JUDGMENT : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 180/2006, convicting the accused/appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 498-A IPC. R.I. for 01 year. Under Section 306 IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. 2. According to the prosecution case, deceased Venu Gupta and appellant Ashok Kumar Gupta were in a love relationship for a year prior to the incident and they had performed marriage in Dongargarh temple and lived together as husband and wife. Meanwhile, the deceased became pregnant and both of them got married in the Court on 24/4/2006 before the Marriage Officer, Durg, had obtained a certificate (Ex.P-3) and started living together. During this period, the appellant started misbehaving and harassed her mentally and physically, due to which there was a rift between the two, and deceased Venu Gupta told her parents and family members about the continuous harassment by the appellant. In this regard, a social meeting was also convened, wherein appellant Ashok Gupta gave assurance letter to his wife Venu Gupta that he would not harass and torture her again, but even after the assurance given by the appellant, he did not stop harassing Venu Gupta, due to which the deceased got upset and hanged herself with sari, due to which she died. The information of death was given to the police station by deceased Venu Gupta's father-in-law Motilal Gupta, on which a merg intimation (Ex.P-10) was recorded. During investigation, inquest (Ex.P-2) on the body of deceased was prepared by Executive Magistrate, and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Durg, which was conducted by Dr. S.R. Churendra (PW-14), who gave his report under Ex.P-22 noticing following injuries/symptoms :- Both eyes were closed, conjunctives congested, pupil dilated and fixed. Face congested. Mouth was little open, dried salvia from left angle of mouth, nails were bluish in colour and there was no external injury. Dark brownish mark of ligature was present above thyroid cartilage oblique in anteriorly in upper part of neck, then following lower border of mandible side upto left angle of mandible directing upward. In right side oblique placed to middle of neck, right laterally then directed upward backward posteriorly. Dark brownish mark of ligature was present above thyroid cartilage oblique in anteriorly in upper part of neck, then following lower border of mandible side upto left angle of mandible directing upward. In right side oblique placed to middle of neck, right laterally then directed upward backward posteriorly. Skin beneath ligature was dried parchment like. Ecchymosis present in border of ligature, and ligature material was removed. The doctor has opined the cause of death of deceased due to be hanging and mode of death was asphyxia. 3. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 306, 304-B and 498-A of IPC before the jurisdictional Court. 4. The trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The accused/appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. One defence witness was also examined in the case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment has convicted the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value, no offence is made out against the appellant under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is unjust, unwarranted and against the requirement of law. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased and the appellant had performed court marriage, therefore, question of dowry does not arise, as such, the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 498-A of IPC is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that according to the evidence of Yogesh Kumar Verma (PW-1) and Ashok Kumar Verma (PW-2), brother and father of deceased respectively, the deceased was frequently visiting her maternal house, which resembles that she was not bounded by the appellant and the story of harassment is concocted. Learned counsel further submits that according to the evidence of Yogesh Kumar Verma (PW-1) and Ashok Kumar Verma (PW-2), brother and father of deceased respectively, the deceased was frequently visiting her maternal house, which resembles that she was not bounded by the appellant and the story of harassment is concocted. PW-2 has also stated that his daughter deceased never made any complaint to him nor asked anything from him in dowry and not stated anything about harassment by the appellant but the learned trial Court ignoring the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses, convicted him, which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also submits that Sahodara Bai (PW-3), mother of the deceased, has stated that when her daughter was absconding, they did not make any attempt to find her, which reflects the amount of care and protection by the parents. The overact statement given by this witness is outcome of the enmity with the appellant because of inter caste marriage. The independent witness T. Mohan Rao (PW-4) who was present at the time of incident, has not stated anything against the appellant, rather he has stated that there was no such dispute between the couple and they were residing happily. Further, other independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case but their evidence has been ignored by the learned trial Court while recording the finding of conviction. Learned counsel also submits that there are material omission and contradiction in the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to that of the Court statements but the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence did not consider such omission and contradiction & thus committed illegality. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2009) AIR (SC) 1928 and Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan , (2017) AIR (SC) 2425 . 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence & submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 9. State of Rajasthan , (2017) AIR (SC) 2425 . 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence & submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 11. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. It is not in dispute that the death of deceased took place within 07 years of marriage. 12. As regards the unnatural death of deceased, this Court finds from the evidence of Dr. S.R. Churendra (PW-14), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P/23 opining the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging, as such, death of deceased was unnatural. 