JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in S.T. No. 412/2004 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.1997, the marriage between the appellant and deceased Durga Dewangan was solemnized. After marriage, the deceased was tortured on demand of dowry by her husband and mother-in-law. The appellant assaulted the deceased Durga Dewangan at her in-laws' house and also at her maternal home, due to which the deceased was mentally and physically tortured. On the intervening night of 28-29.09.2004, the appellant went to sleep on the veranda after having meal and his wife Durga was cleaning the utensils. The next day morning when the appellant weak up and saw that the door of the room of her wife was not opened, he opened the door and saw that her wife was hanging with the help of a saree. Thereafter, the appellant called the neighbours and lodged a merg intimation report. During the course of the investigation, S.D.O. - S.L. Salam summoned the Panch-witnesses and prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body vide Ex.-P-3 and sent the dead body for postmortem. Dr. K.P. Rathore and Dr. H.S. Chandel performed the postmortem, and gave postmortem report vide Ex.-P-6, according to them the cause of death was suffocation which was caused by hanging and visra was preserved and opined for chemical examination of the visra. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant along with the co-accused arrested and charge sheet was filed against them. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant has examined one witness in his defence. 4. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant has examined one witness in his defence. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2005, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment and acquitted the co-accused mother-in-law - Rambai. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the learned Court below failed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence on record. The ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A are not available and therefore the appellant is entitled to acquittal. He also submits that in the instant facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate looking to the evidence available against the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. In the present case, S.D.O.P.- S.L.Salaam (PW-14) has registered the merg Ex.P-7 thereafter panchnama Ex.P-13 of the deceased (wife of the appellant) was prepared. The above panchnama has been confirmed by the statement of Lakhan Kenwat (PW-7), Shiv Kumar (PW-8) AND Shyam Bai (PW-9). 9. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. K.P. Rathore (P-10) and Dr. S.S. Chandel (PW-11) on 29.09.2004 and the report is Ex.P-6. As per the opinion of the doctors, half sari was wrapped around his neck with a knot. There was a ligature mark on the neck in the size 2 cm. x middle of the neck, extending towards the left mastoid width 2 cm. Rigor mortis was present in all four limbs on dissection cricoid bone was found intact, and muscles of the neck were intact (normal) and was opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and its complications. The duration of death within 24 hrs. since postmortem. 10. Rigor mortis was present in all four limbs on dissection cricoid bone was found intact, and muscles of the neck were intact (normal) and was opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and its complications. The duration of death within 24 hrs. since postmortem. 10. From the statements of the witnesses namely, Jeevan Lal Dewangan (PW-1), Ku. Shalu Dewangan (PW-4) Bundkunwar (PW-5) father, sister and mother of deceased Durga respectively, neighbours Dev Lal (PW-2) Sahin Bai (PW-3), Smt. Ganga Pandey (PW-6), Lakhan Kewat (PW7), Shiv Kumar Patel (PW-8) and Shyam Bai (PW-9) it is clear that on 29.09.2004 deceased was found hanging in the room and from the statement of the witnesses, the deceased had committed suicide. 11. From the statement of the Defence witness, the distance between her maternal and parental home is 200 metres and the marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized in the year 1997 and the incident is after seven years or within seven years of marriage is not proved. 12. From the prosecution case, deceased Durga committed suicide on account of abetment by the appellant and therefore the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 IPC. The Apex Court in the matter of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 . The Supreme Court defined the abatement below : “11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under: “306. Abatement 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.” From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows: "107. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows: "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." 12. As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 13. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigations, would attract any one of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC? 14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. 14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 . Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that 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. 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 to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 15. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 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 wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful 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. 16. 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. 17. In the present case, the charge against the appellant is that he along with other two accused "in furtherance of common intention", mentally tortured Jitendra Sharma (the deceased) and abetted him to commit suicide by the said act of mental torture. It is trite that words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life. It is trite that words uttered on the spur of the moment or in a quarrel, without something more cannot be taken to have been uttered with mens rea. The onus is on the prosecution to show the circumstances which compelled the deceased to take an extreme step to bring an end to his life. