S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants were tried alongwith four others for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the commission of suicide by Smt. Latabai on 6-11-1985, who was wife of the appellant Arjun son of Laxman and daughter-in- law of the appellant No. 2 Enabai Anusuiyabai. Whik acquitting the other accused persons the appellants were found guilty for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I. P. C. alongwith cc- accused Vandana and while the appellant Arjun was -respectively sentenced to R. I. for 5 years and R. I. for 2 years the appellant Enabai Anusuiyabai was sentenced to R. I. for 3 years and R. I. for One year. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story, in brief, was that on 6-11-1985, a report was made by the co-accused Prakash at the Police Station Itarsi that his elder brotherts wife had sustained burns and was lying injured. The said person had informed that she had died of burns and a case of unnatural death (Merg No. 48 of 1985) was registered vide Ex. P 13. On receipt of this information the Subinspector of Police Mahendra Sihgh Badgujar (PW1o) proceeded to the spot and prepared inquest report Ex. P2 in the presence of the witnesses. He forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination under requisition Ex. P-la and thereafter effected seizure of stove kerosene can controlled earth, bangle pieces and ash from the spot under seizure memo Ex. P4. PW 1 Dr. P. D. Agrawal conducted autopsy on the dead body of Latabai and gave his opinion that her death was due to shock on account of excessive burn injuries and was suicidal in nature. The doctor has confirmed the said opinion in his deposition, which has not been challenged. ( 3 ) IN further investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer effected seizure of one inland letter said to have been written by the deceased to her brother Ashok. He on the basis of the said letter registered an offence under Ex. P14 and thereafter seized inland letter Ex. P. 7 said to have been written in Marathi by the deceased to Arjun and prepared seizure memo Ex. P11. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of Gomtibai and Arif Nazmi and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present appellants and the other co-accused. P14 and thereafter seized inland letter Ex. P. 7 said to have been written in Marathi by the deceased to Arjun and prepared seizure memo Ex. P11. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of Gomtibai and Arif Nazmi and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present appellants and the other co-accused. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded that they had been falsely implicated and that they had not committed any offence. However, on trial the two appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the nature of the death of Latabai being suicidal, the evidence of PW 1 Dr. P. D. Agrawal and the opinion contained in the post-mortem report Ex. P1 was not challenged at the trial and has also not been challenged before me by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The question, however is whether the commission of suicide by the deceased Latabai was as a result of any abetment attributable to any of the appellants and further whether the appellants were guilty of having subjected the deceased to cruelty of the nature or the kind covered by Explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION has examined PW 3 Laxman, the father of the deceased PW 6 Ashok, brother of the deceased. PW 7 Gomtibai and PW 8 Arif Nazmi in support of its case that it was on account of the conduct attributable to the appellants that the deceased was driven to commit suicide. Reliance has also been placed on letter Ex. P6 seized from PW 6 Ashok on 8-2-1986 under seizure memo Ex. P8 and letter Ex. P7 seized at the instance of the appellant Arjun under seizure memo Ex. P 11. ( 7 ) PW 6 Ashok in his testimony before the Court has stated that Latabai was his younger sister and on one occasion when he was bringing her from the house of her in-laws to his house by train she had stated to him that the accused were troubling her and that her father-in-law had once attempted to strike her and had tried to strangulate her. She had also informed that her husband, namely the appellant Arjun was always scolding her. She had further informed that the other members of the family were instigating these persons by making false allegations. She had also informed that her husband, namely the appellant Arjun was always scolding her. She had further informed that the other members of the family were instigating these persons by making false allegations. He has further deposed that while he was at Bombay he had received a letter from his sister deceased Latabai that she was beaten by her husband Arjun and that her mother-in-law was accusing her of being infertile as she had no issue He has identified this letter as Ex. P6 and has also confirmed that Ex. P7 letter was in the handwriting of his sister. He admits that he had informed his mother about the letter Ex. P6. He has further deposed that on learning about the death of his sister they had rushed to Itarsi. ( 8 ) PW 3 Laxman, the father of the deceased has been examined by the prosecution and he has also alleged that Latabai had informed his wife that she was being troubled by her in-laws. He has also admitted that on learning about the death of Latabai he had rushed to the house of the accused. ( 9 ) FROM analysis of the evidence of PW 3 Laxman and PW 6 Ashok it would be apparent that in so far as welfare of the sister deceased Latabai was concerned they were themselves gravely concerned and interested. While it is true that in such cases with a view to save marriage of a near relation from break down a person may not immediately react to the question of harassment but in any event after the death of the person complaining of having been harassed, no such consideration can prevail and the immediate impulse of such a near relation such as father and brother would be to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities. Both