JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.49 of 1994, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as “IPC” for short). By the impugned judgment, for offence under Section 498 (A), the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and ordered to pay fine of Rs.100/-and, in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a period of fifteen days was imposed. For offence under Section 306, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/-and, in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 12.1.1994 when the appellant had gone to Rajkot in connection with his official duty and on return in the evening on the same day he found that his wife Krishna had committed suicide by strangulating herself on her neck and he immediately informed the City Police Station about the incident. The appellant also informed the brother of his deceased wife residing at Ahmedabad on telephone about the incident immediately. The brother of deceased with other relatives came to Junagadh. The Police authorities made preliminary enquiries and the deceased was cremated on 14.1.1994. Shri Rajkumar Santoshkumar, the brother of deceased Krishna (the brother-in-law of the appellant) came to Junagadh in the morning of 13.1.1994 immediately on hearing from the appellant about the suicide along with his relatives. Shri Rajkumar Santoshkumar also met Police Officers at Junagadh, took part in cremation of deceased on 14.1.1994 and did not make any complaint against the appellant. In fact, he took the incident as one of simple suicide and returned to Ahmedabad after cremation on 14.1.1994. Shri Rajkumar Santoshkumar also met Police Officers at Junagadh, took part in cremation of deceased on 14.1.1994 and did not make any complaint against the appellant. In fact, he took the incident as one of simple suicide and returned to Ahmedabad after cremation on 14.1.1994. It was after reaching Ahmedabad that the brother of the deceased and other maternal relatives of deceased Krishna decided to level false charges and implement the appellant in a criminal case and it was on 17.1.1994 that brother of deceased Krishna, viz., Shri Bajkumar Santoshkumar came to Junagadh and lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant concocting false tales of harassment by the appellant against the deceased based only on false oral evidence, alleging cruelty by him. Thereafter, presumably the complainant's side being convinced of such baseless charges, concocted documentary evidence in the shape of a letter written by the deceased Krishna to her brother Rajkumar purported to have been written on 12.1.1994, the very day of suicide incident, which, as alleged, was received in Ahmedabad on 17.1.1994 and therein allegations of false charges of illicit extra marital relations are said to have been made by the appellant against his deceased wife Krishna. This letter was posted on 19.1.1994 to B.S.P., Junagadh, by the said complainant as alleged in the Police Case under investigation. 2.1 Investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined several witnesses. The prosecution has also produced on record documentary evidence in support of its case. 2.3 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 2.4 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellant-accused. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 2.4 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellant-accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.49 of 1994, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 3. It is submitted by Mr.N.D.Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is quite erroneous on facts as well as on law. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record according to the well settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. He further submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that there were many glaring and serious infirmities in the case of prosecution which have been very lightly brushed aside by the learned Judge which has caused failure of justice. He also submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, against the express provisions of statute and against the evidence on record. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 498 (A) and 306 of IPC and he, therefore, ought to have acquitted the accused. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that taking the prosecution case to be true and correct, no offence under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of IPC is made out against the accused. 3.1 Mr.Nanavaty also submitted that in admitting the letter of 12.1.1994 purported to have been written by the deceased Krishna in evidence, the lower court has committed an error of law. The same is not admissible in evidence and is not proof and also not reliable. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same is not admissible in evidence and is not proof and also not reliable. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the lower court has failed to appreciate the fact that only as a second thought the relatives of deceased Krishna deliberately planned to secure the conviction of the appellant at any cost and, therefore, firstly filed an F.I.R. after a long lapse of time and, secondly, brought forward false stories of cruelty of the appellant, viz. his amorous overtures over the younger sister of his wife, his offer to keep her as mistress, his greed and complaint for non-receipt of Dahej, has suspicion of character of the deceased etc., which after dealing in detail has been dis-believed by the lower court. This puerile but futile attempts by the complainant‘s side to implicate the appellant and that too as an after thought would cast a shadow of doubt in the minds of any reasonable man about veracity of the letter of 12.1.1994, the main and only basis of conviction in this case and it should have been rejected as unbelievable piece of evidence and in result there could be no conviction of the appellant. It is also submitted that the extrinsic evidence of the said letter, its postal stamp, its mode of writing and its intrinsic evidence viz. its contents, its genesis on the fateful day of suicide, its journey of 5 to 6 days from Junagadh to Ahmedabad and a host of other considerations make this letter highly suspicious and unbelievable and cannot be a legal basis for conviction of a serious offence against a young army man. The same should have been rejected as unbelievable and highly suspicious and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same should have been rejected as unbelievable and highly suspicious and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.2 Mr.Nanavaty also submitted that without admitting even a bit, the prosecution allegation of the appellant having levelled charges of illicit marital behaviour against his deceased wife, it can be maintained that even if a husband suspects uncommon behaviour of his wife towards other unrelated males, he would be justified in orally conveying to his spouse what he thinks undesirable and if it is not accompanied with any physical attack or words of mental torture or any unloving behaviour, a husband is justified in bringing his belief to the notice of his wife. The said letter of 12.1.1994 even if it were genuine (which is not) does not spell out any cruelty as contemplated by law. Exchange of correct belief of spouse only in mild words, unaccompanied by any physical assault, is a safety valve for harmony in marital relations and hence the finding of cruelty of the appellant in this case is wrong. He submitted that evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and, therefore, the finding of facts and law are improper and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.3 Mr.Nanavaty also submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated that there is no intentional aiding or instigation so as to constitute the offence of abetment. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that whether a normal lady would commit suicide under these circumstances. Merely because a sensitive lady has committed suicide, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. He also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the accused had no intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide and the accused could not have anticipated the same. Intention and mens rea are the main ingredients of offence of abetment and they are lacking in the present case. He also submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in law in relying upon the evidence of highly interested witnesses. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Intention and mens rea are the main ingredients of offence of abetment and they are lacking in the present case. He also submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in law in relying upon the evidence of highly interested witnesses. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He submitted that in view of above, this appeal may be allowed and the judgment and order of the lower Court may be reversed. in support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following authoritative pronouncement. S.S.Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190 3.4 Mr.Nanavaty further submitted that this is an appeal of 1995 and the incident in question is of 1994, therefore, long period of 21 years has elapsed. He also submitted that the accused has lost his job because of this incident and he has suffered enough, therefore, in the alternative he submitted that this appeal may be allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. He also submitted that considering the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the accused may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 562 , wherein it is observed as under: “4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place almost 27 years ago and the appellant is now more than 70 years of age, suffering from several medical ailments, we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant for reduction of his sentence. 5. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances mentioned herein above, we allow the appeal to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, we reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. Let the appellant be discharged from his bail bonds.” 3.5 Mr.Nanavaty has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA”, 2013 (6) SCALE 778, which is followed by this Court in a number of decisions, and submitted that this Court may invoke the provisions of Section 357 of the Cr.P.Code and this appeal may be allowed. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA”, 2013 (6) SCALE 778, which is followed by this Court in a number of decisions, and submitted that this Court may invoke the provisions of Section 357 of the Cr.P.Code and this appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, Ms.C.M.Shah has taken this Court through the evidence and has submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not such which calls for interference on the facts and the conviction of the accused should not be interfered with. She has submitted that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant would not apply to the facts of this case. She submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the nexus between the cruelty and the suicide. She also submitted that even the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and since the accused has committed suicide due to cruelty meted out to her by the accused, he is rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. She also submitted that when the deceased herself has written a letter to her relatives on the date of incident, it is sufficient to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused and the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated said piece of evidence and convicted the appellant. She further submitted that passage of time only cannot be a criteria for reversing the conviction of the accused and acquitting him of the charges levelled against him. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed. 5. Heard Mr.Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State. I have also perused the evidence on record. Before dealing with the submissions of either side, it is necessary to reproduce Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under :- “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.” 6. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that if any person commits suicide, the person abetting such offence can be convicted under this provision. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution has proved that because of appellant's abetment, the deceased had committed suicide. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that if any person commits suicide, the person abetting such offence can be convicted under this provision. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the prosecution has proved that because of appellant's abetment, the deceased had committed suicide. In this regard, it is necessary to reproduce the observation of the Apex Court in the case of S.S.Chheena (supra), which reads as under: “19. "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 the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 20. 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." 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731. In Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled 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. 22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (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. 22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 . In this case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had an 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 like". 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." In this case, the court 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. 23. In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 , this Court has cautioned that: “17.... 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. 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.” 24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. 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. 25. 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 26. 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. 27. 26. 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. 27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside.” 7. From the observations of the Apex Court in S.S.Chheena (supra), it is clear that 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 the Apex 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide. Therefore, even on the touchstone of the latest decision of the Apex Court and the decisions cited by Mr.Nanavaty, the prosecution has not brought home the charge under Section 306 of IPC and it is not proved that the action of the accused was such which perpetrated and fastened the death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is reversed and he is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 8. This takes this Court to offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Section 498-A of IPC reads as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is reversed and he is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 8. This takes this Court to offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Section 498-A of IPC reads as under: “498-A. 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 puroses 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 (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 9. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove that the act of the appellant was such which would amount to cruelty on the deceased. In the present case, the marriage period of the appellant and the accused was less than one year and in the letter dated 12.1.1994 of the deceased, it is written that her husband i.e. the appellant herein was having suspicion that she is having extra marital relations. Such allegations against her character made by the accused can be termed to be mental cruelty caused to the deceased by the appellant. In the aforesaid letter, written by the deceased on the date of the incident, it is also stated that for any untoward incident with her, her husband will be liable. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the nexus between the cruelty and the suicide and in view of the factual scenario which emerges from record, it can be said that the accused perpetrated cruelty which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the nexus between the cruelty and the suicide and in view of the factual scenario which emerges from record, it can be said that the accused perpetrated cruelty which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has proved case under Section 498-A of IPC against the appellant and he is rightly convicted by the trial Court. However, considering the fact that 21 years have passed and in view of the provisions of Section 357, which are pressed in service by learned counsel, Mr.Nanavaty, relying on the decision of the “ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA”, 2013 (6) SCALE 778 and decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1552 of 2004, wherein, it is held that the principle of sub-section (3) of section 357 of CrPC is empowering the Court to award compensation, I find that it shall be in the interest of justice if the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 498-A of IPC is upheld and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine. 10. In view of above, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.49 of 1994 is modified in the following manner. Conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 306 of IPC is quashed and set aside. Conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 498-A of IPC shall remain, however, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed for offence under Section 498-A of IPC is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. As the accused is on bail, he need not surrender. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled. Surety, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- (K.J.THAKER, J) FURTHER ORDER Learned advocate, Mr.Nirad Buch on behalf of Nanavaty Advocates submits that for depositing the enhanced fine, time of four weeks may be granted. The same is granted. However, it goes without saying that if the fine is not deposited within the above period, the default sentence as awarded by the learned trial Judge shall remain.