JUDGMENT : Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 14.08.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.150/2018, whereby, the respondent- Nivedita Dalal, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased, namely, Devashish Dalal, who was the husband of the respondent- Nivedita Dalal, has committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.06.2017 on account of physical and mental torture given by her. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the respondent has illicit relations with someone else and always used to talk late night and, used to fight with her husband whenever he objected to it. It is alleged further that on account of the instigation made by the respondent, the deceased has taken an extreme step on the said fateful day by hanging himself, owing to which, he was admitted into Sector-9, Hospital at Bhilai, where he was declared brought dead. A merg intimation (Ex.P-3) was, therefore, lodged by one Bhagwan Singh, an employee of the said Hospital and, during the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the deceased was in depression because of physical and mental torture given by his wife, who instigated him to take such an extreme step for committing suicide and, after Inquest (Ex.P-10) being done, the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and according to the postmortem report (Ex.P-11), the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia, occurred due to hanging and was, thus, held to be suicidal in nature and, based upon the said enquiry, an FIR (Ex.P-20) was registered against the respondent on 04.08.2017 in connection with Crime No.170/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who in turn, has committed the matter before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg and, based upon the materials available on record, she was charge-sheeted on 19.11.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the charge, so framed, was denied by her and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, observed that none of the witnesses have stated that the respondent has made any cruelty upon her husband or has instigated him for taking such an extreme step for committing suicide and, therefore, in absence of the ingredients provided under Section 107 of IPC, the respondent cannot be held guilty for the commission of the alleged crime and, accordingly, she has been acquitted by the impugned judgment and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent has neither harassed or maltreated her husband or has instigated him for taking such an extreme step for committing suicide, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, as the extra- marital relation of her with someone else was of such a degree, which has disturbed the mental balance of her husband, compelling him to commit suicide, but the trial Court has, failed to consider the same in its proper perspective and, thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Kaushaki Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while inviting attention to the evidence of close relatives of the deceased submits that since none of them have established the fact that the respondent has extra-marital relations with someone else, therefore, based upon their bald allegations and in absence of proof of mens rea to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. In support, she placed her reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat and Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chourasiya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 and (2015) 11 SCC 753 , respectively. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Devashish Dalal, who was the husband of the respondent- Nivedita Dalal, has committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.06.2017 because of her ill behaviour and harassment. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. According to the prosecution, the deceased- Devashish Dalal, who was the husband of the respondent- Nivedita Dalal, has committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.06.2017 because of her ill behaviour and harassment. It is the case of the prosecution that the wife of the deceased, the respondent herein, has illicit relations with others and, who used to talk till late night with someone else and often used to harass and maltreat her husband physically and mentally whenever he objected to her. It is alleged further that because of ill behaviour and instigation made by the respondent, her husband has committed suicide by hanging himself. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegations, mother of the deceased, namely, Parul Dalal was examined as PW-4, who deposed in her evidence that the relation of her son with the respondent was cordial after the marriage, but her son came to know later on that, his wife has an illicit relation with some other person and despite of his resistance, she used to talk with someone else till late night. Further of her testimony would show that she was, however, not aware why he committed suicide and stated further that neither she, nor her son has lodged the report against the respondent for the alleged harassment, alleged to have been meted out by her. It reveals further from her evidence that her deceased-son was in depression because of suffering from the disease of “Harnia”. 9. Manish Kumar Dalal (PW-5) is the brother of the deceased and according to him, he was informed by his deceased-brother that, his wife and children used to behave with him unnaturally and have caused injuries to him and was informed further that his wife used to talk with someone in the late night. Further of his evidence would show that they used to quarrel on trivial issues and, it also reveals from his testimony that owing to the disease of “Harnia”, his brother was operated in the month of April, 2017. His wife- Sunali Dalal (PW-3) is a hearsay witness who came to know something in the month of March, 2017 that, her sister-in-law (deceased’s wife) has an illicit relation with someone else and used to assault him with the help of her children. 10. His wife- Sunali Dalal (PW-3) is a hearsay witness who came to know something in the month of March, 2017 that, her sister-in-law (deceased’s wife) has an illicit relation with someone else and used to assault him with the help of her children. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the relatives of the deceased, it appears that, though, it was alleged that the respondent has illicit relation with someone else, but no specific evidence to this effect has either been led by them or have alleged that the alleged act of her has caused mental cruelty upon her husband. Therefore, based upon such a vague allegation, it cannot be said that the respondent has any illicit relation with someone else, or her husband has committed suicide on account of it. Besides, none of them have stated that the deceased has committed suicide because of the abetment of his wife/respondent. 11. It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra) , where the Supreme Court was dealing with a question as to whether the extra- marital relationship between the appellant and the second respondent therein led to cruelty upon his wife within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and, whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC and after considering the said issue, it was opined at para 27 as under :- “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 under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital 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”. 12. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital 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”. 12. Likewise, in the matter of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chourasiya (Supra) , it was held by the Supreme Court that even if the illicit relationship is proved, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, the cruelty defined under Section 498-A of IPC, would not be attracted. The relevant observation made therein at paragraph 21 reads as under :- “ 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 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 Rawal, 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 Appellant 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 IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted”. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is, thus, evident that solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife would, however, cannot be regarded as mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. 14. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is, thus, evident that solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife would, however, cannot be regarded as mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. 14. Moreover, in the instant matter, it was, however, revealed contrarily from the evidence led by the prosecution that the deceased was, in fact, in depression because of suffering from the disease of “Harnia” and, even during the course of inquest of his dead body, conducted vide Ex.P-10, it was revealed based upon the evidence of his relatives that he was not only a ‘Sugar patient’, but was operated for the disease of “Harnia” and often used to live in depression. 15. Pertinently, to be noted here further that although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself on 08.06.2017 on account of physical and mental torture given by his wife, but no report to this effect was, however, lodged against the respondent immediately upon the death of her husband and, instead much after his sad demise, a written report (Ex.P-16) was lodged by his parents on 18.07.2017, where also, no allegation as such was made and contrarily, it was alleged that their son was murdered by his wife. No cogent and reliable evidence, has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the deceased has committed suicide because of the abetment given by his wife. 16. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 , wherein, it was held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC . 17. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC . 17. Likewise, is the principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. , reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 at para 12 as under :- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." ( emphasis supplied 18. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, it is, thus, evident that in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. However, in the instant matter, as observed herein- above, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent has abetted or instigated her husband for taking such an extreme step of committing suicide on the said fateful day attributing the respondent for the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. 19. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.