Judgment 1. The sole accused in S.C.No.185 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007, on the file of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) Mahila Court (in charge), Trichirappalli, is the appellant in the present appeal. 2. The accused/appellant stood charged for commission of offences under Section 498(A) and 306 I.P.C. The trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 19.06.2007 has acquitted her for the commission of offence under Section 498(A), but, convicted her under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court further added that the period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused/appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal. 3. The facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: 3.1. The deceased, namely, Usha Rani, wife of Ramesh, was the daughter- in-law of the accused/appellant. The marriage between the said Usha Rani and the son of the accused/appellant was solemnized during the year 2002. On 04.10.2005, there was a wordy altercation between the victim and the mother- in-law, namely, the accused/appellant herein. During wordy quarrel, the accused/appellant asked the victim to go out of the matrimonial home and the victim went to her parental home. The husband of the victim also did not turn up and asked her about the reasons for leaving the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the victim along with his mother/P.W.1 came to the house of the matrimonial house of the deceased at 10.00 p.m. When she entered inside her matrimonial house, her mother was pushed outside and the door was locked. At that time, due to filthy languages of the accused/appellant, the victim went to the upstairs and poured kerosene kept in M.O.1 and immolated herself. Unable to bear with the pain and sufferings, she started shouting and her husband doused fire. However, the victim and her husband sustained burn injuries. The victim was taken to the Trichirappalli Government Hospital by her brother-in-law, namely, Ravi. 3.2. Unable to bear with the pain and sufferings, she started shouting and her husband doused fire. However, the victim and her husband sustained burn injuries. The victim was taken to the Trichirappalli Government Hospital by her brother-in-law, namely, Ravi. 3.2. P.W.11, was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Uriyur Police Station and while he was on duty, at 19.30 hours, on 12.10.2005, he saw a statement recorded by one Nagaraj-P.W.10, which was received by the Head Constable, namely, Duraikannu from the victim who was taking treatment as an inpatient at Trichirappalli Government Hospital, Trichirappalli. P.W.11, based on the statements received from the victim, registered a case in Crime No.1257 of 2005 under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code. The statements of the victim was marked as Ex.P.1. Having found that the death of the deceased was within seven years from the date of marriage, he informed the same to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer and also forwarded the first information report, which was marked as Ex.P.4. 3.3. P.W.12, on receipt of the first information report from P.W.11, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Trichirappalli and in the presence of Panchayathars, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and also recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other Panchayathars. Based on the final information given by the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, he advised the concerned police to take action against the accused/appellant. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P.5. The information of Panchayathar was marked as Ex.P.6 and the Revenue Divisional Officer's Report was marked as Ex.P-7. 3.4. At the relevant point of time, P.W.15 was the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichirappalli, and at about 12.30 hours, on 06.10.2005, while she was at home, she received an information about the occurrence and she was called upon to record the dyeing declaration from the deceased. Immediately, she rushed to the Hospital at 12.45 p.m, where the victim was identified by the Doctor, who certified about the mental and physical status of the deceased to give a dyeing declaration and after ascertaining her capacity to give a dyeing declaration, she recorded the statement from the deceased between 1.00 and 1.20 hours. It was also read over to the victim and her thump impression was also obtained. The dyeing declaration was marked as Ex.P.10. 3.5. It was also read over to the victim and her thump impression was also obtained. The dyeing declaration was marked as Ex.P.10. 3.5. At the time of occurrence, P.W.19 was the Assistant Commissioner of Police, at Srirangam, and after the death of the victim, he investigated the case in Crime No.1257 of 2005 registered under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code, which was later altered into Section 498(A) and 306 IPC of the Criminal Procedure Code. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 13.10.2005 and in the presence of P.W.6 and others, prepared a sketch, marked as Exs.P.11 and 12 respectively. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1,2,4,5,6,8 and other witnesses and also seized a fanta bottle which contained the kerosene under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P.13. The fanta bottle was marked as M.O.1. 3.6.P.W.13 was the Professor of Forensic Medicine, at Trichirappalli Government Hospital. He received a request from the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichirappalli to conduct post- mortem on the body of the deceased. He along with a Doctor, by name, Santhi, commenced the post-mortem and noted the following features:- “Its condition then was- Rigor mortis present all over the body. Post-mortem commenced at 11.15 A.M. on 13.10.2005. Appearance found at the post-mortem-Moderately nourished body of a Female. Finger and toe nails-intact and pale. Genital Examination-Hymen-Absent, No fresh wound, NO discharge present. Wounds: 1.Superficial infected burns wound, on the lower half of fact, front, sides and back of neck, both upper limbs, front and back of trunk and whole of both thighs. The base of the burnt area is reddish. The floor is covered by greenish yellow colour foul smelling pus. Peeling and carbonisation of cuticle present. Singeing of hairs present. 2. Intra-venous cut down wound on both legs present. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem in nature. No other external, internal or bony wound present. The base of the burnt area is reddish. The floor is covered by greenish yellow colour foul smelling pus. Peeling and carbonisation of cuticle present. Singeing of hairs present. 