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and, therefore, clause firstly of Section 107 of the IPC was attracted. Briefly dealing with the material available on record, in the order directing framing of charge against the appellant, the learned trial court has observed as under: "In the present case the evidence shows threatening given to the deceased. One witness called Kartar Singh says that CK Chopra was heard saying to the deceased that the deceased had become dishonest because he was refusing to sign a paper in which the share in some joint property was shown to be 10%. On another occasion Chopra was heard by this witness to say that Chopra would ruin the deceased if he did not give up his claim for 25% and did not agree to accept 10%. Witness Padam Bahadur has stated inter alia that he overheard Jahoor and Mahavir telling the deceased that Chopra had asked them to say that this was the last opportunity to sign the document and that if he wanted to live in the society he should sign the agreement or should die by taking poison. Soon thereafter the deceased committed suicide. Thus the evidence is not of a mere quarrel in which one person told the other go and die without actually suggesting that the opponent should commit suicide. In the present case the evidence collected by the investigation suggest that the deceased had been actually pushed to the wall and the escape by committing suicide was suggested by the accused persons." 18. In the present case the evidence collected by the investigation suggest that the deceased had been actually pushed to the wall and the escape by committing suicide was suggested by the accused persons." 18. In the light of the material on record, in our judgment, it cannot be said that the trial court was in error in drawing an inference that the appellant had "instigated" the deceased to commit suicide and, therefore, there was ground for presuming that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See: Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 76 ). 19. In Som Nath Thapa & Ors. (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court explained the meaning of the word "presume". Referring to dictionary meanings of the said word, the Court observed thus: "...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has commuted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage". 13. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage". 13. From the perusal of the above case law, for conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the deceased committed suicide on account of abetment by her husband. 14. In the present case, Jeewan Lal Dewangan, Bundkunwar, and Shalu Dewangan who are father, mother and sister respectively, neighbours Sahin Bai (PW-3) and Smt. Ganga Pandey (PW-6) are important witnesses. 15. Jeewan Lal Dewnangan (PW-1) has stated that he has six daughters and one son and the deceased Durga was his elder daughter. He has stated that during the marriage he gave silver ornaments, utensils and other articles and four days after marriage when she came to her parental house, she informed them that she was subjected to torture for not bringing gold, silver, TV, fan and bicycle. After the birth of her first child, on the occasion of Chhati when her mother visited, she spilt the water being taken to give a bath to the child, the appellant shouted that he would sacrifice the one who had spilt the water to the deity and after 8 months of the incident, she was beaten and left in her parent’s house and abused her father. On the same evening he again came to Durga's house with a stick and when Durga's mother Bundkunwar came forward in defence and said beat her, why are you beating the girl? and when Durga's sister Sharda tried to explain, she was told to keep quiet otherwise it would not be right. On which Sahin Bai told the appellant "Who are you to silence Sharda? " For about 4 years, the appellant had stopped talking to Durga's parents. When another son was born and he got jaundiced, Durga's parents came to see him, and then the conversation started. The parents of Durga had invited the appellant and his mother for dinner. The appellant, under the influence of alcohol, stopped eating fish and asked Durga to eat it. Durga said that he had drunk alcohol, and his fish would not eat. Then the appellant assaulted Durga. The parents of Durga had invited the appellant and his mother for dinner. The appellant, under the influence of alcohol, stopped eating fish and asked Durga to eat it. Durga said that he had drunk alcohol, and his fish would not eat. Then the appellant assaulted Durga. When Durga's mother went to the appellant's house on 28/09/2004 to send Durga's child, Durga had told that the appellant used to beat her daily while harassing her in the name of dowry. On the same night, hue and cry were heard from the house of the appellant and on the next day Durga was found hanging. 16. The above statements of the father Jeevan Lal Dewangan (PW-1) have been corroborated in their statements by the mother of the deceased, Boondkunwar (PW-5) and the sister of the deceased, Ms. Shalu Dewangan (PW-4). 17. After 8 months of Chhathi programme, when the appellant had left Durga at her maternal home, the fact of assault and strangulation by the appellant on the road with Durga is also confirmed by the statement of Sahin Bai (PW-3) and Ku. Shalu Dewangan (PW-4) has admitted in paragraph-8 of her cross-examination that Sahin Bai seems to be her father's sister. 18. Thus, the aforesaid statements of the appellant assaulting Durga have been cited by the father, sister and mother of Durga. After all these incidents, there was no domestic communication between the two parties for about 4 years. This fact also becomes clear from the statements of the above witnesses. It also becomes clear that in spite of the above incidents, the complainant had not made any report of dowry harassment, assault or any incident against the appellant to the police. Even there was no complaint of any kind in the society. 19. The statement of Deepchand (DW.-1) as a defence witness has been made by the defence and he has stated that dowry is not demanded in the Dewangan society and a dowry seeker is fined Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) by the society. He has also stated that no dowry was ever demanded by the appellant. He has also stated that the deceased Durga and the appellant have a total of three children, out of which the third child is polio-afflicted, due to which Durga used to suffer mentally. He has also said that there was no communication between the parties for 4-5 years. 20. He has also stated that the deceased Durga and the appellant have a total of three children, out of which the third child is polio-afflicted, due to which Durga used to suffer mentally. He has also said that there was no communication between the parties for 4-5 years. 20. Thus, the situation which is becoming clear from the statements of the main witnesses of the parties shows that there has never been any report or complaint by the nearest relatives of the maternal of the deceased regarding the demand for dowry and the beating of the deceased by the appellant. It is also worth mentioning that in the incident under consideration, no report has been lodged with the police either by the parents or the complainant. Rather, the crime has been established by the police only on the basis of investigation. Thus, there is no previous documentary evidence in this regard that corroborates the statements of the above relatives from the maternal side that the appellant was demanding any kind of dowry from the petitioner side or was repeatedly beating Durga. 21. All the statements made by the family members of the deceased against the appellant regarding torturing the deceased have been told after about one-and-a-half years of marriage. The important fact is that all these family members have unanimously accepted that they did not visit the house of the appellant for about 3 to 4 years after one-and-a-half years. He has not narrated any incident during those 3-4 years when their residence was only 200 meters away from the house of the appellant. It is also clear that the appellant had three children from Durga and the third child was crippled due to polio. Witnesses have also accepted that Durga had to take care of the small child as he was suffering from polio. It is also argued by the counsel for the appellant that Durga used to feel sad because of the child being handicapped. In all these situations, unless such harassment or provocation is established immediately before the incident, which forced Durga to commit suicide, the offence of Section 306 IPC will not be established. 22. According to the father Jeevan Lal Dewangan (PW-1), Durga was found hanging in the morning of 29.09.2004, a day before i.e. on 28.09.2004, Durga's mother Boondkunwar (PW-5) had gone to the appellant's house to sent Durga's child Monu. 22. According to the father Jeevan Lal Dewangan (PW-1), Durga was found hanging in the morning of 29.09.2004, a day before i.e. on 28.09.2004, Durga's mother Boondkunwar (PW-5) had gone to the appellant's house to sent Durga's child Monu. Then Durga told that she was harassed and beaten up by the appellant in the name of dowry. This fact has also been confirmed by the deceased's mother Boondkunwar (PW-5) and sister Ku. Shalu Dewangan (PW-4). Jeevan Lal Devagann (PW-1) has also stated that the next day in the morning when Durga was found hanging, the people of the neighbourhood had told that cries were heard from the house of the appellant in the night. In the said subject, Smt. Ganga Pandey (PW-6) stated that at around 09.00-10.00 p.m. she heard the sound of abuse and fighting from the house of the appellant. The information about hanging by Durga was received the next day. This witness is not the resident of the house adjacent to the house of the appellant. Rather his house is in the interval of 4-5 houses. She has also been unable to tell what and what kind of sound was coming in the fight, who was abusing whom. She has also been unable to tell who all were inside the house of the appellant at that time. Thus the statement of this witness in itself is not clear as to whether the appellant assaulted Durga on that night or tortured her in such a manner that Durga was left with no other option but to commit suicide. 23. Devlal (PW-2) as a neighbour has not corroborated what happened on the said night. Devlal has only stated that before the incident of hanging, there was often the sound of quarrel from the house of the appellant but he has not given any specific details about the quarrel, he has turned hostile and has denied his police statement. He has also said that Jeevan Lal Dewangan, the father of the deceased, seems to be his brother in a distant relationship. He also stated that he did not go to the house of the appellant when there was the sound of a quarrel from the house of the appellant. He has accepted that in general, when a person scolds even his children, then there is a loud sound, which he has accepted. He also stated that he did not go to the house of the appellant when there was the sound of a quarrel from the house of the appellant. He has accepted that in general, when a person scolds even his children, then there is a loud sound, which he has accepted. Thus, it is also not clear from the statement of Devlal that on the night of the alleged incident, Durga was instigated or tortured by the appellant in such a manner that she was forced to hang herself/ commit suicide. 24. Patwari Yuvraj Patel (PW-13) prepared the map vide Ex.-P-5 of the house of the appellant where the incident took place, around which there are houses of many other people. S.D.O.P - S.L. Salam (PW-14) has also prepared the map of the spot vide Ex.-P-4 as an investigator. From this, it is evident that there are houses of many other people around the house of the appellant. If the deceased was subjected to frequent beatings and torture by the appellant, the natural witnesses could have been the neighbours of the appellant. But as the investigator of the case, Sub-Inspector-Anoop Vajpayee (PW-12) has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not make any inquiry with the people around the spot. 25. From the entire evidence, it cannot be concluded that as per the determination made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (Supra), just before the suicide of Durga, there was such torture or abetment by the appellant which resulted in the suicide of Durga. There may be truth in the matter of harassment or physical assault during the time period after marriage and till the birth of the first child, because the evidence of both parties has revealed that Durga's parents did not come and go to the house of the appellant for about 3-4 years. But the abetment of suicide can be said to be proved when the suicide is the result of that abetment itself. The fact has come in evidence that Durga's third child was handicapped due to polio and the defence witness has stated that because of this, Durga had to take care of the child and she used to feel sad because of her child's disability. The fact has come in evidence that Durga's third child was handicapped due to polio and the defence witness has stated that because of this, Durga had to take care of the child and she used to feel sad because of her child's disability. In spite of the above suggestion, the family members of Durga have not accepted the fact that Durga used to be sad due to the said reason and the argument of the appellant is that Durga committed suicide under the influence of the same sorrow cannot be accepted. Since the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take advantage of any weakness of the defence. In this case, it is also not established that the suicide took place within 7 years of the marriage. Therefore, the presumption of Section 113-A Indian Evidence Act is also not made and it is not established from the evidence presented that immediately before the incident of hanging, Durga was instigated by the appellant in such a way that she was forced to commit suicide. The prosecution case has not been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. On the above ground, the finding of the trial court is not found to be sustainable. 26. Hence the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence in question is set aside, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. If the fine amount has been deposited by him, then it should be returned to him. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.