JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (hereinafter will be referred as ‘the accused’) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2001 on 25-11-2003, whereby the learned trial Judge had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The learned trial Judge further convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 3. I have heard Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shamsi Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. With their assistance, I have carefully gone through the record of the prosecution case. 4. The facts in brief are as under: Komalwati (deceased) married to the accused on 30-04-1998 at Bordi, District Balaghat (MP). After marriage, Komalwati started residing with the joint family of accused at Latori, Tahsil Salekasa, District Gondiya. It is the case of the prosecution that, at the time of marriage, the father of deceased Komalwati presented her necessary household articles and performed the marriage as per his financial status. For about one year, there were no complaints from Komalwati. However, after about one year of marriage, the accused started demanding Sofa and Bed. Accordingly, PW2 presented those articles to him. The accused then demanded motorcycle, however, the father of Komalwati could not fulfill his demand. On 03-11-2000, Komalwati delivered first female baby by name Jidyasa. It is alleged that, the accused was insisting Komalwati to bring motorcycle, furniture, ornaments and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and for that demand the accused used to harass her. During Raksha Bandhan festival of 2001, Komalwati visited her parental house at Bordi and disclosed the ill-treatment meted out by the accused. At that time, she was carrying second pregnancy. Komalwati resided with her parents till Ganesh festival. Komalwati was not ready to return her matrimonial house. However, her father reached her to Latori and paid the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused. On 07-10-2001, Komalwati delivered a second female child at Latori. At that time, she was carrying second pregnancy. Komalwati resided with her parents till Ganesh festival. Komalwati was not ready to return her matrimonial house. However, her father reached her to Latori and paid the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused. On 07-10-2001, Komalwati delivered a second female child at Latori. It caused much displeasure in the family of the accused and they were disappointed due to the birth of second female child and so also their demands were not fulfilled. It is alleged that the accused started harassing Komalwati. Komalwati could not tolerate the said harassment and on 30-10-2001 at about 5.30 to 6 o'clock in the early morning, she killed her both the daughters by administrating Endosulfan insecticide and committed suicide by consuming the said poison. 5. PW1-Gendlal, the Police Patil, immediately informed about the said incident to Police Station Salekasa and lodged the report (Exhibit-55). The Police rushed to the place of incident and conducted the spot panchanama (Exhibit-69). The traces of vomitus were collected from the spot (Exhibit-70). During the course of investigation it was observed that, Komalwati had confined herself in a room and in order to prevent the entry of others, she had placed obstacle of heavy weight besides the door of the room. When the villagers entered inside the room, both the daughters and Komalwati were found struggling for life. Prior to shifting them to hospital, Komalwati died on the spot, whereas her both the daughters died in Primary Health Centre, Salekasa. 6. The Police conducted the inquest panchanama (Exhibit-67). The dead bodies of Komalwati and her two daughters were sent for post mortem (Exhibit-74). The PM report reveals the cause of death as cardio respiratory arrest due to Organ Phosphorus poison. 7. On 01-11-2001, the father of deceased (PW2) lodged the complaint (Exhibit-57) against the present accused and his relatives. On the basis of the said complaint, the offence was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Amgaon. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the charge and after adducing the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge acquitted the other accused i.e grand-mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the present accused. However, the appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the charge and after adducing the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge acquitted the other accused i.e grand-mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the present accused. However, the appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shamsi Haider, the learned APP for the State. I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 9. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not considered the testimony of the witnesses in right perspective and has convicted the accused erroneously. 10. Mrs. Shamsi Haider, the learned APP contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused after considering the entire evidence on record. 11. In order to verify the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be advantageous to go through the evidence led by the prosecution. On considering the prosecution case, it is noticed that the defence has not seriously disputed that Komalwati died a suicidal death. It is also not disputed that as Komalwati administered her two daughter’s insecticide, they died. It is already discussed above, the post mortem report reveals the cause of death as cardio respiratory arrest due to Organo Phosphorus poison. The CA report reveals the detection of Organochloro insecticide Endosulfan (Thiodan) and Petroleum hydrocarbons in the viscera. Thus, there is no doubt that, Komalwati died due to consuming poison and her death was suicidal one. 12. In order to prove the fact that the accused was responsible for the said suicidal death, the prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of PW2Krishnadas, PW3Rewatibai and PW5Thakurdas. According to PW2-Krishnadas, who is the father of deceased, stated that deceased Komalwati was his daughter. Her marriage was performed with accused on 30-04-1998. According to PW2, for about one year after the marriage, there was no demand from the accused. However, thereafter, the accused demanded Sofa and Bed. Accordingly, he presented those articles. The accused then demanded motorcycle, but he could not fulfill the said demand. PW2 stated that, in the year 2000, Komalwati delivered a female child. PW2 specifically stated that, after first delivery, Komalwati used to visit his house. She used to complain that, the accused insisted her to bring motorcycle and Rs. Accordingly, he presented those articles. The accused then demanded motorcycle, but he could not fulfill the said demand. PW2 stated that, in the year 2000, Komalwati delivered a female child. PW2 specifically stated that, after first delivery, Komalwati used to visit his house. She used to complain that, the accused insisted her to bring motorcycle and Rs. 10,000/-. Komalwati visited her parental house during festival of Raksha Bandhan of 2000. At that time, she was reluctant to go to her matrimonial house. She was disturbed, as the accused was harassing her for dowry. During Ganesh festival, he reached