Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1307 (GAU)

Rupak Sonowal v. State Of Assam

2022-11-30

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, SUMAN SHYAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Das, Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in connection with Sessions Case No.55(JT)/2018 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife Sumi Sonowal by setting her ablaze, the present appeal has been preferred from the Jail. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is to the effect that on 31.01.2018, at around 4:30 p.m. in the evening, following a quarrel that took place between the appellant and his wife Sumi, the former had set the victim ablaze leading to 90% burn injury. The victim was shifted to the hospital but on the next morning, she died. 4. On 02.02.2018, the mother of the victim viz., Smt. Makhani Sonowal had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Borhulla Police Station reporting the incident. On receipt of the ejahar, BXL P.S. Case No.15/2018 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. The police then took up the matter for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant/accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on the charge-sheet, the learned trial court had framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the appellant/accused. However, since the appellant had claimed innocence, the matter went up for trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 14 witnesses including the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination (PW12) and the I.O. who had carried out investigation (PW-14). That apart, the Officer who had conducted inquest of the dead body was also examined as Court Witness No.1 (CW-1). The appellant had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. That apart, the Officer who had conducted inquest of the dead body was also examined as Court Witness No.1 (CW-1). The appellant had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. Eventually, on consideration of the evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2019, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife Sumi Sonowal and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-with default stipulation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. 6. By referring to the materials available on record, Ms. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that according to PWs-9 and 10, the victim had committed suicide by burning herself and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC was unsustainable in the eye of law. Contending that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence, Ms. Barman submits that the present is a fit case for acquittal. 7. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, on the other hand, has argued that although PWs-9 and 10 have claimed to have heard the victim saying that she had set herself on fire, yet, those witnesses did not say so before the I.O. As such, their evidence was liable to be discarded. Contending that there are sufficient evidence to show that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was not good and that the incident took place inside the house of the victim and in presence of the appellant, Ms. Bhuyan submits that the prosecution case has been fully established by circumstantial evidence. Ms. Bhuyan has further argued that the failure on the part of the accused/appellant to offer proper explanation as to the circumstances under which the victim sustained burn injuries would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused/appellant. Alternately, the learned Addl. Ms. Bhuyan has further argued that the failure on the part of the accused/appellant to offer proper explanation as to the circumstances under which the victim sustained burn injuries would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused/appellant. Alternately, the learned Addl. P.P. has argued that even if it is treated to be a case of suicide, even then, there are sufficient materials to indicate that the victim was incited by the accused compelling her to end her life by setting herself on fire and therefore, the appellant would be liable to be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting suicide. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the materials available on record. 9. As noted above, the informant in this case, Smti. Makhani Sonowal is the mother of the victim. She was examined as PW-1. In her deposition PW-1 has stated that the incident took place on 31.01.2018, at around 4:00 p.m. On the day of occurrence, she came to know from Ripsmita Sonowal that her daughter got burnt. Upon receiving the information, she went running to her daughter’s house and saw her in a burnt state. According to PW-1, her daughter was asking to be taken to the hospital. This witness has also deposed that her daughter was in a meeting before the incident and the accused had brought her home from there by verbally abusing her. The said fact was informed to her by Punya Sarma (PW-2). PW-1 has also stated that her daughter had never lived peacefully in the house of the accused. She has confirmed that the ejahar (Ext-1) was lodged by her which bears her signature Ext-1(1). During her cross-examination PW-1 has stated that she had heard that the accused had undergone treatment in a hospital for his burns but she did not know for how long the treatment went on. The witness has denied the suggestion made by the defence side to the effect that her daughter had committed suicide. 10. Sri Punya Sarma was examined as PW-2. He is the brother-in-law of the accused. PW-2 is also related to the victim. This witness has deposed that the incident took place on 31.01.2018. On that day, Sumi had gone to attend a meeting of “Mohila Got” (women’s group). 10. Sri Punya Sarma was examined as PW-2. He is the brother-in-law of the accused. PW-2 is also related to the victim. This witness has deposed that the incident took place on 31.01.2018. On that day, Sumi had gone to attend a meeting of “Mohila Got” (women’s group). The accused came there and brought the victim home by abusing her verbally. This witness has further deposed that after bringing his cattle from the field, at around 4:00 p.m. he saw that Sumi had got burnt. She was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he did not know as to how Sumi got burnt. 