2. Intra-venous cut down wound on both legs present. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem in nature. No other external, internal or bony wound present. Other findings: Peritoneum-intact, cavity-empty; Pleura-intact, cavity-empty; Pericardium-intact, cavity-straw colour fluid; Heard-Myocardium - normal, chambers- right side - clotted blood, left side-fluid blood, Valves-normal, Coronary vessel-patent, Great Vessels-normal; Lungs-c/s. pale, basal consolidation present; Larynx, Trachea and Hyoid bone - intact, mucosa-pale; Stomach-light brown colour thick fluid, no specific smell, mucosa-pale, Oesophagus-intact, mucosa-pale; Pancreas-pale; Gall bladder- full, no stones; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys-c/s.pale; Omentum and Mesentery - intact pale; Small intestine - yellowish chyme, no specific smell mucosa-pale; Appendix- intact, normal; Large intestine-filled with gas; Urinary bladder-intact and empty; Uterus-normal in size, c/o copper 'T' present, Pelvis-intact; Scalp, Skull Bones and Membrances-intact, Brain - oedematous, petechiae present, CSF-clear, Vertebral column and cord-intact; All other internal organs on c/s pale;” After conducting the post-mortem, he has opined that the deceased “died of burns wound and its complications”. The post-mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P.8. 3.7. P.W.16 recorded the statement of P.W.13 (Dr.Karthikeyan) as well as Dr.Shanthi, who conducted the autopsy on the deceased. He also recorded the statements of P.W.10 and 11. P.W.16, on transfer, has handed over the investigation to his successor. 3.8. P.W.17, after the completion of investigation has filed a charge sheet and charged the accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sent it to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichirappalli, which took it on file in P.R.C.No.12 of 2005 and issued summons to the accused, who on her appearance, furnished the copies of documents under Section 207 of Code of the Criminal Procedure. 3.9. Having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the trial Court has committed the same to the Principal Sessions Court, Trichirappalli, which, in turn, made over the same to the First Additional Sessions Judge, (PCR), (Mahila Court i/c) and the said Court, on appearance of the accused, has framed necessary charges under Sections 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and questioned her. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against her and prayed for trial of the case. 3.10. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against her and prayed for trial of the case. 3.10. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, has examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 along with M.O.1. 3.11. The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against her in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and she denied it as false. 3.12. The accused examined herself as D.W.1. However, no oral evidence was let in and also no documents were marked on her behalf. 3.13. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above and and the State did not prefer any appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed under Section 498(A). 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, has given the following submissions:- 4.1.The accused/appellant has uttered some words alleging intimacy about her daughter-in-law (victim) with P.W.3 and just because it was uttered on a particular day, it cannot be said that the accused/appellant has committed the crime, as alleged by the prosecution. The statement of the victim has been marked as Ex.P.1. Based on which, the first information report came to be registered and her dyeing declaration was marked as Ex.P.10. From the first information report and her dyeing declaration, it does not disclose the commission of offence took place under Section 306(A) IPC. Though the occurrence took place on 05.10.2005, the first information report was not immediately registered for the commission of offence. It came to be registered only on 12.10.2005 under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code and the prosecution has failed to come forward with any explanation as to the belated registration of the first information report though they were very much aware of the fact of self-immolation on the part of the victim, namely, Usha Rani, on 05.10.2005 itself. The testimonies of relatives, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4 also did not support the case of prosecution for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. The testimonies of relatives, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4 also did not support the case of prosecution for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that having acquitted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 408-A IPC, the trial Court, in all fairness, should have acquitted, the accused/appellant for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC also and eventually, prays for acquittal of the accused/appellant. 5. Per contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) made a vehement and forcible submission to the effect that when the victim returned to her matrimonial home on 05.10.2005, the accused/appellant castigated her that she is roaming around with her brother- in-law, namely, P.W.3 and she is also having an illicit relationship with him and unable to bear with the same, she went upstairs and committed self- immolation. Thus the act of the accused/appellant squarely falls within Section 107 of IPC and the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. She further draws the attention of this Court that the accused/appellant who examined herself as D.W.1 in her evidence, has clearly admitted about the act of telling the victim girl that she is roaming around with her brother-in-law and also having an illicit relationship with P.W.3 and thereby, she became the reason for committing suicide of the deceased. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, in a proper perspective manner, has rightly convicted the accused/appellant as stated above, which need not interfered by this Court. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and also scanned through the materials placed before it in the form of oral and documentary evidences and also the original records. 7. Ex.P.1 statement was recorded by P.W.10 while she was admitted in the hospital for treatment of burn injuries which she suffered on account of self-immolation. 