JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the accused – appellant questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.80/2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the said case for the purpose of this appeal are as under: 3. According to the complainant on 22.09.2006, the complainant and his family members were sleeping in their house after taking their dinner. In the midnight at about 1.30 a.m., he heard the screaming voice of his brother’s wife Nagavva near the door of their house. At that time himself, his mother came out of the house and found that this accused person had caught hold of the said Nagavva. Before the complainant and his mother could question, the accused left the lady and ran away. On hearing the voice, other witnesses who are neighbors of the complainant i.e., Mallanagouda, Rudragouda Karigoudara, Shankaragouda Channabasagouda Halemani, Kallanagouda Andanagouda Bharamagoudra and others came their and chased the said accused person. However, in the darkness as it was Amavasya the accused is said to have escaped. Therefore, the deceased lady felt humiliated and insulted by the act of the accused. She was very much depressed. She attempted to commit suicide on 24.09.2006 at about 11.00 to 11.30 p.m. 4. She was ill feeling on account of act of this accused i.e., catching of her hand. She felt that her prestige has gone and therefore she was feeling like why she should live. 5. On 27.09.2006, the complainant and other family members have gone out for their work. The mother and wife of the complainant had gone in the backyard to wash clothes. At that time the deceased Nagavva was all alone in the house. At about 11.00 a.m., they saw thick smoke and kerosene smell coming out of the house. Immediately himself and neighbors went inside the house cum shop room from where the said fire and smoke was coming. The complainant and the people who had gathered tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water. At about 11.00 a.m., they saw thick smoke and kerosene smell coming out of the house. Immediately himself and neighbors went inside the house cum shop room from where the said fire and smoke was coming. The complainant and the people who had gathered tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water. They found that the deceased Nagavva had sustained burn injury all over her body and she was dead. Therefore, on account of the act of the accused, the modesty of the deceased having been outraged, she committed suicide. 6. Accordingly complaint at Ex.P.1 was filed. After registration of the crime, the investigating Officer took up investigation. The Investigation Officer found evidence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the sessions Court for trial. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after framing the charges and held trial of the case. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Consequently, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. However, the Trial Judge has not passed any separate sentence on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 8. The learned Sessions Jude also ordered compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased Nagavva. The said judgment has been assailed before this Court by the accused on the following grounds: (a) The learned sessions Judge failed to appreciate inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and so also the omissions and contradictions appearing in the evidence. (b) There is a delay nearly four days in filing the complaint, which goes to show that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. Even if, the entire prosecution case is accepted, there is no specific say as to what made deceased to commit suicide. Appreciation of the evidence of PW.1 and PWs.5 to 7 by the learned trial judge is erroneous in law and facts on record. All the witnesses were only interested witnesses. (c) The Trial Court wrongly interpreted section 306 and 354 of IPC. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable in law. Appreciation of the evidence of PW.1 and PWs.5 to 7 by the learned trial judge is erroneous in law and facts on record. All the witnesses were only interested witnesses. (c) The Trial Court wrongly interpreted section 306 and 354 of IPC. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable in law. Hence prayed to allow the appeal. 9. The appellant’s counsel submitted that there is nexus between the cause shown and the suicide committed by the deceased. The outraging the modesty of the woman alleged to have happened at early morning on 23.09.2006. The commission of the suicide was on 27.09.2006. No complaint was filed when the deceased had attempted to commit suicide on 24.09.2006. The prosecution has not proved ingredients of section 107 of IPC. The husband of the complainant has not been examined. All the alleged eyewitnesses PW.4 to 6 are said to have come to the place of incident after the accused ran away from the scene of offence, therefore they are not eyewitnesses. The intentional instigation which would amount to abetment to the deceased to commit suicide has not at all been proved by the evidence of prosecution. The deceased was a married lady. Her earlier attempt to commit suicide was failed by the complainant. Therefore there is no evidence to show that the accused in any way caused an abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. She was suffering from depression. Her husband was not residing with her. Not a single incident other than one stated in the complaint is there, to show that the accused has committed any intentional act which caused abetment to the deceased to take extreme step. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no intention on the part of the accused that the deceased should commit suicide. Hence he prayed to acquit the accused. