JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. - Parasram Wasudeo Maske, who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by his order dated 17-11-1992 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for two months, has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17-11-1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 2. On 17-2-1992, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur charged the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, Sec. 304-B IPC and Sec. 306 IPC for subjecting his wife Prita to cruelty and harassment which led her to commit suicide and also the death took place in connection with the demand for dowry other than normal circumstances. 3. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and the prosecution in support of its case examined P.W. - 1 Rita w/o Vinod Patil (Sister of deceased Prita), P.W. 2 Kalawati wlo Wasudeo Sontakke, (Mother of deceased Prita), P.W. 3, Alka w/o Gurunath Ganer (Sister of deceased Prita), P.W. 4 Hansraj Shriramji Meshram and also exhibited Post-mortem Examination Report (Ex. 36), First information Report (Ex. 34), Panchanama of the spot of occurrence (Ex. 13), Inquest Panchanama (Ex. 11) and Copy of Station Diary Sanha (Ex. 16). 4. The accused-appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied involvement in the crime and submitted that the prosecution evidence is false. 5. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that on 16-6-1988 at Untkhana, Nagpur, the accused subjected cruelty and harassment to his wife Prita in connection with demand for dowry before her death. The trial Court also held that the prosecution has not been able to prove in the same period, time and place, the accused abetted the deceased Prita for commission of suicide and accordingly, the trial Court found that prosecution has not been able to prove the case under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC. However, the trial Court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced him to suffer a sentence as aforesaid. Mr. However, the trial Court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced him to suffer a sentence as aforesaid. Mr. J.B. Kasat, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant strenuously urged that when the trial Court held that prosecution has not been able to prove offence under Section 304-B and Section 106 IPC. On self same facts the trial Court could not have held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Counsel would urge that the prosecution evidence does not establish that the deceased Prita was subjected to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC by the accused-appellant. It is also urged by the learned Counsel that though initially a report was lodged by deceased Prita on 9- 7 -1987 at Police Station Ganeshpeth stating therein that the accused has been beating her in connection with demand of dowry, but after that, Prita started living with the accused and therefore, if at all there were any cruelty on the part of the accused-appellant that was condoned by Prita. The learned Counsel also contended that she committed suicide on 16-6-1988 on her own without there being abetment on the part of the accused-appellant or because of any mental cruelty. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in support of his contention relied upon the decision reported in the case State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Lal (1992 Criminal Law Journal 273) of Rajasthan High Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of P.W. 1 Rita, P.W. 2, Kalawati and P.W. 3 Alka established beyond reasonable doubt the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the trial Court did not commit any error in holding the accused guilty of the said offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra1 and particularly paragraphs 15 to 19 of the said Judgment. 6. It is established on record that the accused appellant married Prita on 18:6-1984 and is rather admitted case that the accused-appellant married Prita on 18-6-1984. It is also the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused and Prita was inter-caste marriage and was a love marriage between the two. 6. It is established on record that the accused appellant married Prita on 18:6-1984 and is rather admitted case that the accused-appellant married Prita on 18-6-1984. It is also the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused and Prita was inter-caste marriage and was a love marriage between the two. According to P.W.1 Rita (the sister of deceased Prita) after the marriage, Prita was residing with the accused at Rambag. About 1½ to 2 years, nobody from their house was visiting the house of the accused, but later on she started visiting the house of the accused. According to her, there were always quarrels between the accused and the Prita and once there was quarrel in her presence. She deposed in her chief that Prita was told her that the accused was asking her to go to her parents along with the son for maintenance. When Prita was pregnant, the accused would not given her food and she (P.W.1) used to give her money on some occasion by way of help. She has also deposed that after the birth of second child, the quarrels between accused and his wife Prita increased and the accused used to tell Prita that his parents had seen one girl for him whose parents had agreed to give Rs. 25,000/- by way of Hunda. She also deposed that when son of Prita was six months old, she came to their house at Subhash Nagar and at that time the accused also came and demanded Rs. 300/- from my father through Prita for the treatment of child and my father gave Rs. 200/-. She also deposed that the accused was not at house for15 days prior to the death of Prita. According to her on 16th June (the date of incident) her elder sister Alka had gone to the house of the accused and at that time there was quarrel between accused and Prita on account of some credits of Rs. 22/- to Hs. 25/-. In cross-examination she admitted that there used to be quarrels between Prita and the accused since the accused was not giving money to Prita to pay her debts and that was the only reason of quarrel between them. P.W.2 Kalavati, the Mother of deceased Prita has also deposed on the lines of evidence of P.W.1 Rita. 22/- to Hs. 25/-. In cross-examination she admitted that there used to be quarrels between Prita and the accused since the accused was not giving money to Prita to pay her debts and that was the only reason of quarrel between them. P.W.2 Kalavati, the Mother of deceased Prita has also deposed on the lines of evidence of P.W.1 Rita. P.W.2, Kalawati also deposed that her daughter Prita lodged the report at Police Station Ganeshpeth on 9-6-1987 which is at Ex. 27 on record. In her cross-examination she admitted that after the marriage she met her only once at a house after 11months and the accused also met her once. The accused at that time demanded Rs. 25,000/- from them. In her cross-examination she admitted that her daughter married the accused against her desire and she did not feel happy about the marriage between the accused and Prita. 