11. Smti. Jyoti Sonowal is related to the accused. She was examined as PW-3. This witness has stated before the court that victim Sumi Sonowal got married to the accused i.e. her brother-in-law about 14/15 years back. Since their marriage, the victim had lived a conjugal life with her husband. This witness has further stated that quarrels used to take place sometimes between the accused and the victim. On the day of the occurrence, there was a prayer ceremony and a meeting in the village. While she was attending the prayer rituals, her niece had informed her that something had happened to Sumi Sonowal and that she had caught fire. After sometime, she came to the house of the victim and heard that Sumi got burnt but she did not know how the victim caught fire. 12. PW-4, Smti. Juni Sonowal has also deposed in similar lines by stating that the incident took place on 31.01.2018 and on that day, there was a prayer ceremony in the village which was attended by the sister-in-law of the victim who had shouted that Sumi had caught fire. PW-4 has, however, clarified that she did not know as to how Sumi got burnt. 13. PW-5, Smti. Rekha Sonowal is known to the informant as well as the victim. She has deposed that there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased but she did not know the cause behind it. This witness has also deposed that on the day of the occurrence victim Sumi had gone to attend a meeting of Self-Help (SH) group. Later, the accused had called Sumi home. After sometime there was a commotion in the house of the accused. This witness has also deposed that on the day of the occurrence victim Sumi had gone to attend a meeting of Self-Help (SH) group. Later, the accused had called Sumi home. After sometime there was a commotion in the house of the accused. Sumi’s sister-in-law (elder brother’s wife) came there and informed that Sumi had caught fire. This witness has stated that on receipt of the information they came to Sumi’s house and on the way, had come across the accused, who told them that Sumi had got burnt. According to PW-5, the accused/appellant and his wife (victim) were at home at the time of the occurrence and the victim had caught fire at about 5:00 p.m. and died at 7:00 a.m. on the following day. This witness has also stated that she had heard that the accused had brought Sumi home from the meeting of the Self-Help group by scolding her. During her cross-examination, PW-5 has clarified that she did not know as to how Sumi had got burnt. 14. Smti. Bimala Sonowal is a resident of the neighbourhood where the accused used to reside. She was examined as PW-6. This witness has stated that the incident took place at about 5:00 p.m. and on the day of the occurrence, there was a prayer meeting in the village where she was present. Sumi’s sister-in-law came to that place and informed that Sumi had caught fire. Then they immediately came to see as to what had happened and Sumi’s mother told them in tears that after bringing Sumi from the meeting of the Self-Help group, she was killed. PW-6 has stated that she found Sumi was covered with a cloth and kept in the verandah but she did not see the accused. Most portion of Sumi was burnt but she did not know who had set her on fire. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution as well as the defence side. 15. Sri Biman Sonowal (PW-7) has deposed before the court that the accused had married his uncle’s daughter. The occurrence took place at around 4:00 p.m. and at that time, he was returning home from the ‘Namghar’ (community prayer hall). On reaching the gateway of the house of the accused he (accused) had informed him that his house had been set on fire. The occurrence took place at around 4:00 p.m. and at that time, he was returning home from the ‘Namghar’ (community prayer hall). On reaching the gateway of the house of the accused he (accused) had informed him that his house had been set on fire. But according to PW-7, he did not find the house of the accused to be on fire. He had seen victim Sumi lying near the water, in a burnt state, with a portion of her body below the waist in the water. Then he had raised hue and cry and lifted her to the verandah. Later on, the people came and took Sumi to the hospital. On the following day Sumi died in the hospital. According to PW 7, it was the appellant/accused who had informed him that his wife was lying at the back side of the house. 16. Smti. Jun Sonowal is the sister-in-law (elder brother’s wife) of the victim and she was examined as PW-8. This witness has deposed that the accused and the deceased used to live as husband and wife in a house near the place where she used to live. According to PW-8, quarrels used to take place between them at times. The incident took place on 31.01.2018. On that day, Sumi died due to burns. This witness has further deposed that there was a tube-well by the side of the road in between the house of the accused and theirs. Around 4:00 p.m. on that day, she had gone to fetch water from the tube-well. At that time, on hearing the accused and Sumi quarrelling, she kept the pot near the tube-well and went to their house and found that the accused and his wife (victim) were quarreling inside the house with the doors closed. When she called out, Sumi opened the door and she was crying. Sumi asked her in tears as to how long she would have to bear the pain and then the accused person rebuked her in filthy language and asked her to get out of the house. PW-8 had stated that she had tried to pacify both of them and then returned home. However, after finishing her household chores when she came out to the road, then she heard a commotion and again went to the house of the accused and saw that accused Rupak was shouting that his house was on fire. PW-8 had stated that she had tried to pacify both of them and then