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, it is because of outraging the modesty of the deceased by the accused has led her to commission of suicide. She felt so humiliated on account of outraging of her modesty and there was no other causes for her to commit suicide. Therefore he submitted that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. She felt so humiliated on account of outraging of her modesty and there was no other causes for her to commit suicide. Therefore he submitted that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. He further submits that, the delay in filing the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The husband of the deceased was not in station. Having regard to the nature of the incident, the deceased took extreme step. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. On basis of the arguments of both the parties, the following points that would arise for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether the prosecution had proved before the trial court beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC as alleged? (2) Whether the prosecution had proved before the trial court beyond any reasonable doubt that on account of abetment caused by the accused the deceased committed suicide and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC? (3) What order? 12. Finding of this Court on the aforesaid points are as follows; Point No.1 : In the affirmative. Point No.2 : In the negative. 13. Even if the whole case of the prosecution is admitted and accepted as it is, then also the ingredients of sections 107 and 306 of IPC would not established. The incident occurred in a pitched dark night that too in the early hours at about 1.30 a.m. The reason for the deceased to go out of the house was for answering first nature call. At that time the accused is said to have caught hold of her. It is only after the extreme step was taken by the deceased, the complaint came to be filed. 14. Admittedly it was a case of family prestige, the deceased was sister in law of the complainant. Her husband was not in station. The villagers had come to know about the incident. Therefore, in order to avoid humiliation there might be some delay in filing complaint at Ex.P.1. That is properly explained and appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, the delay in filing the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Immediately after the incident other witnesses rushed to the spot. Therefore, in order to avoid humiliation there might be some delay in filing complaint at Ex.P.1. That is properly explained and appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, the delay in filing the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Immediately after the incident other witnesses rushed to the spot. Even if the accused had ran away from the spot, but, he was not an unknown person. He is of the same village. It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the ladies normally go to the backyard to answer their first nature call. Witness answered, during daytime they go towards backyard but during night time they come out of the house. Moreover they were sleeping in the veranda or chavani. Therefore, the deceased come out of the house at about 1.30 a.m. in the night cannot be termed as an unusual, having regard to the fact that there are no closed toilets in the village. Some ill-will is suggested in the cross-examination but that does not alone would be sufficient to discard evidence of PW.1. 15. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 with regard to outraging the modesty of deceased woman which could have been seeing in the street light there, cannot be disbelieved. The spot panchanama was proved by evidence of PW.2 and 3. PW.4 also went to the house after hearing hue and cry and tried to catch hold of the accused. Just to implicate the accused falsely, the complaint would not have waited till the death of the deceased. Evidence of PW.5 also corroborates the facts who had rushed to the house of PW.1 on hearing the voice. The house of the accused is also said to be situated in the same lane. 16. PW.6 is also corroborates facts with regard to first incident in question. It is elicited that the husband of the deceased had married one Saroja prior to marrying of the deceased. It is tried to be elicited that he married second wife, as his first wife did not bring adequate dowry etc. PW.7 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Her evidence corroborates the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the first incident is concerned. To show that there was street light and electricity power supply was there on the date of incident the evidence PW.9-KEB official is available on record. PW.15 is the investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation. PW.7 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Her evidence corroborates the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the first incident is concerned. To show that there was street light and electricity power supply was there on the date of incident the evidence PW.9-KEB official is available on record. PW.15 is the investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation. He has not been much questioned with regard to the investigation pertaining to office under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this court find that, the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable doubt, accused had committed for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The act committed by the accused catching hold of married lady who came out for answering first nature call in the odd hours would definitely prove that the accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of the woman had committed this Act. 18. Now coming to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the evidence on record only proves that the deceased committed suicide. Evidence of PW.1 clearly proves the said fact. The cause of death i.e., commission of suicide is also not disputed by defence. The postmortem report, inquest panchanama would all go to show that the deceased died on account of self inflicted sever burn injuries. The question would be whether the act committed by the accused i.e., outraging the modesty of the deceased amounts to an abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. 19. Admittedly, the deceased though alive for nearly four days, has not been examined nor she filed any complaint. It is only on her death, PW.1 files a complaint. