JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, against the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2011, delivered in S.T. 15 (ST/B) of 2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 498A and 306 of the IPC. 2. As consequence of that judgment of conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months. Even though, the appellant has been convicted under section 498A of the IPC but no sentence has been awarded. As according to the trial court the offence punishable under section 498 A and section 306 of the IPC are common, meaning overlapping to each other. By this appeal, the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been called in question. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 03.11.2009, one Uttam Das (PW-7) lodged a written ejahar (Exhibit-1) to the Officer-in-charge of Belonia Police Station disclosing that the marriage of her sister, Rita Das was solemnized with the appellant in the month of Falguna in the year 1993 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged by PW-7 that since adequate dowry could not be given at the time of marriage, his sister, Rita Das was told to bring Rs.50,000/- from her father’s house but when Rita expressed her inability to bring money, the accused persons namely Dhaneshwar Majumder, Yogendra Majumder, Nirmal Majumder, wife of Nirmal Majumder, Subhash Majumder, wife of Subhash Majumder, Shibu Majumder, wife of Shibu Majumder and Sajal Majumder started assaulting her. On 02.09.2009, the appellant and other family inmates poured poison inside the mouth of Rita. Somehow she managed to escape death. One Sajal Majumder, son of Subhash Majumder, one of the brother-in-laws of Rita used to assault her. On 01.11.2009 which was a Sunday as she was severely assaulted, she was made to death at 10.30 p.m. at night on intake of poison. Before that, she called PW-7 to tell that she would not live longer. Based on the said ejahar, Belonia police station case No. 183 of 2009 under Sections 498A /306 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report charge sheeting only the appellant was filed. Before that, she called PW-7 to tell that she would not live longer. Based on the said ejahar, Belonia police station case No. 183 of 2009 under Sections 498A /306 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report charge sheeting only the appellant was filed. Since the charge sheet was filed under Sections 498A/306/302 IPC, the police papers were committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. The Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, hereinafter referred to as the trial court framed the charge against the appellant under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC . Alternative charge was also framed under section 306 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12 witnesses (PW 1 to 12) including the informant (PW-7) and the investigating officer (PW-12). From the prosecution 11 documentary evidence including the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-3), the post mortem examination report Exhibit-2) were introduced. After recording the prosecution’s evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when the appellant reiterated his plea of innocence on denying the incriminating materials. 5. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the outset pointed out that the prosecution case hinges on PWs 1,2,7,8,9 and 10. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel PW-1, Sri Rakhal Majumder has stated that Sri Dhaneswar Majumder used to assault and abuses his wife consuming alcohol. Such torture started on the victim about an year after the marriage. In the cross-examination however he has stated he did not communicate about the torture to anybody. PW-1 is a witness from the neighborhood. PW-2 Sri Bhabatosh Das, another witness from the neighborhood, has stated in his examination in chief that on the fateful day i.e. 01.11.2009 he was sleeping in his house at about 12 O' Clock at night. Benu Majumder, son of the appellant, went to his house. Benu informed him that his mother called him. So he went to that house but Dhaneswar did not allow him to enter the house. He was holding dao and lathi then he went to call Rakhal Majumder, a resident of the adjacent house of the appellant. Benu Majumder, son of the appellant, went to his house. Benu informed him that his mother called him. So he went to that house but Dhaneswar did not allow him to enter the house. He was holding dao and lathi then he went to call Rakhal Majumder, a resident of the adjacent house of the appellant. They then appeared in the house of Dhaneswar and found the victim bleeding from her mouth and she was immediately shifted to Belonia hospital by the vehicle of one Amar Mitra. On the following morning Rita died. He has categorically asserted that he used to hear often Dhaneswar abusing his wife consuming alcohol and even he used to assault his wife. Only that part of the statement that Dhaneswar, the appellant, did not allow him to enter his house by holding dao and lathi was not found in his previous statement. 6. PW-7, Uttam Das, the informant, who lodged the written ejahar has stated in the trial that his sister was being regularly tortured on demand of Rs.50,000/- from their family. Rita informed that to him and other family members. She also informed that the appellant used to assault her on consuming alcohol. On 01.11.2009 around 9 p.m. Rita made a call to his mobile that her husband was abusing her like anything. He tried to console her by saying that he would visit her house in the next morning, but about an hour thereafter he called up her when the appellant took that call and informed PW-7 that Rita had consumed poison. On the following morning when she went to Belonia hospital he found Rita dead and he filed the written ejahar, Exhibit-2. In the cross examination, he had admitted that Rita had two sons, Prasenjit and Benu. They also stayed in his house for two years. The appellant used to work as the laborer. He has also informed that though he knew about the assault on his sister he did not lodge any complaint to anyone. Even he did not state to the police officer that Rita called him around 9 p.m. on 01.11.2009. Even after his knowledge that Rita consumed poison he did not inform the police but when he learnt from Benu, PW-8 that the appellant poured the poison into the mouth of Rita then he filed the written ejahar. Even he did not state to the police officer that Rita called him around 9 p.m. on 01.11.2009. Even after his knowledge that Rita consumed poison he did not inform the police but when he learnt from Benu, PW-8 that the appellant poured the poison into the mouth of Rita then he filed the written ejahar. PW-8 Benu Majumder is the son of the victim, Rita Majumder. He has categorically stated against the appellant in the trial as under: "I used to see my father assaulting my mother and also abusing her. He used to do this returning home consuming alcohol. At time he used to turn her outside the house. On the night of incident i.e. 1.11.09, as usual, my father returned home consuming alcohol & started abusing my mother. At that time, she was sleeping. My father asked her to give him rice. As my mother did not respond, my father poured poison in her mouth. Seeing this, I informed the matter to Bhabatosh uncle & he arrived, but my father did not allow him to enter the house saying that he cut him with dao. After sometime, Bhabatosh uncle called a vehicle . My mother vomited with blood. Thereafter, I along with my father took my mother to Belonia Hospital in the vehicle. Same night, my mother died in the hospital. I am now reading in Class-IX at the STB School XII school. I have been staying in school boarding for last about 4 months. After the incident I was produced before the Magistrate at Belonia Court & my statement was recorded & thereafter. I put my signature in both the pages of the recorded statement. This is the statement marked Exbt.4 & these are my signatures thereon Exbt.4/1 series." 7. He was also examined by the I.O. after two and three days. He has admitted that before moving to the hostel he was staying with his maternal uncle. In the cross-examination he has further stated that as his mother did not give rice to his father, he himself took the same. He has also admitted that while giving the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. he did not state to the Magistrate that his uncle Nirmal Majumder instructed him not to disclose that his father assaulted his mother and poured poison into her mouth. He has also admitted that while giving the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. he did not state to the Magistrate that his uncle Nirmal Majumder instructed him not to disclose that his father assaulted his mother and poured poison into her mouth. PW-8 has admitted that at that time of recording his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. he was staying in his maternal uncle's house. PW-9 Smti Bakul Rani Das is another witness from the neighborhood. She has categorically stated that the appellant used to abuse and assault his wife regularly. On that night also around 8.30 p.m. the appellant abused his wife and around 12 at night his son Benu Majumder came to their house and informed that his mother was lying and requested us to go there. Accordingly, her son Bhabatosh went to their house, and she followed him but the appellant did not allow them to enter the house. He was abusing them as they tried to go there. In the cross-examination when she was confronted whether she had stated that to the investigating officer she could not find such statement in her previous statement as recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She denied other suggestions. PW-7's wife, Smt. Laksmi Rani Das has stated that on the fateful night around at about 11 p.m, Rita talked her over the mobile phone and informed that that her husband was abusing her. Then she called Bhabatosh and he informed that Rita had expired. When she was asked whether she had stated to the investigating Officer that she informed her husband who was at that night at Sabroom about the occurrence, she denied but when the statement was shown she denied to have made such statement to the Investigating Officer. 8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel after making generous reference to this statement has submitted that there is no corroboration and the testimonies are visited by improvements and moreover the statements of all these witnesses are recorded after much delay and as such, based on such incongruous statements, finding of conviction cannot be returned. That apart, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence of instigation. If someone uttered some words in a fit of anger or emotions without any intention that cannot constitute instigation. That apart, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence of instigation. If someone uttered some words in a fit of anger or emotions without any intention that cannot constitute instigation. In this regard, he has relied on Sonti Rama Krishna v Sonti Shanti Sree & Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 923 where the apex court has held that: "It is fairly well settled that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be treated as instigation." 9. Unless there is instigation there cannot be abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. Abetment, a thing that has been taken care of in Section 107 of the IPC. Unless the similar acts, deeds or omissions made willfully by misrepresentation or by willful concealment of fact someone is made or insisted to an act, deed or omission that would generally constitute abetment. Reliance in this regard has also been placed on a decision of this court in Kajal Datta @ Ujjal versus State of Tripura reported in (2013) 2 TLR 199 where it has been held that unless no element of instigation to constitute abetment to suicide found in the evidence, there cannot be any conviction under Section 306 of the IPC. 10. Reliance has been placed on Sohan Raj Sharma versus State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 2108 where it has been held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. Moreover, active role which can be ascribed as instigating or aiding doing of a thing is essentially thus required before a person can be said to have abetted suicide. 