7. Ex.P.1 statement was recorded by P.W.10 while she was admitted in the hospital for treatment of burn injuries which she suffered on account of self-immolation. The said statement can be taken as the first dyeing declaration and it reads that on 04.10.2005, there was a wordy altercation between her and her mother-in-law (accused/appellant) and she got angry and left for her parental home and till 05.10.2005, her husband did not take her and therefore, she along with her mother P.W.1 went to matrimonial home at 10.00 a.m. on the same day and her mother was driven out immediately. Enraged over the filthy word uttered by her mother-in-law, immediately, the victim went to the upstairs, took a bottle containing the kerosene and poured upon her and committed self-immolation and on raising alarm, her husband tried to save her, who also sustained burn injuries. The victim was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruchi, by her brother-in-law, namely, Ravi. (P.W.3) 7.1. On hearing the information P.W.10, rushed to the hospital and recorded her statement, which was marked Ex.P.1. It is penitent to point out at this juncture that the jurisdictional Police Officer, even on that day, did not take any steps to register the first information report immediately. However, it came to be registered by P.W.11 only on 12.10.2005 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. P.W.11 has failed to offer any plausible explanation for the belated filing of the first information report. P.W.15, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichirappalli, on receiving the intimation, proceeded to the hospital at about 12.50 p.m and after ascertaining the mental and physical condition of the victim, she recorded the victim's statement between 01.00 and 01.20 pm. P.W.15 in her chief examination has deposed that at the time of recording the statement from the victim, neither the accused/appellant nor the relatives were present. Further, according to her, the victim was in a fit state of mind to give dyeing declaration and it was certified by the Doctor also. The dyeing declaration was marked as Ex.P.10 and it is in tune with Ex.P.1 statement given by the mother of the deceased. P.W.1 was very specific that only on account of the fact that the deceased was asked to go out of the matrimonial home by the accused/appellant and due to the filthy word uttered by the accused/appellant, her daughter committed suicide by self-immolation. P.W.1 was very specific that only on account of the fact that the deceased was asked to go out of the matrimonial home by the accused/appellant and due to the filthy word uttered by the accused/appellant, her daughter committed suicide by self-immolation. The testimonies of the mother of the victim (P.W.1) and the brother of the victim (P.W.2) would disclose that the accused/appellant has developed a suspicion that his daughter-in-law (victim) is having an illicit relationship with his brother-in-law, namely, P.W.3. P.W.3, in the chief examination would depose that on getting the information that the deceased poured kerosene on her, he went to the hospital and enquired her and unable to bear with the offensive word that she was having an illicit relationship with him, she committed the self-immolation. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that the said fact has not been stated by the victim side either in the statement marked as Ex.P.1 or in her dyeing declaration, marked as Ex.P.10. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that her husband who tried to save her also sustained injuries and subsequently died on account of natural causes has not been examined. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2007 (4) CTC 158, Kishori Lal Vs. State of Mathya Pradesh has considered the scope of Section 107 IPC and taking into consider in the earlier decision in 1995 AIR SCW 4570, Mahinder Singh Vs. State of M.P., wherein it has been held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. 9. In yet another decision reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the scope of Sections 306 & 107 IPC was considered elaborately. It is relevant to extract the following:- “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 or the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 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 or 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 suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires 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. (emphasis supplied) 10. Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (a) He instigates any person to do that thing; or (b) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (c) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 11. The evidence available on record in the considered opinion of the Court do not disclose that the accused/appellant has abetted the commission of suicide by her daughter-in-law by self-immolation. The accused/appellant examined herself as D.W.1 would depose that on that particular day, her daughter-in-law went outside and returned to the matrimonial house at about 10.00 a.m. She told her that the victim was roaming around with her brother-in-law and she would inform the same to her husband and on getting angered, she committed suicide by self-immolation. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, has observed that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 13. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, has observed that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 13. In the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. No doubt, the word uttered by the accused/appellant in the given facts and circumstances of the case may not be palatable to the victim. But the said word was uttered without any motive and unable to bear with the alleged act of his daughter- in-law going with her brother-in-law she has uttered the said word on that particular day. Unable to bear with the said word, the daughter-in-law committed self-immolation on 05.10.2005 and seven days thereafter, she died on 12.10.2005. The legal position has not been properly appreciated by the lower court and it has erroneously concluded that the accused/appellant has committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC and it warrants interference. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant/accused, vide judgment dated 19.06.2007, made in S.C.No.185 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge(PCR)/Mahila Court(incharge), Trichirappalli, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, are set aside and the appellant/ accused is acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused, is directed to be refunded to her. The bail bonds executed by her shall stand terminated.