JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Muthalraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. J. Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I) Thoothukudi in S.C. No. 221 of 2007 dated 23.11.2007. 3. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo further two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and the trial Court ordered the sentence to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.1995, the deceased married the accused and they had two male children and one female child. The accused used to harass his wife demanding more dowry. On 22.11.2003, the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused before the All Women Police Station, Pudukottai. Even after being compromised, the accused assaulted and harassed the deceased. On 27.07.2005, the accused assaulted his wife and scolded his father-in-law and deceased and thereby, inducing her to commit suicide. 5. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 turned hostile and except P.Ws.1,2 and 5 other occurrence witnesses are hostile and rest of the witnesses are official witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses. The eye witness P.W.6 is the minor boy of the deceased who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. 6. It is further argued that the marriage took place 10 year prior to the date of the occurrence. There cannot be presumption as the date is not within 7 years from the date of marriage. 7. The eye witness P.W.6 is the minor boy of the deceased who turned hostile. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. 6. It is further argued that the marriage took place 10 year prior to the date of the occurrence. There cannot be presumption as the date is not within 7 years from the date of marriage. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court convicted the accused merely on the basis of the suicide note and on the basis of the earlier complaint lodged by the deceased before the All Women Police Station. 8. P.W.5 has deposed that the accused was found with the body of the deceased at the time of occurrence. If the accused induced the deceased to commit suicide, there was no possibility for the accused to be near the body of the deceased. The Police arrested the accused only on the next day. P.W.6 has also deposed that the accused was with the deceased at the time of occurrence and he tried to save the deceased and the accused also had injuries on his right hand in the attempt to save the deceased. 9. P.W.2 in his evidence, has stated that when the accused was arrested, he got burn injuries and he was taken to the hospital before he was sent to judicial custody. The accused undertook treatment for 2 days for the burn injuries caused to him. AIR relating to the accused is not marked by the prosecution. It is further stated that there is no mens rea for the accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide. All the neighbours and P.Ws.3, 11 and 13 turned hostile and that only on the basis of hostile witnesses, on the basis of the complaint before the All Women Police Station and on the basis of Ex.P7 suicide note, the trial Court has convicted the appellant. 10. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.W.8 has deposed that suicide note was given to him. P.W.10 Village Administrative Officer deposed that the Investigating Officer seized the suicide note. The suicide note, Ex.P7 is not reliable. P.W.20, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the suicide note was addressed to the Police and not to P.W.1. The deceased has completed 10th standard. P.W.10 Village Administrative Officer deposed that the Investigating Officer seized the suicide note. The suicide note, Ex.P7 is not reliable. P.W.20, the Investigating Officer has deposed that the suicide note was addressed to the Police and not to P.W.1. The deceased has completed 10th standard. There is difference in the signature in the complaint, Ex.P16 and the signature in the suicide note and that there are so many contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.7,1 and 20. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.W.1 did not depose where and when the letter said to have been written by the deceased was given to him. The letter cannot be named as a suicide note as the letter was not written immediately before the occurrence. 11. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that P.W.1, the father of the deceased deposed that the accused used to harass the deceased in a drunkard mood. The complaint before the All Women Police Station was lodged by the deceased. Though it was compromised, it seems again the same problem continues. The suicide notes of the deceased reveals that the accused abetted the suicide. The evidence of P.W.2 and 5 reveals that there is harassment by the accused. The evidence of P.W.6 is unreliable as he is now residing with his father who is tutored by his father. 12. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that in Ex.P7 narration of harassment is available wherein, it is stated that “XXXXXXX” which proves the mens rea of the accused. 13. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that evidence of P.W.15 proves that the hand writing in the suicide note is the hand writing of the deceased. In Ex.P16, the accused has admitted that he would not harass the wife. It is further stated that Section 498(A) of IPC has a wide meaning and cruelty of the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide. 14. In Ex.P16, the accused has admitted that he would not harass the wife. It is further stated that Section 498(A) of IPC has a wide meaning and cruelty of the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Thanga Durai v. State and another reported in 2007 2 LW(Cri) 1234, which reads as follows: “Provisions of Section 107 make it clear that there should be instigation when the case has to come under the first category and there should be intentional aid or illegal omission when the case comes under the third category “second category need not be discussed” in view of the first and the third category under Section 107 IPC, the accused should have instigated the deceased or he might have been in a specific surface of omission to prevent the commission of offence, but with intentional or to aid the deceased to commit suicide.” 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the Judgment passsed by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Sunilkumar Kanaiyalaal Jani reported in 1997 Cr.L.J. 2014, which reads as follows: “Mere quarrelling with wife will not amount to abetment - Acquittal of husband proper” 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the Judgment passsed by this Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2002 SCC(Cri) 1141, which reads as follows:- “Instigating a person to do a thing - Held, “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisabel action or to stimulate or incite - Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation - Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as “to go and die”, cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.” 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the Judgment passsed by this Court in the case of Ananda Sekaran v. State by Inspector of Police reported in 2007 1 LW(Cri.) 163, which reads as follows: “If the accused had the motive or intention that his wife should die committing suicide on her own, then there must be some instance bringing to surface the mens rea, which is essential as held by the Apex Court - No instance is brought to the notice of the Court how the accused entertained mens rea or how and why he should think that his wife should commit suicide for which he should have abetted - conviction set aside.” 18. A perusal of the records reveals that the deceased has already lodged a complaint against the appellant and the same was marked as Ex.P16. In that case, the appellant herein was enquired by the Police, he has given a statement undertaking not to harass the defacto complainant. Ex.P16 reveals that the petitioner used to harass the defacto complainant and he used to assault her and he refused to maintain the family. 19. Another document is Ex.P7. Though the petitioner is questioning the validity of this document. This document is examined by the expert and it was found that the document was written only by the deceased. Ex.P15 is the report of the expert. Ex.P7 is not written immediately before the occurrence but the wordings in Ex.P7 clearly denotes that the appellant was under the habit of harassing his wife in a drunkard mood. It is clearly stated that due to his assault, the defacto complainant and their son got injuries. The handwriting in Ex.P7 co-relates the handwriting in Ex.P2 and the same was confirmed by the expert report P.W.15. 20. There is no possibility for a happy person to commit suicide. Under this circumstances, the offences under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC are proved against the appellant. Hence, this Court deems it fit to confirm the conviction the appellant for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. Taking into account that P.W.6 is in the custody of the petitioner, the sentence is modified. Under this circumstances, the offences under Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC are proved against the appellant. Hence, this Court deems it fit to confirm the conviction the appellant for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. Taking into account that P.W.6 is in the custody of the petitioner, the sentence is modified. This Court sentenced him to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 21. With the above observation, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. If the appellant is not in duress, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The excess fine amount if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded forthwith. The Registry is directed to send this order copy to the lower Court immediately.