Komalwati to her matrimonial home. According to PW2, Komalwati delivered a second female child in October, 2001. The second child was delivered within a year from the first delivery. Therefore, the accused started blaming her that how many daughters Komalwati going to deliver like this. 13. PW2-Krishnadas stated that, on 30-10-2001, he came to know from two persons of the village of accused that his daughter Komalwati was unconscious. PW2 immediately rushed to Latori with them. PW2 further stated that, Komalwati was already dead by that time. His grand daughters were already shifted to the hospital before his arrival and both died in the hospital. PW2 then lodged complaint against the accused (Exhibit-57). During the cross examination, few improvements were pointed out regarding the fact that, Komalwati had been to his house during Raksha Bandhan and she was not ready to go to her matrimonial home and that the accused was blaming his daughter that how many daughters she was going to deliver. PW2 confirmed that the accused was desirous of a male baby. The testimony of PW2 is not shattered in the cross examination, so far as the demands of sofa, bed and motorcycle are concerned. It is also not shattered in the cross examination that, Komalwati was disturbed, as the accused was harassing her for dowry. 14. The testimony of PW2-Krishnadas is corroborated with the testimony of PW3-Rewatibai, who is the mother of deceased Komalwati. According to her, one year after the marriage, the accused started harassing Komalwati and he was insisting her to bring ornaments, Watch, Cycle, T.V., Fan, Cash, Almirah, Bed etc. The accused was also insisting for motorcycle and was harassing her for the said purpose. PW3 stated that Komalwati had been to her house during Raksha Bandhan and stayed with her till Ganesh festival. The accused was also insisting for motorcycle and was harassing her for the said purpose. PW3 stated that Komalwati had been to her house during Raksha Bandhan and stayed with her till Ganesh festival. During her stay, she narrated about the harassment at the hands of the accused. Komalwati used to say how she will go, as demands were not fulfilled. The father of Komalwati handed over the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to her and reached her to her matrimonial home. PW3-Rewatibai stated that, at the time of second delivery of her daughter, she had been to her house at Latori. She stayed there for 2/3 days. She stated that as Komalwati delivered a female baby, the entire family was not happy. The accused used to say that meal should not be provided to Komalwati and there was no need to look after her health. Komalwati narrated the harassment to her. PW3 stated that accused was blaming her daughter that, she had delivered two female babies within a year and she was not provided sufficient food. 15. PW3-Rewatibai stated that before Diwali, they received information that Komalwati was serious and later on she came to know that her daughter died. Few improvements were pointed out in the evidence of PW3, about the accused insisting Komalwati to bring Fan, Watch, ornaments and Almirah and harassing for that purpose. Further an improvement was pointed out that the accused was not providing sufficient food to Komalwati. The testimony of PW3-Rewatibai is not shaken during her exhaustive cross examination and her testimony remains unshattered with regard to her version that Komalawti harassed, as she had delivered two female babies. The testimony of PW3 also makes clear that accused used to harass Komalwati for fulfilling his demand of motorcycle. 16. As per the testimony of PW5-Thakurdas, who is the uncle of deceased Komalwati, whenever Komalwati visited her parental house at Bordi, she used to visit his house at Lanji. He stated that initially the relations between accused and Komalwati were cordial for a year, thereafter, the accused used to demand ornaments, Sofa, Bed, Motorcycle etc. and on that issue, he used to taunt her and harass her. Komalwati delivered a female child one year after her marriage. Even after her delivery Komalwati used to make similar complaints against the accused. PW5 stated that during Ganesh festival of 2001, Komalwati had been to Bordi. and on that issue, he used to taunt her and harass her. Komalwati delivered a female child one year after her marriage. Even after her delivery Komalwati used to make similar complaints against the accused. PW5 stated that during Ganesh festival of 2001, Komalwati had been to Bordi. They all persuaded her and she was reached to the house of the accused by her father. At that time she was carrying. She delivered second female baby at Latori. During the cross examination, it is noticed that there is an improvement in the version of PW5 with regard to the fact that the accused used to pass taunts. The testimony of PW5 is not shaken in the cross examination. PW5 is found to be a reliable witness. 17. The testimony of PW2Krishnadas and PW3Rewatibai corroborates with the testimony of PW1-Gendlal. The testimony of PW1 is in consonance with his complaint (Exhibit-55). The testimony of all these three witnesses shows that the deceased Komalwati was being harassed for the demand of dowry i.e. Sofa, Bed and Motorcycle and she was also harassed as she had delivered female babies particularly she delivered second female baby when the accused was desirous to have a male child. Due to the said harassment at the hands of accused, Komalwati had no option but to commit suicide. The cruelty was to such an extent that Komalwati under depression caused death of her two innocent daughters. 18. In (2017) 1 SCC 433 in case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble apex Court has observed in para 21 as under: “21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualise the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” 19. Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by the husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected her to cruelty. Section 113A of the Evidence Act reads as under: “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” In this regard, Section 498A of IPC reads as under: “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 purposes of this section. 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 purposes 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.” Thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 20. From the above said discussion, it is noticed that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused. There is no illegality or perversity noticed in the judgment of the trial Court. In view thereof, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed: Order (a) Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2003 is dismissed. (b) The judgment and order passed by the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2001 on 25112003 stands confirmed. (c) The sentence of appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC is maintained. (d) The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya to undergo the remaining period of sentence. If he does not surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the learned trial Court is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law. (e) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by trial Court after the appeal period is over.