamented that there was no respect for her in her matrimonial home. She also wrote that nothing should happen to her husband, but the others should not be spared. In other words, it is manifested that the conduct of her mother-in-law was cruel. Whatever might be the reason of harassment by mother-in-law to victim may be that the victim did not beget a child and, therefore, she was considered to be a liability in the family, but in any case, it was not on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. But one thing is certain that the wilful conduct on the part of appellant was of such a nature that it was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide. Under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove reasonable nexus between wilful conduct of the appellant with the commission of suicide by the victim. The words likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, are important. Under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove reasonable nexus between wilful conduct of the appellant with the commission of suicide by the victim. The words likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, are important. Here lies the distinction between Section 306 of IPC and 498A of IPC. Whereas the words used in Section 306 of IPC are whoever abets the commission of such suicide, the words used in Section 498A of IPC are any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Likely means in normal circumstances. If a reasonable prudent person believes that the wilful conduct committed by the appellant would drive the victim to commit suicide, offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is proved. The victim might have committed suicide or might not have committed suicide, but the fact remains, that if the wilful conduct on the part of appellant is of such a nature that, in normal circumstances, the same is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC are attracted. Under Section 306 of IPC definite evidence of abetment is required to be proved, which is not so under Section 498A of IPC. It is in such view of the matter that this Court has no option but to hold the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 19. The law on the point is summed up by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 3100 , as follows: “The basic difference between the two Sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498A 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. 20. In the instant case, mental cruelty, rather than physical cruelty committed by the appellant dragged the victim to commit suicide. After all, who would like to die without rhyme or reason? 21. Criminal appeal is thus partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. She is acquitted of said charge. Appellant is, however, held guilty and convicted of the charge under Section 498A of IPC. After all, who would like to die without rhyme or reason? 21. Criminal appeal is thus partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. She is acquitted of said charge. Appellant is, however, held guilty and convicted of the charge under Section 498A of IPC. Her conviction under Section 498A of IPC is affirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, however, deems it fit to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant by the court below from a period of two years to a period of one year, along with fine. It is, accordingly, directed that the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in dafault of payment of which, she will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 22. Accused-appellant is on bail. Her bail is cancelled. Accused-appellant shall surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance. Appeal partly allowed.