13. Yogeshwar Kumar Verma (PW-1) is brother of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased was his younger sister and she had performed court marriage with the appellant and she had been residing with the appellant in his house at Ankush Chowk, Chhavni. He has also stated that prior to the death of deceased, a meeting was held in his home in presence of panchas, wherein the appellant and the deceased were also present. Due to assault and harassment by the appellant, his sister had already come to his home and her face was swollen. In the meeting, an assurance was given by the appellant that he would not commit maarpeet with the deceased and keep her well & and if anything happens to her, he will be responsible for it. The said assurance given by the appellant was reduced in writing also. Thereafter, the appellant took his sister with him. He has also stated that his sister on the date of her death had come to his house. The brother-in-law (Jija) of the appellant had informed about the ill health of his sister and he was called in the hospital. The said assurance given by the appellant was reduced in writing also. Thereafter, the appellant took his sister with him. He has also stated that his sister on the date of her death had come to his house. The brother-in-law (Jija) of the appellant had informed about the ill health of his sister and he was called in the hospital. At that time, he was sleeping and his mother woke him up and informed him about his sister’s condition. Then they went to S.S. Hospital where the doctor informed them that his sister is not in hospital. After that, they went to Karuna Hospital, where his sister was already died and rigor mortise was present. He has also stated that thereafter his sister was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital by appellant and his brothers, where the doctor had told the appellant that he has killed both the deceased and her child in abdomen. The doctor had also told to take his sister in Govt. Hospital but the appellant and his brother did not take the deceased to Govt. Hospital and brought her to their home. This witness has also stated that the police personnel had come to appellant’s house where they prepared inquest on the dead body of his sister and he admitted his signature on notice (Ex.P-1)and inquest memo (Ex.P-2) on ‘A to A’ part. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that the appellant used to commit maarpeet and harass his sister even after giving assurance in writing. He has also admitted that the inquest memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared by the Magistrate and not by the police. This witness, in para 11, has also admitted this suggestion of defence that his sister herself went to the appellant and they had not sent her. He has also admitted that the appellant was residing separately from his parents and his parents had stopped giving ration and financial assistance & the appellant and his (this witness’s) sister had shortage of food in home. He has also admitted this suggestion of defence that his sister used to come to their house and ask for food, which they used to give her. 14. Ashok Kumar Verma (PW-2) is the father of deceased. He has also admitted this suggestion of defence that his sister used to come to their house and ask for food, which they used to give her. 14. Ashok Kumar Verma (PW-2) is the father of deceased. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that his deceased daughter had performed court marriage with the appellant and she used to come his home and demand ration and money. In para 8 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that his deceased daughter had told the incident of marrpeet to her mother and not him. He has also admitted this suggestion of defence that he came to know from his wife that the appellant works in private company and he gets the wages after 15 days and in the meanwhile they suffer shortage of food and due to this, his daughter used to come to his home and demand money for vegetables and food. He has also admitted that his daughter never told him that she felt guilty after performing love marriage with the appellant. This witness has also admitted this suggestion that he had not given any dowry at the time of marriage of deceased and the appellant nor the appellant had demanded any dowry from him. 15. Sahodara Bai (PW-3) is the mother of deceased. She has stated that her deceased daughter used to come to her home and say that there is no grocery items and money in her house and the appellant used to harass her. Her daughter had told that the appellant did not give her food and commit maarpeet with her and she (this witness) used to give ration and money to her daughter. She has also stated that in the night intervening 14/15 at around 02.00 AM, she received a information from appellant’s father that health condition of her daughter is not good, then she along with her son Yogesh Verma (PW-1) went to S.S. Hospital, where they came to know that her daughter was taken to Karuna Hospital. After reaching Karuna Hospital she saw that appellant was with her daughter in rickshaw and from where looking to her condition, she was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital and she (this witness) had also gone with her deceased daughter, where the doctor was scolding upon the appellant that he has committed two murders. Her deceased daughter was pregnant. After reaching Karuna Hospital she saw that appellant was with her daughter in rickshaw and from where looking to her condition, she was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital and she (this witness) had also gone with her deceased daughter, where the doctor was scolding upon the appellant that he has committed two murders. Her deceased daughter was pregnant. She has also stated that she does not know that how her daughter died. In cross- examination, she has admitted that her daughter had performed love marriage. This witness has admitted the suggestion of defence that she did not give statement of demand of dowry in her police statement. In para 10, she has admitted that her daughter used to come home and say that there was no ration, vegetables and money in her house then she (this witness) used to give money for ration and vegetables. This witness has also admitted that on 14.05.2006 her daughter had also come and went with ration and money. 16. T. Mohan Rao (PW-4) is neighbour of the appellant. He has stated that on the date of incident deceased was carrying 7- 8 month’s pregnancy. She died by hanging. On the date of incident, the appellant was screaming from his house taking his name that “eksgu HkS¸;k cpkvks cpkvks”. After hearing the cries of appellant 3-4 times, he went to his house and saw that deceased Venu Verma was hanging & appellant and his brother was holding her from below. At that time, deceased Venu Verma was alive, she was not speaking but was fluttering. He has also stated that the appellant and his brother took down the deceased from hanging noose. They took her down from the noose and made her sit by the side of wall. Thereafter, he called Dr. P. N. Roy who checked up the deceased and said that he won’t be able to do anything and advice them to take deceased Venu Verma to higher center then they took the deceased to S.S. Hospital. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross- examined him then he denied all suggestions of prosecution and also denied his police statement Ex.P-7. He admitted this suggestion of defence that the appellant and deceased were residing happily. 17. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross- examined him then he denied all suggestions of prosecution and also denied his police statement Ex.P-7. He admitted this suggestion of defence that the appellant and deceased were residing happily. 17. Bhagwat Prasad (PW-5) and Chandra Shekhar (PW-6) have stated that the father of deceased had called them and asked to sign on a paper, then they signed the paper. They do not know what the paper was about. At that time, the appellant was also there. The prosecution declared these witness hostile and cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution and denied their police statements. 18. Raj Kumar Gupta (DW-1) is the brother of appellant. He has stated that on the date of incident at around 10.00 PM, they all had dinner together. The deceased was also with them. At around 12.00 O’clock, after hearing the cries of appellant ‘cpkvks cpkvks’ he went there running and saw that the deceased was hanging, the appellant took down the deceased and he also took down the deceased so that the noose does not get tighten. He has also stated that thereafter he also screamed ‘cpkvks cpkvks’ then his neighbour T. Mohan Rao (PW-4) came to the spot running, thereafter, they all trio took down the deceased from noose and called Dr. P.N. Roy who advice them to take the deceased to higher center. He has also stated that thereafter they took the deceased to S.S. Hospital but due to non-availability of doctor, they took the deceased to Karuna Hospital, where the nurse told them that the doctor would not be available then they took the deceased to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, where the doctor declared the deceased brought dead and then they took the body of deceased to home. 19. Close scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution and defence witnesses goes to show that the appellant and deceased had performed love marriage and as per the statement of brother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3) of the deceased, the appellant and the deceased were facing some financial crises, so the deceased was in need of some financial assistance from her parents for grocery and other daily needs, and the parents of deceased were supplying the ration and giving money for her livelihood. 20. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gopal (supra) held in paras 11 and 12 as under :- “11. For bringing in application of Section 306 IPC, suicide has to be established. In the instant case, the trial Court and the High Court have categorically held that no suicide has been established. 12. So far as Section 498A(b) is concerned, there must be an evidence of demand of dowry. There is no evidence in that regard adduced by the prosecution. That begin so, as rightly contended by learned Counsel for the appellant Section 498A(b) has no application.” 21. In M. Arjunan (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 8 as under:- “8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.” 22. In Heera Lal (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 8, 9 and 10 as under:- “8. We find that having absolved the appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide. 9. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is “abetment of suicide”. 10. 9. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is “abetment of suicide”. 10. On the facts, therefore, we find, especially in view of the fact that the appellants have been acquitted for the crime under Section 498A of the Code, that abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made out.” 23. In the light of above quoted judicial pronouncement by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, it is apparent from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that on the date of incident, the appellant and his brother were trying to save the life of deceased by taking down her from the noose. When the deceased was took down from the noose, she was alive and fluttering and while she was being taken to hospital, on the way she died. It is also clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the appellant and deceased had performed love marriage and they were facing some financial crisis and due to this, she committed suicide by hanging. It has not come on record that the deceased was harassed to such an extent so that she took this extreme step of suicide only because of his harassment rather it appears that she took the extreme step of suicide because of financial crisis which she was facing after marriage. The allegation of demand of dowry against the appellant has been denied by the brother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3) in their cross-examination. 24. In the society, generally after marriage if parents found their daughter under financial crisis to such an extent that they are unable to arrange for their day-to-day’s meals for their livelihood, the parents with their obligatory duty extend help and such assistance should not have been seen in the role of dowry. In the instant case, according to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the deceased was assisted only for grocery and money for vegetables, as such the offence under Section 498-A of IPC does not attract in this case. 25. In the instant case, according to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the deceased was assisted only for grocery and money for vegetables, as such the offence under Section 498-A of IPC does not attract in this case. 25. So far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. The essential ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution against the appellant but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and recorded perverse finding. 26. Thus, in absence of any credible and clinching material to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at definite conclusion that the deceased committed suicide due to instigation of accused/appellant. To reiterate, the prosecution has completely failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide and tortured the deceased for demand of dowry, as such, the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the accused/appellant. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending him benefit of doubt. 28. The appellant is on bail. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by extending him benefit of doubt. 28. The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.