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased once tried to commit suicide by hanging and they saved her. Therefore that was best opportunity for them to take suitable steps like filing complaint or guarding the deceased. To attract an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, the ingredients that are required to be proved can be summarized. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the latest ruling of the Apex Court in 2019 SCC Online SC 44, Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana. To attract an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, the ingredients that are required to be proved can be summarized. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the latest ruling of the Apex Court in 2019 SCC Online SC 44, Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana. In the said case, the deceased was consistently threatened by his father-in-law, to his sister-in-law and the appellant for harassment and threats that he would be implicated in a false case of demand of dowry. Explaining ingredients Apex Court held that the conviction under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable on the allegations of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compel to person to commit suicide. The person who is alleged to have committed abatement of suicide must have played an active role by act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. 21. In this case, though the incident happened about 3-4 days prior to commission of suicide by the deceased. Neither she herself nor complainant filed any complaint. By that time, they had also come to know that the deceased once attempted to commit suicide. Therefore, having regard to these facts and the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court, I find that the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not established by the evidence of prosecution. 22. In another decision the Apex Court reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2808, M. Arjun Vs. State, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out any a case where the deceased was harassed or tortured for recovery of the loan amount to given him. 23. Uttering abusive words itself would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. (2002) 5 SCC 371 , Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. The Hon’ble Apex Court even in case of a suicide note also, held that the indulgence in drinking and not doing any work could not have caused abetment of suicide. 24. (2002) 5 SCC 371 , Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. The Hon’ble Apex Court even in case of a suicide note also, held that the indulgence in drinking and not doing any work could not have caused abetment of suicide. 24. In the said case the fact were that, the act of the accused and commission of suicide of the deceased, there should be proximity even in the case, where the notes were suicide is left in those cases also the Hon’ble Apex Court has held based on the facts even uttering ward “to go and die” would not constitute ingredients of the instigation. Even assuming that the outraging modesty caused by the accused to the deceased, but the deceased had enough time to think over and reflect on the incident in question. She was surrounded by her close relatives. They could have pacified her. In fact, complaint was not filed with regard to the outraging of modesty, when the deceased made first attempt to commit suicide. 25. Therefore having regard to the material evidence on record and the preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find that, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 26. Therefore, offence under sections 354 and 306 of IPC are separate and distinct offences. But the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 306 of IPC, but, has sentenced the accused only for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 27. The learned judge held that he does not feel to impose any separate sentence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code. I think that, it is erroneous in law. Because these two offences are distinct offences. Merely because the accused has been convicted for the major offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, he should not have been let off from sentencing for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is punishable with lesser punishment before the amendment of the said section. 28. Because these two offences are distinct offences. Merely because the accused has been convicted for the major offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, he should not have been let off from sentencing for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is punishable with lesser punishment before the amendment of the said section. 28. The accused is also been heard exhaustively before imposing punishment by the trial court for the offence punishable under sections 354 and section 306 of IPC. Now the accused has been acquitted of major offence under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, I find that the rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.15,000/- has to be imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 29. The explanation offered by the accused that on account of political ill-will he has been falsely prosecuted on account of removal of PW.5 does not inspire confidence. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that there is no need to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC as the accused has been already heard, before imposing sentence by the Trial Court. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. In the result this court pass the following : ORDER (1) The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. (2) The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted for the said offence. (3) However, the accused is sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC. (4) Accused is entitled for set off of the detention period undergone, if any. (5) Office to send back the records along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court.