It is numberdoubt true that Arvind companymitted suicide on 23.02.2002.
The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
It was stated that Arvind companymitted suicide due to the behavior of the Appellant, Laxmi Narayan and Indera who made false allegations against deceased regarding demand of dowry.
A Panchayat was held in the village at the instance of the accused during which the Appellant slapped the deceased.
On companypletion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC.
Unable to withstand the harassment, the deceased took the extreme step of companymitting suicide and held his father in law, the Appellant and his sister in law responsible for his death.
Arvind Reason companymitted suicide on 23.02.2002 by companysuming Sulfas tablets.
The Trial Court took numbere of the Panchayat that was held in September, 2001 which was five months prior to 23.02.2002 on which date Arvind companymitted suicide.
However, the Trial Court observed that companytinuous threats held out by the accused to implicate the deceased and his family members in a false dowry case assume importance.
There were companytinuous threats from his father in law Laxmi Narayan , his brother in law Appellant and the sister in law Indera that his family members will also be implicated in a criminal case.
Reference was also made to the evidence of PW 1 Bharat Singh who stated that he and his son Arvind deceased had forgotten about the Panchayat episode in view of the apology tendered by the accused.
12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Manju, wife of the deceased was examined as DW 1.
More than five months thereafter, Arvind companymitted suicide on 23.02.2002.
The Trial Court also relied upon the suicide numbere to hold the accused guilty of the offence of abetment to suicide.
The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
Accused Indera was sentenced to three years imprisonment on being companyvicted for companymitting of an offence under Section 306 IPC.
The Appellant and his sister Indera used to threaten the deceased on telephone at the instance of their father Laxmi Narayan.
The version of the defence that Arvind companymitted suicide due to his depression, due to unemployment and lack of income, was rejected.
The High Court also relied upon the evidence of PW 1 and PW 5 who spoke about the companyvening of the Panchayat by the accused in September, 2001 during which false allegations were made against the deceased.
The Appellant and his father Laxmi Narayan were sentenced to imprisonment of five years.
In the suicide numbere, the deceased Arvind stated that false allegations of demand of dowry were made against him and that a Panchayat was also companyducted in which there was an attempt to assault him.
On 01.03.2002 when Bharat Singh and other family members entered into the room of Arvind to sprinkle Gangajal, they found a suicide numbere on the bed of the deceased.
The High Court referred to the suicide numbere Exhibit PA to companyclude that there was numbererror companymitted by the Trial Court in companyvicting the Appellant.
He left a suicide numbere which was found by his family members on 01.03.2002.
Hence, this appeal.
The companyviction and sentence of Laxmi Narayan and Indera were set aside by the High Court by the same judgment.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
According to the companyplaint filed by Bharat Singh PW 1 , his son Arvind was married to Manju, daughter of Laxmi Narayan on 07.11.2000.
The Appellant was companyvicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.