returned home. However, after finishing her household chores when she came out to the road, then she heard a commotion and again went to the house of the accused and saw that accused Rupak was shouting that his house was on fire. She tried to enter through the back door since the first room had caught fire and then saw that Sumi was lying in the pond in a burnt state. Then she screamed and went to the place where her parents were attending the prayer and gave them the information. After that she was unable to say anything. Sumi died in the Jorhat Civil Hospital on the following day. During her cross-examination, this witness has admitted that she did not tell the police that quarrels used to take place between the accused and the victim sometimes because the police did not ask her. 17. PW-9, Sri Raju Sonowal and PW-10, Sri Ajay Sonowal are two witnesses who are not related either to the accused or the victim and therefore, are independent witnesses. It appears from the evidence on record that both these witnesses had gone to the house of the victim soon after the occurrence. PW-9 has deposed that on 31.01.2018, having learnt from his youngest son that Sumi had got burnt, he immediately came to the house of victim and found that Sumi was kept lying on the ground in the verandah. At that time, she was able to speak. PW-9 has stated that the victim had told him that she herself caught fire. During his cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that quarrels used to take place between the accused and his wife over family matters. 18. PW-10, Ajay Soowal has also deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was sitting at a nearby house and on hearing the accused Rupak raise hue and cry saying that his house was fire, he came out with a bucket of water. Then he saw that Sumi Sonowal was in an entirely burnt state but the house was not on fire. Upon entering the house through the backdoor, when he saw Sumi in that state, he got frightened and went out on the road. Then he saw that Sumi Sonowal was in an entirely burnt state but the house was not on fire. Upon entering the house through the backdoor, when he saw Sumi in that state, he got frightened and went out on the road. The witness has deposed that he had found Sumi on the doorway and at that time, he saw her trying to come outside. Later on, when some people came there, he again went and saw Sumi was lying on the bank of the pond. PW-10 has categorically deposed that Sumi had stated that she herself got burnt. He then brought her to the hospital. At that time only Sumi and the accused were there. 19. PW-11, Sri Sunail Sonowal is the father of the victim. He was not present at that place on the day of the occurrence but had returned after about 10 hours of the incident and heard about the occurrence. PW-11 is an inquest witness and he has proved the inquest report Ext-2 by identifying his signature Ext-2(2) therein. 20. Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta (PW-12) had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim. The doctor had proved the post mortem report Ext-3 by identifying his signature therein. According to PW-12, the victim had suffered approximately 90% burn injuries which were epidermal and dermo-epidermal in nature. No ligature mark was detected around the neck. On dissection, the underlying neck tissues were also found to be healthy. PW-12 has opined that the cause of death was due to shock as a result of burn injuries sustained which were antemortem. The approximate time since death was 4 to 8 hours. Cross-examination of PW-12 was declined. 21. PW-13, Sri Jonti Sonowal is the younger brother of the accused. He has deposed that the marriage between his elder brother and the victim Sumi Sonowal took place about 10/11 years ago. He does not stay with his brother. At the time of the occurrence he had gone to the field. His brother told him that his sister-in-law had caught fire. Then he came and saw that his sister-in-law was lying on the ground in the verandah and was covered with a cloth but he did not remove the cloth to see the injuries. He had gone to the hospital with the victim. His sister-in-law died at the hospital after undergoing treatment for one night. Then he came and saw that his sister-in-law was lying on the ground in the verandah and was covered with a cloth but he did not remove the cloth to see the injuries. He had gone to the hospital with the victim. His sister-in-law died at the hospital after undergoing treatment for one night. PW-13 is another inquest witness who has identified his signature in the inquest report. 22. Sri Debajyoti Phukan was the Officer-in-Charge on duty at the Borhulla Police Station on 02.02.2018 i.e. the date on which the ejahar (Ext-1) was lodged. He is also the Investigating Officer in connection with BXL P.S. Case No.15/2018. Sri Debajyoti Phukan was examined as PW-14. He has deposed that on receipt of the ejahar, he took up the investigation himself. He had visited the place of occurrence, questioned the witnesses, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence, interrogated the accused, arrested and forwarded him to the court. PW-14 has further deposed that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the victim had been admitted in the Jorhat Medical College where she had died while receiving treatment. Having found sufficient materials against the accused person, he had submitted charge-sheet Ext-5 which bears his signature. PW-14 has also stated that inquest over the dead body was held by making GD Entry No.331 dated 01.02.2018. 23. CW-1, Smti. Bipanchi Dutta was the Officer who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the victim and prepared inquest report Ext-2. According to CW-1, the victim had suffered burn injuries and was found lying in the hospital bed. 24. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein, save and except admitting that he was present at home when the incident took place, the appellant has denied all other incriminating circumstances put to him. The appellant has also stated that he was a truck driver by profession and on the date of the occurrence, he had come to his residence in the morning hours. After taking his breakfast he was standing on the road and at that time, he had seen fume inside his house and ran towards his house and saw that Sumi was in fire. After taking his breakfast he was standing on the road and at that time, he had seen fume inside his house and ran towards his house and saw that Sumi was in fire. He tried to douse the fire by covering his wife with a blanket due to which he had also received some burn injuries. He had shouted for help but no one came forward to help. Later on, he became senseless. He could not say as to who had taken his wife to the hospital. The appellant has, however, not led any evidence in his defence. 25. Taking note of the evidence available on record the learned trial court was of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for intentionally causing the death of his wife Sumi and sentenced him as aforesaid. 26. It appears that the informant PW-1, who is the mother of the victim, did not see the occurrence but she came to know about the same from the PW-2 who had informed her that the victim had caught fire. PW-2 has deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 31.01.2018 the victim had gone to attend a meeting of women’s SH group and her husband went there and brought her back home by abusing her verbally. Later on, she had seen that Sumi had got burnt. The testimony of PW-3 is of hearsay nature since she had only heard from others that the victim had got burnt. PW-4 has also said that she was not aware as to how Sumi got burnt and similar is the stand of PW-5, who had also not seen the occurrence. PWs-6 and 7 also did not see the occurrence. Upon hearing the appellant and the victim quarrel PW-8 had gone to their house just before the incident. After trying to pacify them, she returned home. Immediately thereafter, she came to know that Sumi had caught fire and then she went to the house of the appellant and saw the victim lying there. Upon hearing the appellant and the victim quarrel PW-8 had gone to their house just before the incident. After trying to pacify them, she returned home. Immediately thereafter, she came to know that Sumi had caught fire and then she went to the house of the appellant and saw the victim lying there. From the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 it is established that the incident took place on 31.01.2018 in the house of the victim at around 4:30 to 5:00 p.m. It is also established from the medical evidence that the death of Sumi was due to the burn injuries suffered by her. But none of these witnesses knew as to how Sumi had caught fire. 27. From the evidence of PW-10 it appears that he was the first person to reach the place of occurrence soon after the incident. PW-10 has categorically stated that Sumi had told him that she herself got burnt. PW-9 has also deposed that when he reached the house of the appellant, at that time Sumi was in a position to speak and she had told him that she caught fire by herself. This version of PWs-9 and 10 finds due corroboration from the evidence of one another. What would, however, be significant to note herein is that both PWs-9 and 10 did not support the prosecution story to the effect that it was the appellant who had set the victim on fire. Notwithstanding the same, the prosecution had not prayed for declaring PWs-9 and 10 as hostile witnesses so as to cross-examine them. The question that would, therefore, arise is as to whether, the testimony of PWs-9 and 10 on the above count would be binding on the prosecution. 28. In the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005)5 SCC 272, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prosecution witnesses who did not support the prosecution case and were not declared as hostile witness with the permission of the Court, their evidence would be binding on the prosecution. 29. From a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we do not find any inherent contradiction in the testimonies of PWs-9 and 10 and there is also no evidence to show that it was the appellant who had set the victim on fire. 29. From a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we do not find any inherent contradiction in the testimonies of PWs-9 and 10 and there is also no evidence to show that it was the appellant who had set the victim on fire. Moreover, we also find from the materials on record that even the appellant had suffered some burn injuries for which, he had to receive medical treatment. His injury report was, however, not exhibited. From the above, it appears that the appellant had made an attempt to douse the fire on his wife, which he would not have tried had he himself set his wife on fire with the intention to cause death to her. If that be so, it is apparent that this is a case of suicide by self-immolation by the victim. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death of his wife Sumi by setting her on fire, in our opinion, is unsustainable in the eye of law and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. 30. Having held as above, we have also noticed that there is reliable evidence available on record which goes to show that frequent quarrels used to take place between the appellant and his deceased wife. It has come out from the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the mother of the victim that her daughter did not have a peaceful conjugal life. From the evidence of PWs-2 and 5 we find that on the date of the occurrence, at around 4:00 p.m. the appellant had brought his wife back home from the village meeting, which she was attending, by abusing her. Even after reaching home the quarrel between them did not subside. From the evidence of PW-8, it is established that soon before the occurrence the appellant and the victim were quarreling. According to PW-8, Sumi had even asked her with tears in her eyes as to how long she would have to bear the pain and even at that time, the appellant had rebuked her in filthy language and asked her to get out of the house. 