these witnesses have admitted in no uncertain terms that on learning about the demise of Latabai, they had rushed to the house of the accused. Under these circumstances their first anxiety in the situation would have been to inform the police that Latabai had died on account of having been tortured by the in-laws or her husband or on account of the cruelty administered to her by these persons. Under these circumstances their first anxiety in the situation would have been to inform the police that Latabai had died on account of having been tortured by the in-laws or her husband or on account of the cruelty administered to her by these persons. In para 5 of his statement PW 3 Laxman states that he had made report to the police but no such report has been produced. On the contrary what has been stated by PW 10 Mahendra Singh Badgujar, Investigating Officer is that since the father of the deceased had informed him that there were some letters and that he would produce them he had later seized these letters, PW 10 also does not make any reference to any report having been made by PW 3 Laxman. Equally unnatural is the contention of PW 6 Ashok who in para 5 of his deposition has offered a peculiar explanation for his continued silence that since the accused had promised to return back the dowry if he give that letter to him. he did not supply the letter to the police. He did not contact police and it was only on 8-2-1986 that this letter was seized from him by the police. It is thus patent from the conduct of the two witnesses that they took no steps to inform the authorities that Latabai was being harassed and subjected to cruelty. If this narration on the part of these two witnesses is examined in conjunction with the testimony of PW 10 Mahendra Singh Badgujar, he also appears to have acted in a most casual manner unbecoming of a responsible Police Officer. In para 15 of his statement he admits that the deceased Latabai had been cremated on 7-11-1986 and her father had attended the funeral and had informed him thathe would produce the letters of Latabai, but he did not take any steps till 8-2-1986 to obtain these letters by going to Bhusawal. He tries to explain it by saying that he did not have any time and meanwhile the case diary had been called for the purpose of bail. Apart from the fact that explanation is unbelievable no details have been furnished by him to explain as to how he was prevented on account of other business during this period from proceeding with the investigation. He had registered the offence vide Ex. P14 on 9-2-1986 and. Apart from the fact that explanation is unbelievable no details have been furnished by him to explain as to how he was prevented on account of other business during this period from proceeding with the investigation. He had registered the offence vide Ex. P14 on 9-2-1986 and. therefore it does not appear that there was any occasion during this period for any Court to have called case diary but even assuming the said fact in his favour this does not explain delay of 3 months caused by him in going to Bhusawal and seizing the letter Ex. P6. As observed above the explanation of the two witnesses namely. PW 3 Laxman and PW 6 Ashok for not producing this letter by itself, creates serious doubt about the prosecution case and the doubt becomes graver when the investigation itself is tainted. ( 10 ) THE other witnesses namely. PW 7 Gomtibai and PW 8 Arif Nazmi have not supported the prosecution and have been declared hostile. PW 9 Pramendra Singh Rajput does not support recovery of Ex. P7 from appellant Arjun. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State has strenuously urged that even if there is some doubt about the testimony of PW 3 Laxman and PW 6 Ashok the Handwriting Expert establishes the letters Exs. P7 and P8 to be in the handwriting of the deceased, which also indicate that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and. therefore the two appellants were responsible for having abetted the commission of suicide by her. While it is true that some part of the letter referred to by the learned Public Prosecutor itself gives an indication that the deceased was not very happy in the house of her in-laws yet in the light of the fact that the letter Ex. P6 has been brought into being after an inordinate delay, which, has not been explained by the prosecution and no sanctity can be attached to the seizure of the letter Ex. P7 from the accused Arjun in view of the testimony of PW 9 Pramendra Singh Rajput, it would be hazardous to found conviction on such a document. As observed above there was a complete lull in the investigation from 7-11-1985 to 8-2-1986 and no explanation even worth the name has been forthcoming from the prosecution to explain this blank space. P7 from the accused Arjun in view of the testimony of PW 9 Pramendra Singh Rajput, it would be hazardous to found conviction on such a document. As observed above there was a complete lull in the investigation from 7-11-1985 to 8-2-1986 and no explanation even worth the name has been forthcoming from the prosecution to explain this blank space. The explanation offered by PW 3 Laxman and PW 6 Ashok while on one side is totally unbelievable on the other it gives an indication that PW 6 Ashok was trying to negotiate with the accused Arjun and it was on failure to receive the amount that the said letter Ex. P6 came into being. Thus notwithstanding the positive opinion of the Handwriting Expert though some doubt has been expressed about comparison of the handwriting to the effect of the standard handwriting being of the deceased it would be unsafe to rely on that evidence. In any case the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. ( 11 ) IN the result, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the two appellants either for offence under Section 306. IPC or for offence under Section 498-A. IPC and the accused deserve to be acquitted. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY this appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. They are acquitted of the charges. The two appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .