JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. In this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has questioned judgment and order on sentence dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Fast Track Court, Nadiyad in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2004 where under, the appellant is convicted under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in brief as could be gathered giving rise to this appeal as could be gathered from the memo of appeal are that: It was the case of the complainant that marriage of Ramilaben was solemnized on 08.05.2003 with one Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai Parmar, son of the present appellant. That the initial married life of the daughter of the complainant was happy. That after some time, as alleged in the complaint, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased used to pick up quarrel with the deceased regarding household work and used to scold the deceased. Therefore, the deceased left the matrimonial home three months prior to the date of the incident as the mother-in-law of the deceased had allegedly beaten the deceased with stick. Thereafter, the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased had gone to bring back the deceased and, therefore, the complainant had sent the deceased to matrimonial home. That the deceased was brought back to matrimonial home by her father-in-law. That thereafter on 29.07.2004, the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased had gone to the complainant and the complainant was informed by the father-in-law of the deceased that at about 6:00 O'clock, the deceased Ramilaben had gone to draw water from the canal and she got slipped and drowned in the water. It was alleged in the complaint that since the in-laws used to harass and torture the deceased for household work, the deceased Ramilaben had committed suicide by jumping into the water. 3. Savitaben Fatehsinh, PW-1, mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint Exh-29 on 31.07.2004 of this incident with Memdavad Police Station on the basis of which, C.R. No. I-194 of 2004 for the offences under sections 498A, 306 and 114 of IPC was registered. 4. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. Perused the record of Sessions Case No. 210 of 2004. 5. 4. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. Perused the record of Sessions Case No. 210 of 2004. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the complaint in respect of death of Ramilaben was lodged by PW-1 after two days. In his submission, the delay of two days in lodging complaint is not explained. He further submitted that from the testimony of Dr. Naishad Bhatt, PW-2, who performed postmortem on the dead body it reveals that there were ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which according to doctor, were possible by slipping. He therefore, submitted that it is clear from evidence of PW 2 that the deceased had died an accidental death. He further submitted that as the deceased had gone to canal for washing clothes, the washed clothes were also recovered from the place of the incident as is emerging from the panchnama of place of incident. According to his submission, it emerges from the evidence of Savitaben Fatehsinh-PW-1, Arjun Raiji-PW-3-uncle of the deceased, Manisha Raijibhai-PW-8, Savitaben Arjunbhai-PW 9, Fatehsinh Parmar-PW-10 and Desaibhai Manubhai Waghela-PW-11 that there used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in respect of day-today household work which would not come within the sweep of ingredients of section 107 of the IPC. He further submitted that the day-to-day quarrel in respect of household work cannot be said to be a cruelty as contemplated under section 498A of the IPC. He therefore, urged that the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against her. 6. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that all the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case and they are consistent in their testimonies before the Court. He submitted that it clearly emerges from the evidence of material witnesses that the appellant used to harass the deceased on account of household work and used to ask her to do the household work twice over. He submitted that the marriage span of the deceased with the son of the appellant was very short and therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly raised presumption under section 130A of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC which does not call for interference in this appeal. 7. He submitted that the marriage span of the deceased with the son of the appellant was very short and therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly raised presumption under section 130A of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC which does not call for interference in this appeal. 7. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 and PW-11. These witnesses are mother, uncle, aunt, father and middle man through whose intervention, the marriage of the deceased was arranged with the son of the appellant. 8. It emerges from the evidence of material witnesses that the appellant used to harass the deceased in respect of day-to-day household work. It further emerges from the evidence of this witnesses that the appellant would ask the deceased to wash the utensils and clothes twice over as according to appellant, the deceases was not doing such household work properly. On the unfortunate day, deceased Ramila had gone to canal for washing clothes in the evening at about 6 pm but did not returned home till late. Therefore, her father-in-law Rameshbhai Puja made a declaration in Memdavad Police Station about missing of his daughter-in-law. On basis of such information, Exh 17 AD under section 174 was registered. Thereafter, PW 1 lodged a complaint Exh 29 on 31.07.2004 with Memdavad Police Station wherein, it was alleged that the appellant was subjecting the deceased Ramila to harass on account of day-to-day work. As a result whereof, she committed suicide by jumping in the canal. 9. The offence of abetment of suicide is defined in section 306 of IPC. It reads as infra: "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." 10. The expression "abetment" is defined in section 107 of IPC which reads as under: "107. It reads as infra: "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." 10. The expression "abetment" is defined in section 107 of IPC 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. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 11. In the background of the prosecution case and the evidence of the material witness and in light of sections 306 and 107 of IPC, it is apposite to consider the same decision of the Supreme Court in which the term abatement is incorporated: 12. In case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , while maintaining conviction under section 498A of IPC the Supreme Court set aside conviction for the offence under section 306 observed and held as under: "19. The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available is this. In case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , while maintaining conviction under section 498A of IPC the Supreme Court set aside conviction for the offence under section 306 observed and held as under: "19. The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available is this. Presumably because of disinclination on the part of the accused to drop the deceased at her sister's residence the deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was overtaken by a feeling of shortcomings which she attributed to herself. She was overcome by a forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not deserve to be his life-partner. The accused Ramesh may or must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she liked. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister's residence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing-you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had "freed" her she thought impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband's wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the Trial Court mis-spelt out the meaning of the expression attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the accused had made her free to commit suicide. Making the deceased free - to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she wished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the accused had made the deceased free "to commit suicide" as held by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. 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. 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." 