31. According to PW-8, Sumi had even asked her with tears in her eyes as to how long she would have to bear the pain and even at that time, the appellant had rebuked her in filthy language and asked her to get out of the house. 31. We have also noticed that in the ejahar lodged by the PW-1 it has been mentioned that the appellant while bringing the victim back home, had uttered in presence of other women present in the meeting that he would finish her off and after a short while, there was emission of smoke from the house of the deceased. If the above evidence on record is taken note of, then it is apparent that let alone the quarrels that took place earlier between the appellant and the victim, Sumi was severely humiliated by her husband even on the date of the occurrence, in presence of other women and they continued to quarrel even after returning home. The accused/appellant had even asked her to get out of the house. The victim was in tears when she spoke to PW-8. These circumstances unequivocally go to show that by using strong, humiliating and abusive language, the appellant had incited the victim to take the extreme step of ending her life by setting herself on fire. Therefore, we are of the opinion that although no charge was framed under Section 306 of the IPC during trial, there is sufficient material to hold that the appellant is guilty of committing an offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 32. Section 306 of the IPC reads as follows :- “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.” 33. Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment which is reproduced hereby below as ready reference : “107. 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.” 33. Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment which is reproduced hereby below as ready reference : “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. 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.” 34. While dealing with a case of similar nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 , had the occasion to consider the essentials of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The observations made in paragraphs 16, 16.1 and 16.2 of the judgment are relevant and therefore, are being reproduced herein below for ready reference : 16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if 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 and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person’s reaction to any other human’s action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of eve-teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.” 35. Applying the ratio of Ude Singh and others (supra) to the facts of this case, we are of the unhesitant opinion that although the appellant might not have himself set the victim on fire, yet, by inciting and instigating the victim by constantly abusing and humiliating the victim in front of others, he had pushed Sumi to take the extreme steps of committing suicide by putting her on fire which had ultimately resulted in her death. Such incitement caused by the appellant was not only continuous but the same had occurred immediately preceding the occurrence. 36. It is also to be noted herein that the evidence available on record conclusively establishes the fact that the incident took place at around 4:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence but in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has given a false explanation by stating that the incident occurred in the morning hours. 36. It is also to be noted herein that the evidence available on record conclusively establishes the fact that the incident took place at around 4:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence but in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has given a false explanation by stating that the incident occurred in the morning hours. Moreover, the evidence on record also shows that instead of rushing his wife to the hospital, the appellant went on spreading the false news of his house having caught fire. The above conduct of the accused/appellant, viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, exposes the guilty mind of the appellant and suggest that by making deliberate false and misleading statement, he was trying to cover up the truth. Therefore, the mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is clearly established in this case. 37. We have already noticed that the appellant was tried only in respect of charge framed under Section 302 of the IPC. However, since there is lesser punishment for offence committed under Section 306 IPC and considering the recourse we propose to take in this appeal, conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC by the Appellate Court, in our opinion, would be permissible. 38. For the reasons stated herein above, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned court below and instead, convict him under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting the suicide of his wife and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) years. The fine imposed by the learned trial court shall, however, remain unchanged. It is made clear that the period of Jail sentence awarded to the appellant by this order shall stand adjusted, to the extent permissible, against the period already undergone by him during investigation, trial and pendency of this appeal, if any. 39. With the above observation, this appeal stands allowed in part. Before parting with the record, we put on record our appreciation for the services rendered by Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae and recommend that the Registry may make payment of appropriate remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as per the existing norms. 39. With the above observation, this appeal stands allowed in part. Before parting with the record, we put on record our appreciation for the services rendered by Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae and recommend that the Registry may make payment of appropriate remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as per the existing norms. Registry to send back the LCR.