JUDGMENT Both appellants have been convicted under sections 306 and 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years and three years respectively by the judgment and finding dated 8.9.1986 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 271/85. Being aggrieved by their convictions and sentences they have filed this appeal. Accused No. 2 Draupadi Bai is the mother of accused No. 1 Munnalal. Four or five years before Munnalal was married with Tulsabai. There was no issue out of the wedlock of Tulsabai and her husband Munnalal. The prosecution alleges that on 14.7.1985 at about 2 O'clock during the day Tulsabai burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil and committed suicide. Sunderlal lodged a report in the Police Station on the same day which is recorded in Roznamcha Sanha. The report is Ex. P-3. The police reached on the spot and made usual investigation. Dead body of Tulsabai was sent for postmortem. Postmortem report is Ex. P-1. It was on 17.9.1985 that the offences under sections 306 and 498-A IPC were registered. FIR (Ex. P-10) was recorded by Sub-Inspector R.K. Dubey. During investigation R.K. Dubey (PW 3) found that Tulsabai committed suicide and that during investigation he is of the opinion that her husband Munnalal, appellant No. 1 and her mother-in-law Draupadibai, appellant No. 2 were harassing her as a result thereof she committed the suicide. Challan was filed and the charges were framed against the accused-appellants. Appellants abjured their guilt and contended that they were falsely implicated. It was also contended that deceased was suffering from stomach trouble. The prosecution in this case has examined 16 witnesses. The learned Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted them. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that though the death had taken place on 14.7.1985, Chhotelal (PW 6), brother of the deceased had come while she was alive. He accompanied Tulsabai upto Sihora hospital. Tulsabai did not disclose anything to him. No report as such was lodged and it is only on 17.9.1985 that the case diary statements of these witnesses have been recorded. The learned defence counsel contended that the allegations about harassment and Marpit for the first time have been levelled against the appellants after more than two months and no report as such has been lodged. He relied on Naraini Devi v. State, I (1992) CCR 1096. The learned defence counsel contended that the allegations about harassment and Marpit for the first time have been levelled against the appellants after more than two months and no report as such has been lodged. He relied on Naraini Devi v. State, I (1992) CCR 1096. In Naraini Devi's case the deceased committed suicide on 10.10.1989 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.10.1989. It was held that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. In this case it is borne out from the evidence on record that immediately after the deceased Tulsabai poured kerosene oil and was at the village, her brother Chhotelal (PW 6) reached and accompanied Tulsabai to the hospital of Sihora arid there she died, but neither he nor any other relative bothered to lodge any report. Information about death of Tulsabai was given by village Kotwar. This is totally an unnatural conduct. He also contended that no complaint or report was ever lodged regarding harassp1ent and torture of the deceased. In the instant case the delay is of about two months and three days. The case diary statements of Chhotelal (PW 6), Ramji (PW 11) and Gendlal (PW 14) were recorded for the first time on 17.9.1985. Such conduct on their part makes their evidence unreliable. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since they are the rustic villagers. The mere fact that they did not themselves make any protest or they did not voluntarily make report would have not effected the varacity of the witnesses. In the opinion of the Court when Chhotelal (PW 6), real brother of the deceased, admittedly accompanied Tulsabai upto the hospital, had there been any genuine complaint about abetment for suicide or cruelty he would himself lodged the report then and there or immediately thereof. Such conduct of brother goes to show that the story about harassment and maltreatment is an afterthought. This Court has scrutinised the evidence adduced by the prosecution and specially that of PW 6 - Chhotelal, PW. 11-Ramji and PW 14 Gendlal. It is noted that there are material omissions. These contradictions and omissions have been marked, relate to about conduct and relations between husband and wife. Such improvements which they have made regarding the behaviour of the accused appellants and their demands make the prosecution story doubtful. Apart from the witnesses PW 6-Chhotelal, PW. 11-Ramji and PW 14 Gendlal. It is noted that there are material omissions. These contradictions and omissions have been marked, relate to about conduct and relations between husband and wife. Such improvements which they have made regarding the behaviour of the accused appellants and their demands make the prosecution story doubtful. Apart from the witnesses PW 6-Chhotelal, PW. 11-Ramji and PW 14 Gendlal prosecution has also examined Kamlabai (PW 4) and Chhotibai (PW 5). They merely say that Tulsabai had no issue and she used to complain that those girls who have been married along with her had two issues but she had no issue. They have not directly seen any harassment or maltreatment. They only say that Tulsabai told them that she had no issue. Her husband does not keep her nicely. Evidence of Chhotibai (PW 5) is also to the effect that Tulsabai complained her that the girls who have been married had two or three children, but she had nothing. Kamlabai (PW 4) and Chhotibai (PW 5) did not say any Marpit. There are also omissions in their case diary statements. It is no doubt true that Tulsabai committed suicide. There is no evidence to show that she was harassed or maltreated. There is also no evidence that any way appellants have abatted offence. The allegation that she had no child and because of this, she was maltreated. It is merely a suspicion. In the result the appeal is allowed. The appellants conviction under section 306 and section 493-A IPC and sentence thereof are set aside and they are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.