13. In case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2017) 7 SCC 780 after referring to several decision including that in the case of Ramesh (supra) observed as under: "34. The word 'abetment' has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. Such a requirement can be perceived from the reading of Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC reads as under:- "Section 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. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration-- A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." "Abetment", thus, means certain amount of active suggestion or support to do the act. 35. xxx xxx xxxx 36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct. 43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 307 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life. 44. In the instant case, the accused had by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The active acts of the accused have led the deceased to put an end to her life. That apart, we do not find any material on record which compels the Court to conclude that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged. On the other hand, the accused has played active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim which drove the victim girl to commit suicide. The cruelty meted out to her has, in fact, induced her to extinguish her life-spark. 45. As is demonstrable, the High Court has not reversed the judgment of acquittal solely on the basis of dying declaration. It has placed reliance on the evidence of the parents and also other witnesses. It has also treated the version of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat as credible. All these witnesses have deposed that the accused after his acquittal engaged himself in threatening and teasing the girl. He did not allow her to live in peace. The harassment caused to her had become intolerable and unbearable. The father had deposed that the girl had told him on number of occasions and he had complained to the Pradhan. All these amount to active part played by the accused. It is not a situation where a person is insulted on being asked to pay back a loan. It is not a situation where someone feels humiliated on a singular act. It is a different situation altogether. The young girl living in a village was threatened and teased constantly. She could not bear it any longer. There is evidence that the parents belong to the poor strata of the society. It is not a situation where someone feels humiliated on a singular act. It is a different situation altogether. The young girl living in a village was threatened and teased constantly. She could not bear it any longer. There is evidence that the parents belong to the poor strata of the society. As the materials on record would reflect, the father could not afford her treatment when case of his daughter was referred to the hospital at Chandigarh. The impecuniosity of the family is manifest. It is clearly evident from the materials brought on record that the conduct of the accused was absolutely proactive." 14. In case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and anr. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190 , the Supreme Court reiterated essentials of the offence under section 306 of IPC as under: "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." 15. The Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 while pointing out the complexities related with the determination of the question as to the cost of suicide expounded the relevant principles as follows: "19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self." 16. It is therefore, discernible from the various decisions of the Supreme Court that "abetment" involves a mental process of instigating the person in doing something. A person abets doing of a thing who; (a) instigates any person to do that thing or; (b) engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy in doing all that thing; (c) intentionally aids the acts or illegal omissions, the doing of that thing. The word "instigate" therefore, literally means to provoke, to incite urge forward bringing about by persuasion to do anything. 17. The word "instigate" therefore, literally means to provoke, to incite urge forward bringing about by persuasion to do anything. 17. For the purpose of finding out as to whether a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide as explained by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Instigation means to urge that they were provoked incite or encouraged to do an act if the person who has committed suicide had been hyper sensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily instigated to induce similarly circumstanced person of committing suicide, the accused person would not be held guilty of abetment of suicide. On the other hand, if the accused person by his acts or by his continuous course of conduct created a situation which led the deceased perceiving no other option, except to commit suicide, the case would fall within the four corners of section 306 IPC. It is therefore necessary that a question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such case is examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds committed by him as a consequence whereof the other person committed suicide. 18. Moreover, the presumption under section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic. The employment of the term "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" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary. While raising the presumption the Court has to take into consideration all the attending circumstances to record a satisfaction that by conduct and overt acts, the accused persons had in fact abetted the suicide. 19. The complaint Exh 29 and the evidence of witnesses as noted hereinabove, reveal that the appellant used to harass the deceased in relation to day-to-day household work and the deceased was asked to do household chores twice over. However, as has been held by the Supreme Court in various decisions that the degree of harassment and cruelty has to be of such a level that it should create a feeling in the mind of the person that life is not worth living and push her to commit suicide. However, as has been held by the Supreme Court in various decisions that the degree of harassment and cruelty has to be of such a level that it should create a feeling in the mind of the person that life is not worth living and push her to commit suicide. From the evidence of Exh 29-complaint, it is very difficult to find out and conclude that the deceased was subjected to persistent, incessant and intolerable cruelty by the appellant which goaded her to end her life within very short marriage life of around 14 months. 20. In the case on hand, the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant for not doing the household work properly but it does not emerge from the evidence that the harassment and cruelty was intolerable which had left the deceased with no option but to end her life. 21. I am therefore of the view that the allegations of harassment of cruelty meted out to the deceased were not sufficient to hold that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and the presumption provided under section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to convict the appellant for offence under section 306 of IPC. I am therefore of the view that the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 306 cannot be sustained and is to be set aside. 22. However, it is manifestly clear from the evidence of witnesses that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to harassment and cruelty for not doing household work properly and the deceased was forced by the appellant to do household work such as washing clothes and utensils twice over. I am therefore of the view that the offence under section 198 of IPC is clearly made out and conviction thereunder recorded by the learned Trial Judge does not warrant any interference. 23. The incident has happened around 16 years ago therefore, considering the overall facts of the case and the fact that the deceased appellant has already undergone around 11 months of imprisonment out of one year, for offence under section 498A ends of justice would meet if substantive sentence is modified to already undergone while raising the punishment of fine to Rs. 3000/- from Rs. 1000/-. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeeds in part. 3000/- from Rs. 1000/-. 24. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2004 is modified. While maintaining the conviction u/s. 498A of IPC, the conviction u/s. 306 is hereby set aside. However, substantive sentence for offence u/s. 498A is reduced to already undergone and punishment of fine is enhanced to Rs. 3000/- from Rs. 1000/-. The amount of fine paid for offence under section 306 is ordered to be adjusted towards enhanced fine. Since the accused person is on bail his bail bond stands canceled and surety, if any stands discharged. R & P to be transmitted to the Trial Court