JUDGMENT : (Sophy Thomas, J.) This appeal is at the instanance of the sole accused in SC No.325 of 2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 306 of IPC, vide judgment dated 19.10.2007. 2. The prosecution case is that, between 10.30 p.m on 26.04.1998, and 5.30 a.m on 27.04.1998, one Ms.Bindu committed suicide by hanging, on the lean-to of the house of the accused bearing No.12/700 in Rayamangalam Panchayath, and it was the accused who abetted her suicide. The accused removed her dead body to a rubber estate for destroying evidence. So he was charged under Section 306 and 201 of IPC. 3. On committal, and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, charge was framed against him under Sections 306 and 201 of IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. PWs 1 to 10 were examined, Exts.P1 to P15 were marked and MOs 1 to 3 were identified. 5. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record, and he pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was adduced except marking Ext.D1 thondi list. 6. On analysing the facts and evidence and on hearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court found that prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of IPC, and he was convicted thereunder. But destruction of evidence could not be proved and so he was acquitted under Section 201 of IPC. Under Section 306 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 306 of IPC, he preferred this appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable either in law or on facts. Prosecution could not prove that, Exts.P4 and P5 letters were written by the deceased. The deceased was an epileptic patient suffering from depression and there is nothing to show that the appellant abetted her suicide. So, according to him, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 9. Prosecution could not prove that, Exts.P4 and P5 letters were written by the deceased. The deceased was an epileptic patient suffering from depression and there is nothing to show that the appellant abetted her suicide. So, according to him, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 10. PW2-the brother of the deceased saw the dead body of his sister Bindu, in the rubber plantation near to his house, at 7.30 a.m on 27.04.1998. He would say that, his sister was in an affair with the accused. After her death, he saw a letter in the pocket of his shirt, which was written by deceased Bindu and he identified that letter as Ext.P4. Another letter recovered from the dead body of deceased Bindu was identified by him as Ext.P5. It was he who produced Ext.P3 series notebooks of deceased Bindu before Police. He further stated that, marriage of deceased Bindu was proposed with one Mr.Saji and she had agreed to inform her decision within two days. She had handed over her chain and bangles to her mother, two days prior to her death. PW4-the paternal uncle of the deceased, also stated about the affair of deceased Bindu with the accused, and according to him when that relationship became strained, she committed suicide. 11. Exts.P4 and P5 are the letters alleged to have been written by deceased Bindu prior to her death. Ext.P4 letter was addressed to PW2-her brother, and Ext.P5 letter was recovered by Police from her dead body, at the time of inquest. 12. PW2 produced Ext.P3 notebooks of deceased Bindu, before Police. Ext.P15-the report of the handwriting expert shows that Exts.P4 and P5 letters were written by the very same person who had written Ext.P3 series notebooks. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would say that, since PW2 had not seen deceased Bindu writing Ext.P3 series notebooks or Exts.P4 and P5 letters, it cannot be accepted under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 14. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus: “47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would say that, since PW2 had not seen deceased Bindu writing Ext.P3 series notebooks or Exts.P4 and P5 letters, it cannot be accepted under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 14. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus: “47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant. When the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation. - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he had received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him”. 15. Learned counsel would contend that, since PW2 has no case that, he had seen the deceased writing Ext.P3 series notebooks or Exts.P4 and P5 letters, it cannot be said that, he was acquainted with the handwriting of the deceased. But, PW2 is the biological brother of the deceased, and they were living in the same house. Being the brother, it cannot be said that he was not familiar with the handwriting of his own sister. He produced Ext.P3 series notebooks before Police, which were used by the deceased in her school, and also in her tailoring class. Since those notebooks were written, while the deceased was attending her class, there was no chance for her brother, to see her writing those books. Moreover, since the deceased prepared Exts.P4 and P5 letters in secrecy, before committing suicide, there was no probability for anybody seeing the deceased writing those letters. PW2 identified Exts.P4 and P5 letters, as the letter written by his deceased sister Bindu. PW2 would say that, Ext.P4 letter was found in the pocket of his shirt, which was kept in the room of the deceased. He himself produced Ext.P3 series notebooks of his sister before Police, to compare the handwriting with the handwriting in Exts.P4 and P5. PW2 identified Exts.P4 and P5 letters, as the letter written by his deceased sister Bindu. PW2 would say that, Ext.P4 letter was found in the pocket of his shirt, which was kept in the room of the deceased. He himself produced Ext.P3 series notebooks of his sister before Police, to compare the handwriting with the handwriting in Exts.P4 and P5. Biological brother living with his sister in the same house, since their childhood, may be well acquainted with the handwriting of his sister, and for identifying her handwriting in a particular document, he need not see her writing the same. So, when PW2 identified Ext.P3 series notebooks and Exts.P4 and P5 letters as that of his sister, there is no reason to disbelieve him. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.P15 report of the handwriting expert could not be accepted, as PW2-her brother had not seen the deceased writing Ext.P3 series notebooks or Exts.P4 and P5 letters, is not tenable. 16. The next contention taken up by learned counsel for the appellant is that, though Exts.P4 and P5 documents were marked through PW2-the brother of the deceased, the contents of those documents were not put to the accused. So, according to him, those letters could not be relied on, to find that the accused abetted suicide of Ms.Bindu. 17. Learned counsel would submit that, the whole object of Section 313 of Cr.P.C is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining the circumstances which appear against him. Fairness demands that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way, that an illiterate mind or one which is perturbed or confused can readily appreciate and understand. He would further argue that, when a certain thing is to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all. When each and every incriminating circumstance should have been put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it should have been done by the trial court, without fail. 18. He would further argue that, when a certain thing is to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all. When each and every incriminating circumstance should have been put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it should have been done by the trial court, without fail. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi [2024 KHC 6325 : AIR 2024 SC 3233 ] would say that, non examination or inadequate examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, on any incriminating circumstance, by itself, would not vitiate a trial qua the convict concerned, unless it has resulted in material prejudice to him or in miscarriage of justice. Moreover, a mere defective/improper examination under Section 313 would not be a ground, to set aside conviction of the accused, unless it has resulted in prejudice to the accused. 19. Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [2012 KHC 4015 : AIR 2012 SC 3802 ] was also relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor to say that, if at all the trial court failed to draw the attention of the accused to the incriminating evidence and inculpatory materials brought in by prosecution specifically, distinctly and separately, that may not by itself render the trial bad in the eye of law. 20. Paragraph 57 of Alister Anthony’s case cited supra reads thus: “57. From the above, the legal position appears to be this : the accused must be apprised of incriminating evidence and materials brought in by the prosecution against him to enable him to explain and respond to such evidence and material. Failure in not drawing the attention of the accused to the incriminating evidence and inculpatory materials brought in by prosecution specifically, distinctly and separately may not by itself render the trial against the accused void and bad in law; firstly, if having regard to all the questions put to him, he was afforded an opportunity to explain what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him and secondly, such omission has not caused prejudice to him resulting in failure of justice. The burden is on the accused to establish that by not apprising him of the incriminating evidence and the inculpatory materials that had come in the prosecution evidence against him, a prejudice has been caused resulting in miscarriage of justice”. 21. In the case on hand, the accused was well aware of the charge levelled against him, that he abetted the suicide of deceased Bindu, Exts.P4 and P5 letters also were put to him, during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and copies of those documents, also were given to him. So he had got every opportunity to explain, what he had to say about those letters. 22. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts, when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. 23. Ext.P5, the suicide note recovered from the body of deceased Bindu, reads thus: 24. On going through Ext.P5 document, it could be seen that it contains the statement of the deceased as to the cause of her death, and the circumstances which led to her death. So, Ext.P5 is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, as it can be treated as her dying declaration. 25. In the celebrated decision Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [1939 KHC 12], the Privy Council held that, the statements written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person, who is dead, as to the cause of his death, are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not at the time when they were made, under expectation of death and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. 26. 26. Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death and which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 and, therefore, admissible, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra [1984 KHC 145]. 27. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohammad Shahid and Another [2019 KHC 2362], the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that, suicide note of the prosecutrix can be treated as dying declaration and would be admissible in evidence. Evidence as to cause of death would be relevant, not only in relation to cause of death of person making such statement, but also to circumstances of transaction which resulted in her death. Wordings in the suicide note clearly indicative of the fact that prosecutrix was violated and she committed suicide as she did not want to live a life of disgrace. 28. In the case on hand, Ext.P5 suicide note was sufficient to show the cause of death of Ms.Bindu and also the circumstances which led to her suicide. There is sufficient indication in Ext.P5 that, she was sexually exploited by the accused on several occasions and thereafter he asked her to commit suicide and he even bought poison for her, asking her to commit suicide. Ext.P5 letter says that, she will consume poison bought by the accused and if she could not die of that, she would hang herself. There is evidence to show that the deceased hanged herself, in the lean-to of the house of the accused. Ext.P13 chemical report is to the effect that, fibres of the plastic rope with which the deceased hanged could be detected in the cellophane tape impressions taken from the rafters in the lean-to of the house of accused. 29. The accused was facing the charge of abetting the suicide of deceased Bindu. The prosecution witnesses stated before court that, the deceased and the accused were in an affair. The accused was a married man aged 42 as on the date of incident, and the deceased was a girl aged 21. Ext.P5 suicide note clearly shows the circumstances which prompted her to commit suicide. Ext.P5 letter was recovered from the body of the deceased, at the time of inquest. The accused was a married man aged 42 as on the date of incident, and the deceased was a girl aged 21. Ext.P5 suicide note clearly shows the circumstances which prompted her to commit suicide. Ext.P5 letter was recovered from the body of the deceased, at the time of inquest. Exts.P4 and P5 letters were proved through PW2-the brother of the deceased. Copy of Exts.P4 and P5 letters were given to the accused. Moreover, Ext.P5 letter was extracted in Ext.P8 inquest report itself. When PW2 identified Exts.P4 and P5 letters as written by his sister deceased Bindu, there was no cross examination to the effect that, those letters were not written by deceased Bindu. The only question put to PW2 regarding Ext.P5 letter was that whether he had seen his sister writing that letter. There was not even a suggestion from the part of accused that Ext.P5 letter was not in the handwriting of deceased Bindu. So, now the accused cannot contend that prejudice was caused to him by not putting the contents of that letter, in his 313 examination. 