11. In Shaik Hussain versus State of A.P. reported in 2007 CRI. L. J. 3999 Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in absence of any instigation to constitute abetment, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has referred a decision in Vishal Agarwal versus State of Assam and Another reported in (2012) 5 GLR 819 where the Gauhati High Court has held that instigation from the end of the accused who commits suicide has to be established by demonstrating that action of the accused has been intentional. The person who assaults must intend that the person so assaulted commits suicide. The person who assaults must intend that the person so assaulted commits suicide. Mere assault does not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, even if the person assaulted committed suicide. The person who is mentally and physically harassed and tortured, the person who perpetrates harassment cannot be held tribal under Section 306 of the IPC unless there is some materials indicating that the intention behind the harassment and torture was to see that the person harassed and tortured commits suicide. For purpose of reference, Para 30 from Vishal Agarwal versus State of Assam and Another reported in (2012) 5 GLR 819 is reproduced hereunder: "30. Abatement of suicide requires, as discussed above, instigation from the end of the accused to the person, who commits suicide. The action of the accused has to be, therefore, intentional in the sense that the person, who assaults, must intend that the person assaulted commits suicide. If one person assaults another person with no intention to make the later commit suicide, the mere assault would not amount to an offence under section 306, IPC if the person assaulted commits suicide. Even if a person is mentally and physically harassed and tortured, the person, who perpetrates harassment and torture, cannot be held liable under section 306, IPC unless there is some material indicating that the intention, behind the harassment and torture, was to see that the person, harassed and tortured, commits suicide." 12. Thereafter Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence to show that the nature and gravity of the assault was such that the same was un-bearable for which the victim had no other alternative but to commit suicide. Moreover, no injury was found on the person of the deceased. Mr. Dutta, therefore has stated that even the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC. To support his plea Mr. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on Rajiv Neog vs State of Assam reported in (2010) 6 GLR 331. 13. From the other side Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that it has been adequately proved by the prosecution that the victim was subjected to perennial assault, torment and torture of various forms. 13. From the other side Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that it has been adequately proved by the prosecution that the victim was subjected to perennial assault, torment and torture of various forms. Even the witnesses from the neighborhood has categorically stated that it was a regular feature that appellant would return home having been intoxicated and assault the victim. Even the appellant's grown up son has stated and supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the appellant did not explain anything during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. how that death had occurred in his own room where he was present. 14. On the face of the rival submissions, let this court may venture a short survey of the evidence placed by the prosecution. As the defence has not adduced any evidence for rebutting what the prosecution has placed being incriminating in nature. 15. Before appreciating the oral testimonies, it is seen from the record that from the place of occurrence in presence of the witnesses including PW-8 a tin bottle of Endosulfan was seized and from the Forensic Science Laboratory report on examination of the said liquid inside the tin-bottle it transpired that the said bottle contained Endosulfan and Endosulfan was detected in stomach and liver of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be any amount of doubt that death occurred for intake of Endosulfan . Even the post-mortem report has confirmed that death is due to suspected Organophosphorus poisoning as the stomach contained whitish fluid of strong odour of Kerosene and there was evidence of distress and trauma on organs to account for the cause of death. However the final report was kept pending for the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). 16. PW-8 is the only eye witness who was present at the time of occurrence. His statement under Section 164 was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia on 23.12.2009 whereas the incident occurred on 01.11.2009 at night. There is a gap of almost two months. 16. PW-8 is the only eye witness who was present at the time of occurrence. His statement under Section 164 was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia on 23.12.2009 whereas the incident occurred on 01.11.2009 at night. There is a gap of almost two months. He has stated that one day his father forcibly tried to make his mother consume poison as she refused to do that, the poison was poured on, from the bottle, over her head and on the fateful day when his father asked his mother to give rice, having been abused when she denied, out of annoyance his father brought a bottle of poison and asked his mother to consume it. His father forcibly poured the poison into his mother's mouth. He thereafter rushed for help of the neighbors like Bhabatosh Das and also informed the other relatives. 17. The said statement however has been maintained by PW-8 in the trial. The other witnesses who were not referred by Mr. Dutta learned counsel were not present inside the house. Neither have they divulged any material of importance. PW-6, Suman Kr. Chakraborty is the Senior Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala and the expert Chemical Examiner has admitted the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala (Exhibit-3) and has opined that consumption of Endosulfan may cause death of a person. 18. PW-3, Sri Amar Mitra has simply stated that by his vehicle the victim was taken to the hospital. PW-4 Sri Sadhan Ch. Bhowmik had written the ejahar. 19. PW-5, Dr. Binita Chakma has stated categorically that she did not find any ante mortem injury over the body of the victim. But she found 100/150 ml of whitish fluid mixed with gastric juices with kerosene like odour. She has categorically opined that organ of Organophosphorus poisoning was the cause of death. PW-11, Sri Haradhan Bose registered a UD case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. He had also prepared the inquest report as the death occurred under abnormal circumstances. In the cross-examination, he has also stated that there was no injury mark in the body of the deceased. He has also admitted that there was no attempt to send the wearing appeals of the deceased for chemical examination. In the cross-examination, he has also stated that there was no injury mark in the body of the deceased. He has also admitted that there was no attempt to send the wearing appeals of the deceased for chemical examination. PW-12, the Investigating Officer has simply stated how he conducted the investigation, collected the various report and submitted the charge sheet following the procedure under Section 498A/302 of the IPC. 20. That PWs 1,2,7,8,9 and 10 have become instrumental to prove a substantial part of the transaction leading to the death of the victim. They have stated that when PW-8 informed them or they exchanged the information between themselves and appeared in the house of the appellant, the appellant did not allow them to enter into that house that demonstrates his deliberate act. The appellant was drunk and PW-8 has stated as her mother, the victim, did not serve rice to the appellant he forced the victim to consume the poison. The trial court while dealing with that part did not believe PW-8 and applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur to presume that there was instigation by the appellant by his behavior and that prompted the victim to commit suicide. But there is no analysis beyond that. Inference has been drawn abruptly. PW-1 has categorically stated that the appellant told him that the victim consumed poison. The victim was, according to PW-1 was being regularly abused by the appellant. Even she used to be subjected to assault. PW-2 is little bit more definite. He has stated that when he appeared in the house of the appellant he did not allow him to enter and he also stated that he used to hear the appellant abused his wife consuming alcohol. Even PW- 9 has corroborated that part of this evidence. The statements made by PW-10 that on that night also the victim was assaulted just before the occurrence. But she has stated the same for the first time in the trial. During the post-mortem examination there was no ante mortem injuries. But there is no direct evidence except the evidence of PW-8 who has categorically stated that on that night also the appellant abused his mother. He has also corroborated that the appellant did not allow PW-2 to enter their house. During the post-mortem examination there was no ante mortem injuries. But there is no direct evidence except the evidence of PW-8 who has categorically stated that on that night also the appellant abused his mother. He has also corroborated that the appellant did not allow PW-2 to enter their house. The defence has indicated that there was possibility of tutoring of PW-8 as he was in the custody of PW-7 when the statements were recorded. The part which might have been tutored is the incident of pouring poison into the mouth of the victim, as PW-8 did not state this episode either to PW-2, PW-9 or anyone else on that night. But PW-8 has stated that his mother had called PW-2. If this evidence is placed in the sequence it would speak more eloquently that the victim was seriously harassed and for being rescued from the conduct of the appellant, she wanted to take the help of the neighbor and for that purpose, she sent her son to PW-2, but when PW-2 entered, she was found vomiting blood. 21 It is the abuse of such extreme nature that even if the appellant had not poured the poison into the mouth of the victim, the victim had taken the poison being instigated by the conduct of the appellant on that fateful night, which was the culminating point of perennial abuses and torture on her. As such, the conduct of the appellant by itself was an instigation constituting abetment in terms of Section 107 of the IPC. In this case, the circumstances are eloquent. Even though the direct evidence may not be available, what is required to gather the truth from the circumstances? The circumstances and each of them shall be well established to exclude the hypothesis of innocence. The prosecution has established that the conduct of the appellant was of such nature, that it self formed instigation. Moreover, on the face of PW-7's statement that his sister made a call in his mobile and informed that her husband was abusing her and she sought intervention. The appellant did not explain anything. The prosecution has established that the conduct of the appellant was of such nature, that it self formed instigation. Moreover, on the face of PW-7's statement that his sister made a call in his mobile and informed that her husband was abusing her and she sought intervention. The appellant did not explain anything. Thus, when the prosecution has laid the evidence in such manner which excluded the hypothesis of innocence of the appellant and when the appellant did not extend any explanation under Section 106 or during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., his silence or absence of explanation can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Thus, the circumstances have proved the guilt of abetment to suicide beyond any reasonable doubt. This inference has been drawn excluding those parts which appeared before this court to have improved. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the conviction as returned by the trial court. 22 In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.