Mere exclusion from home, without instigation or mens rea, does not establish abetment of suicide.

The appellant, the deceased’s mother-in-law, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to concurrent terms of three years’ and one year’s rigorous imprisonment, respectively

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and other family members harassed the deceased and, on 20 December 2010, prevented her from entering the matrimonial home; the deceased later died by suicide by setting herself ablaze

The trial court acquitted the other accused. On appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of abetment and cruelty

Whether the evidence established that the appellant abetted the deceased’s suicide, attracting Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC

Whether the evidence proved cruelty by the appellant sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC

Section 306 of the IPC requires proof of suicide and abetment, with abetment established through one of the modes in Section 107—instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aid

The court applied the principles in Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra: harassment alone does not establish abetment; there must be a sufficiently proximate act, a clear mens rea to instigate or aid the suicide, and conduct amounting to a positive contribution to it

A conviction under Section 498A likewise requires evidence establishing the offence’s necessary ingredients

The evidence of the four witnesses relied on by the court showed that the deceased was sitting outside the matrimonial home while the appellant was inside and had not allowed her to enter

The allegation that the deceased was denied food was an improvement in a witness’s account, and the mother’s account of seeing the deceased outside was also an improvement over her police statement

The court found no other evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to harassment or cruelty. The act of preventing entry, on the evidence presented, did not prove a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid, or the requisite mens rea for abetment; nor did the evidence establish the ingredients of Section 498A

As she was on bail, she was not required to surrender; her bail bond was to remain in force for six months under Section 437A of the CrPC/Section 481 of the BNSS