30. In Shama v. State of Haryana [2017 KHC 6958], Hon’ble Apex Court held that, dying declaration made by the deceased is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of any kind of infirmity or/and suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, once it is proved in evidence in accordance with law, it can be relied on for convicting an accused, even in the absence of corroborative evidence, but with a rule of prudence, that it should be so done, with extreme care and caution. 31. In Ramesh Gyanoba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra [2011 KHC 6705], the Bombay High Court held that, for proving a dying declaration recorded by a person/Magistrate/Executive Magistrate, it is not essential requirement of law, that the recorder should repeat, while deposing before the Court, the contents of the declaration, in the words spoken by the deceased as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. 32. As we have seen, copy of Ext.P5 suicide note was given to the accused and that document was identified and marked through PW2, the brother of the accused, before court. 32. As we have seen, copy of Ext.P5 suicide note was given to the accused and that document was identified and marked through PW2, the brother of the accused, before court. Prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that, the accused was in a relation with the deceased and when that relationship got strained, she committed suicide. Ext.P5 suicide note clearly indicates the circumstances which led to her death, and evidently, it was the accused who abetted her suicide. There was no serious challenge against Ext.P5 suicide note from the part of accused and there was not even a suggestion that Ext.P5 suicide note was not written by the deceased. While questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it was suggested to him that Ext.P5 letter was written by deceased Bindu and it was recovered from her dead body, though the contents of that letter were not put to him specifically. When Ext.P5 is treated as the dying declaration of the deceased under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, and it was proved through PW2, the brother of the deceased, it was not necessary for him to depose the contents. If at all the trial court while 313 questioning omitted to put to the accused, the contents of that dying declaration, as held by the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar’s case cited supra, non- examination or inadequate examination under Section 313, on any incriminating circumstance, by itself, will not vitiate a trial qua the convict concerned unless it has resulted in material prejudice to him or in miscarriage of justice. So even if the contents of Ext.P5 letter were not put to the accused specifically, it cannot be a ground to set aside his conviction, in the absence of evidence of any material prejudice or miscarriage of justice. 33. In the case on hand, there was no case for the accused before the trial court that, prejudice has been caused to him by not putting the contents of Ext.P5 suicide note to him specifically. As we have seen, in cross examination there was no question put to PW2 challenging Ext.P5 suicide note written by the deceased. 34. 33. In the case on hand, there was no case for the accused before the trial court that, prejudice has been caused to him by not putting the contents of Ext.P5 suicide note to him specifically. As we have seen, in cross examination there was no question put to PW2 challenging Ext.P5 suicide note written by the deceased. 34. In Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi [2023 KHC 6862], Hon’ble Apex Court held that, where there is failure in putting the incriminating circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that, its noncompliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time before the appellate court, it could be assumed that no prejudice has been felt by the accused. 35. In Nar Singh v. State of Haryana [2014 KHC 4711], Hon’ble Apex Court held that, when vital incriminating circumstances were not put to accused during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the burden is upon the accused to prove that prejudice was caused to him. 36. To sum up, accused abetted suicide of the deceased. Accused failed to plead or prove any prejudice, or miscarriage of justice by not putting the contents of Ext.P5 letter to him, when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He had got every opportunity to explain his stand with respect to Ext.P5 letter, as he was well aware of the charge levelled against him, and he was furnished with the copy of Ext.P5 letter well in advance. Moreover, he had not raised the plea of any such prejudice before the trial court, and such a plea is raised for the first time before the appellate court. So, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Section 306 of IPC. 37. Regarding the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for leniency, as the accused is now suffering from coronary artery disease and marriage of his daughter is scheduled etc. etc. True that, the incident occurred in the year 1998. At that time, the accused was a married man aged 42. Ext.P5 suicide note will show that, wife of the accused was not aware of the relationship which the accused was having with the deceased. etc. True that, the incident occurred in the year 1998. At that time, the accused was a married man aged 42. Ext.P5 suicide note will show that, wife of the accused was not aware of the relationship which the accused was having with the deceased. So, in fact he is not deserving any leniency for abetting suicide of a 21 year old girl. Moreover, the trial court was too lenient while sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only, under Section 306 of IPC. No further leniency is warranted in this case and so this Court is inclined to uphold the impugned judgment. So, upholding the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed. Registry to forward a copy of this judgment along with the TCR to the trial court forthwith, for executing the sentence without delay.