1 2025:CGHC:50380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 24.07.2025. Judgment Delivered on 09.10.2025. ACQA No. 752 of 2024 1 - Dinesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Prithvi Pal Singh ,aged about 54 years, R/o Near Shanti Mata Temple Aadhar Taal, P.S Adhartal, District Jabalpur (C.G.),...(Complainat) --- Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through - S.H.O. Police Chowki Rampur P.S. City Kotwali Korba, District Korba (C.G.). 2 - Abhishek Singh S/o Shri Rajenedra Pratap Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o L.I.G. 43, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Neelam Singh W/o Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o L.I.G. 43, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.). 4 - Rajendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri Mata Prasad Singh, aged about 69 years, R/o L.I.G. 43, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondents CRA No. 1476 of 2024 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Abhishek Singh S/o Rajendra Pratap Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Lig 43, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Kotwali, Branch Rampur Korba District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. C.A.V. Judgment 1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2024, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. In ACQA 752 of 2024 :- This present acquittal appeal is preferred under Section 413 of the BNSS,2023 against the judgment dated 23.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge Distt. Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 58/2016, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges punishable under Sections 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC and acquittal of respondents No. 3 & 4 punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. In CRA No. 1476 of 2024:- This appeal arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Distt. Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial 3 No. 58/2016, wherein the said Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 498-A of IPC R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that the respondent No. 4 Rajendra Prasad Singh lodged the Morgue Intimation No. 01/2016 vide Ex. P/51 on 16.03.2016 stating that on 15.03.2016 at about 11:00 pm, some dispute arose between his daughter-in-law Ankita Singh (deceased) and his son Abhishek Singh (respondent No. 02), thereafter his daughter-in-law (deceased) entered into her room and locked the room from inside and after some time, Ankita Singh has committed suicide by hanging herself by tying a scarf (chunri) to a ceiling fan. The accused/appellants were under the impression that she is alive and as such, they took her to the hospital where the doctor has declared her dead. Based on the information, unnumbered morgue no. 0/16 vide Ex. P/51 was registered and spot map of the Panchnama of the said incident was prepared vide Ex. P/03. During the Panchnama, materials recovered from the site were seized in front of witnesses and a seizure memo vide Ex. P/40 was prepared and a spot map of the said incident was prepared vide Ex. P/52. Thereafter, the morgue intimation has been lodged and during the morgue inquiry, the police outpost 4 Rampur, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist-Korba (C.G.) collected the evidence, recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses and found prima facie offence under Section 306 of IPC, as such on 22.03.2016 registered the Crime No. 145/2016 vide Ex. P/50 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and after detailed enquiry, post mortem report vide Ex. P/03, report of handwriting expert vide Exs. P/42 & P/43, Whatsapp chats vide Exs. P/17 to P/24 and other evidences filed charge sheet on 13.06.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304B, 498-A, 34 of IPC against the respondent/accused No. 2 and one Nikita Shrivastava and subsequently filed the supplementary charge on 16.05.2017 against the respondents No. 3 & 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304B, 498-A, 34 of IPC. The co-accused Nikita Shrivastava had filed the C.R.R No. 213/2017 against the framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC and vide order dated 15.09.2017 she has been acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of IPC. The learned trial Court framed the charges against respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A/34, 304B/34 and in alternate 306/34 of IPC against which the Criminal Revision No. 700/2018 was preferred by the respondent accused which was partly allowed by this Court and the respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the trial was conducted for the remaining charges punishable under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 and in alternate 306/34 of IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, the trial Court has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited several documents vide Ex. P/1 to 55, 55A and Article A-1 to A-3, C-1 and defence has exhibited five 5 documents vide Ex. D/1 to D/5. The copy of exhibited documents are being annexed collectively herewith vide Annexure A-3. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondent/accused Nos. 3 & 4 of all the charges and convicted the accused/respondent No. 2 Abhishek Singh for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and awarded the sentence R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,50,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges punishable under Section 304B/34 and in alternate 306/34 of IPC ignoring the following incriminating circumstances and evidence against the respondents No. 2 to 4, the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the suspicious circumstances with respect to the death of Ankita Singh inside the locked room in presence of respondents No. 2 to 4 who have not explained their innocence and have also not discharged their burden of proof under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Court has also ignored the statement of PW/01 to PW/04 who have deposed regarding the deceased who was subjected to cruelty regarding demand of dowry. The respondent No. 4 himself has lodged the morgue intimation vide Ex. P/51 wherein he has stated regarding the quarrel between the deceased and respondent No. 2 at about 11:00 pm and soon after that Ankita Singh was found dead under suspicious circumstances which clearly attracts the offence under Section 304B of IPC. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge- 6 sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 306 of IPC and 498A of IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness has been adduced by them in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary on record, acquitted the appellant under Section 304B and in alternate 306 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 1476 of 2024 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC against the appellant cannot be upheld. The impugned judgment is against the legal principles and facts and circumstances of the case. All the prosecution witnesses does not support the storyline adopted by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that the Executive Magistrate, while documenting the morgue Ex. D/01 did not record any mention of cruelty by any accused persons, including the present appellant and there was a substantial 7 delay of approximately 21 days in registering the F.I.R. The suicide note left by the deceased contains no allegation against the accused persons regarding cruelty. In the absence of such allegations, it is inappropriate to presume cruelty by the accused persons. The learned trial Court also acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Section 304B of IPC. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 8. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 22.11.2016 in the matter of K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 11 SCC 176. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellants, as such the impugned judgment is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court. 10. ACQA No. 752/2024 filed by the complainant Dinesh Kumar Singh father of the deceased against the acquittal of the appellant and other co-accused persons for offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC in alternate Section 306 of IPC, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is bad both on facts and in law. The learned trial Court has wrongly ignored the statement of the prosecution witnesses who have supported the story of the complainant/prosecution. The learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges under 8 Sections 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC ignoring that the accused/respondent No. 02 was in extra marital affair with one Nikita Shrivastava due to which he wanted to end the relationship with the deceased and the family members/respondents No. 3 & 4 supported them which clearly establishes the motive for commission of crime. The learned trial Court erred in ignoring the document Ex. P-C-1 which is personal note book of the deceased Ankita Singh wherein she wrote about the day to day harassment made by the accused/respondent No. 02 and the other family members. The learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No. 02 to 04 of the charges under Sections 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC ignoring that as per the morgue intimation, the deceased died under suspicious circumstances inside a locked room and the accused/respondent No. 02 to 04 were the only persons present in the house but there is no explanation regarding breaking of door which is under their special knowledge under Section 106 of Evidence Act and ought to be proved by them. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and acquitted the respondents No. 02 to 04 despite presence of clear motive and furtherance of their common intention they have committed the offence which has been clearly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting respondents No. 03 and 04 of all charges leveled against them and convicting respondent No. 02 only for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, acquitting him from major charges of 304B in alternate Section 306 of IPC. The learned trial Court also erred in ignoring that the respondents No. 02 to 04/accused have in their 313 of Cr.P.C. statement have not only clearly 9 denied the allegation leveled against them, but also failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding presence in the house and suspicious unnatural death of the deceased. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents No. 3 & 4 are liable to be convicted under Sections 498-A/34, 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC and respondent No. 02 is liable to be convicted under Section 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC. 11. Reliance has been placed by Hon’ble Apex Court on AIR 2024 SC 5295 in the matter of Chabi Karmakar and Others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2016 SC 2689 in the matter of Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1418 in the matter of State of West Bengal, appellant v. Orilal Jaiswal and another, respondents. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 01/State supported the argument of the complainant and submits that all respondents No. 02 to 04 are liable to be convicted under Section 304B/34 of IPC. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 02 strongly opposes the argument of the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents No. 3 & 4 under Section 304B/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC and 498-A/34 of IPC. but the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the respondent No. 02 under Section 498A of IPC and he filed Criminal Appeal against this conviction and sentence which is pending for adjudication before this Court. So, this appeal and impugned judgment for conviction of respondent No. 02 under Section 498A of IPC is liable to be set aside. 10 14. Learned counsel for respondents No. 03 & 04 supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted them, so this acquittal appeal is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 15. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 16. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against respondents No. 02 to 04/accused in Acquittal Appeal No. 752/2024) 498A, 304B/34 in alternate Section 302/34 in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Smt. Neelam Singh and Rajendra Pratap Singh of all charges and convicted the accused Abhishek Singh for offence under Section 498A of IPC and acquitted him for other offence. 17. It is an admitted position before the learned trial Court that the deceased Ankita Singh is wife of accused Abhishek Singh, who died on 16.03.2016 i.e., within 07 years of her marriage and the accused Neelam singh and Rajendra Pratap Singh are her mother-in-law and father-in-law and are the parents of the accused Abhishek Singh. 18. (PW/01) Dinesh Kumar Singh, father of the deceased Ankita Singh has categorically stated against all accused persons that they have demanded Rs. 18 lakhs cash and for marriage expenses Rs. 5 lakhs and 10 tola gold and he also stated that all accused persons have 11 mentally and physically tortured his daughter for demand of dowry, but in his cross-examination he admitted that at the time of inquest memo, police has not recorded his statement and he prepared mobile recording after two and half years of death of his daughter and he also not got his daughter’s voice tested in forensic lab. 19. (PW/02) Lalmuni Singh, mother of the deceased has also stated against the accused person in her examination-in-chief, but she also stated that her daughter came to Jabalpur in December, 2015 and she also admitted that the accused persons are financially sound and their marriage was done in a good environment and he told all allegations at the time of her police statement, but in her police statement Ex. D/01 all these allegations are missing. 20. (PW/03) Tejbahadur Singh, (PW/04) Manoj Kumar Singh, uncles of the deceased have supported the statements of parents of the deceased by stating against all accused persons and love affair of Abhishek Singh with another woman. They have also stated that all allegations have been told to the police at the time of recording their police statement vide Ex. D/03 and Ex. D/04. 21. (PW/05) Ekansh Kesharwani has stated that Abhishek’s marriage was solemnized with Ankita Singh of Jabalpur, after the marriage, Ankita and Abhishek were living together with the accused persons, suddenly one night around 3 o'clock Abhishek called him and told him that his wife Ankita Singh had committed suicide. 22. The police has seized suicide note of deceased Ankita Singh, but as per 12 this note, it is clear that the deceased was mentally stressed due to love affair of her husband with another girl and in all these notes, she wrote about another girl and love affair of her husband Abhishek Singh. The learned trial Court has also written all such notes in para 61 of its judgment and last note which was written in para 21 is as under:- “21. रही बात divorce की तो ये word मेरी dictonary में हिह नहीं.... और at last अगर ये conddition आ भी गई तो मैं अपनी जान दे दूंगी, and that I promise my self.. और जो मेरा नहीं वो कभी हिकसी का नही होगा कभी नहीं.... मेरे जीते जी तो कभी नहीं.... और उस वजह को भी खत्म होना हिह पड़ेगा जिजसकी वजह से ये सब हुआ… . मैने कहा उसे छोड़ दो.... पर आप नहीं छोड़ पाये ..... लेहिकन उसने कहा मुझे छोड़ दो… . तो छोड़ने का फे सला कर लिलया… . क्या बस इतनी हिह importance थी मेरी आपकी life में....… क्यू नहीं देते मेरे सवालो के जवाब… . क्यों भाग जाते हो आप हर बार... Ansrs चाहिहये, वो आप जिसफ0 आपसे…… ..” So, it is clear from all these notes that she was mentally stressed and there is no any hint or indication of any physical cruelty or demand of dowry made by the accused/appellant. 23. From close scrutiny of statement of all witnesses, it is clear that the deceased was mentally stressed due to love affair of her husband with another girl. Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and Section 107 of IPC are 13 provided as under:- Section 498 A- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 306. Abetment 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. Section 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. 24. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 held in paras 23 & 27 which reads as under:- “23. We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such 14 would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A, IPC. Harassment, of course, need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498A, IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. We, on facts, found that the alleged extra-marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide. 27. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence 15 under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra-marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.” 25. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of K.V. Prakash Babu (supra) held in paras 14 to 18 which reads as under:- “14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat5 the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below:- (SCC PP. 759-60, para 21) “ 21. True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty 16 was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal4, but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.” 15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one’s endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. 17 16. We are absolutely conscious about the presumption engrafted under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The said provision enables the Court to draw presumption in a particular fact situation when necessary ingredients in order to attract the provision are established. In this regard, we may reproduce a passage from Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal4 : (SCC p. 58, para 26) “26….Criminal law amendment and the rule of procedure was necessitated so as to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill- treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives, demanding dowry. Legislative mandate of the section is that when a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty as per the terms defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide has been abetted by the husband or such person. Though a presumption could be drawn, the burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498-A IPC is on the prosecution.” We have reproduced the aforesaid passage only to highlight that the Court can take aid of the principles of the statutory presumption. 17. In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the house of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got involved with Deepa, the daughter of Ashwathamma. It has come on record through various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs to be noted that 18 Deepa, being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The mother and the brother of Deepa paved the same path. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 498A and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the accused-appellant under Section 306 IPC. 18. Having said that we intend to make it clear that if the husband gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under Section 306 IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments. And we so clarify.” 26. Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 27. 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; 19 (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 28. In the light of above cited judgments, it is clear that from the suicide note that the deceased was died because of mental agony which she underwent due to the love affair of her husband with another woman. The learned trial Court rightly finds that the essential ingredients of Sections 304B and 306 are not attracted in this case, but the learned trial Court convicted the appellant Abhishek Singh on this ground that as per Section 498A of IPC, one accused Abhishek Singh is guilty of mental cruelty as Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the husband gets involved in an extra marital affair that may not in all circumstances 20 invite conviction under Section 306 of IPC and in absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the explanation of Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive woman to commit suicide would not be attracted. The learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents No. 03 & 04 and respondent No. 02 in (Acquittal Appeal) under Sections 304B/34 of IPC in alternate Section 306/34 of IPC, but the learned trial Court only on the ground of suicide committed by the deceased convicted the appellant Abhishek Singh under Section 498A of IPC without appreciating the facts of present case that how the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court regarding conviction of the appellant Abhishek Singh is not sustainable. 29. As regards conviction of the appellant Abhishek Singh CRA No. 1473/2024, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant Abhishek Singh is not sustainable. 30. Ex consequenti, the appeal of the appellant Abhishek Singh i.e., CRA No. 1476 of 2024 allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against him, whereas the Acquittal Appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 31. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of 21 notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 32. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju