Supreme Court Of India

Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. S.107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal mission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of s.107. S.109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in s.109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. [Para 6] [1053-g, 1054-a, b, c] 2. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. Merely on the allegation of harassment, conviction in terms of s.306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs. 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this. In the background facts, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. [Paras 7 and 8] [1054-c, d, e] Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) AIR SCW 4570, relied on. Shankar Divate, (A.C) for the Appellant. Merusagar Samantarary, Vairagya Vardhan and C.D. Singh for the Respondent.