7. P.W.3, Alka is also the sister of deceased Prita. In her examination in chief, she stated that in her presence, the accused asked Prita to bring money from her parents to purchase Auto and if she did not, she should go to her parents house, otherwise, he would bum her She also deposed that the accused poured the kerosene on the body of Prita and threw burning match stick at her and therefore, she was burnt. However, in cross-examination, she stated that the Police recorded her statement only on 24-9-1988. In cross-examination, she further deposed that the accused set fire to Prita, but she could not tell why it did not find place in her statement. 8. That the sum and substance of the entire prosecution evidence and certain facts which are clearly borne out from the said evidence are that the marriage between Prita and the accused was inter-caste and love marriage and the family of Prita was not happy with the said marriage. For about a year, Prita even did not visit her parents house and even P. W .2, the mother of the deceased met Prita only once after marriage. Prita used to have borrowings from others and there were quarrels between Prita and the accused since accused was not giving money to her to pay the debts. Though on 9-6-1987 (Ex. For about a year, Prita even did not visit her parents house and even P. W .2, the mother of the deceased met Prita only once after marriage. Prita used to have borrowings from others and there were quarrels between Prita and the accused since accused was not giving money to her to pay the debts. Though on 9-6-1987 (Ex. 27), report was lodged by Prita at Police Station Ganeshpeth alleging demand of Dowry by the accused and beating given by him to her, but thereafter the accused and the deceased Prita started living together. Fifteen days prior to the date of the incident, the accused did not come to his house and when he came, there was a demand by Prita for payment of money to her to pay all her outstanding debts. The only reason for quarrel between the accused and Prita, according to P.W.1 Rita was that accused was not giving money to deceased Prita to clear her outstanding debts. 9. Obviously, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be said that the accusations constitute the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the accused. In any case the evidence is too weak to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A IPC, particularly on self same evidence, the trial Court has not found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC. 10. The Additional Public 'Prosecutor relied upon the observations made by me in Judgment delivered in Vishnu Dhage and others v. State (supra) which reads as under: "For a cruelty to be established as contemplated and within Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, some willful conduct or positive act relating to such harassment or ill-treatment or coercion has to be shown and as observed above, besides the bald and vague statements of P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 that In dubai was subjected to ill-treatment, for non-payment of Rs. 3,000/- no specific incidence of ill-treatment or harassment has been given by any of the three witnesses. 1,2 and 3 that In dubai was subjected to ill-treatment, for non-payment of Rs. 3,000/- no specific incidence of ill-treatment or harassment has been given by any of the three witnesses. In this view of the matter, there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for accused that the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code that A1 and the relatives of A1 who are A2, A3 and A4 subjected In dubai to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code." "I have already held that Indubai committed suicide and that finding of the Trial Court that Indubai met with suicidal death does not suffer from any infirmity. The question is, whether Indubai committed suicide due to abetment by any of the accused persons. The entire evidence of the prosecution relates to demand of sum of Rs. 3,000/- by the accused/appellants and no other demand. There is no evidence whatsoever by the prosecution that such demand was made immediately before the date of incident i.e. the suicide committed by Indubai. Before a person can be held to be guilty for an abetment, any of the ingredients as required under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code has to be satisfied and according to Section 107 IPC, a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; 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 intentionally aids, by any or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. On the face of the evidence led by the prosecution and already examined by me above, none of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied and, therefore, an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established. On the face of the evidence led by the prosecution and already examined by me above, none of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied and, therefore, an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established. " “The Additional Public Prosecutor in support of his contentions, referred to the two judgments of the Apex Court reported in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi2 and Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh Ors3.” The learned Additional Public Prosecutor mainly relied on para 5 of the report in Shobha Rani's case (Supra) which reads as under: "It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the Courts should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in our case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may rarely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or other economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them there may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon (1966) 2 All ER 257 (259) "the categories of cruelty are not closed". Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behavior, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful/realm of cruelty." 11. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behavior, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful/realm of cruelty." 11. I have perused the aforesaid Judgment in its entirety and in my view the said Judgment does not support the prosecution at all and if at all it helps, it help's the accused. 12. Taking entire facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and on proper appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 Rita, P.W.2 Kalawati, P.W.3 Alka, in my view the said evidence relied upon by the prosecution does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section- 498-A IPC and the sentence awarded to the accused for the said offence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in its Judgment dated 17-11-1992 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this Criminal Appeal No. 440/92 is allowed. The Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 17-11-1992 in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 1991 (State of Maharashtra v. Parsram Wasudeo Maske) is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The accused is already on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. 1. Crl. Appeal No. 363 of 1992; Decided on 19-8-1995 (Bom.). 2. AIR 1988 SC 121 . 3. AIR 990 SC 209.