JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar passed in Sessions Case No. 5/1989 on 17.8.1991 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A and was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 I.P.C. and under Section 498A I.P.C. the accused was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I. 2. After trial, the learned trial court has acquitted the two accused, namely, Smt. Tulsi Bai and Smt. lshwar Devi and accused Bihari Lal had died. The learned trial court while convicting the accused appellant has observed that the accused appellant used to drink and eat meat and on this count the deceased was strained. Apart from this, the evidence of demand of dowry etc. has been found wanting qua the accused persons though it was remotely observed by the learned trial court that there was demand of dowry by the accused appellant also. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that the basic force of the prosecution case which has been made the basis of conviction of the accused appellant is that he was a person who used to consume alcohol and eat meat. It was the personal habits of a man and such habits are not liked by any one and one feels offended by it then it cannot be said that it was an act intended to force the deceased to commit suicide. For holding that the accused appellant had forced the deceased to commit suicide there has to be positive evidence on record to establish that the accused appellant has done an intentional act by virtue of which he induced the deceased to commit suicide. Consume alcohol and eat meat are the personal habits and on that count the lady persuaded to commit suicide then it cannot be said that the appellant had intended that the lady should commit suicide. He has relied upon a decision of this Court delivered in Bhanwarlal & Ors. Consume alcohol and eat meat are the personal habits and on that count the lady persuaded to commit suicide then it cannot be said that the appellant had intended that the lady should commit suicide. He has relied upon a decision of this Court delivered in Bhanwarlal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 740 wherein this Court has held that if there is nothing on record to show that any of the appellants did anything positive to help the deceased in committing suicide within the meaning of explanation (2) of Section 107 I.P.C. then till then it cannot be held that there was instigation. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the accused appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra has argued that the lady has been forced to commit suicide by the conduct of the accused appellant. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the accused appellant is guilty of the offence' punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The judgment of the learned trial court proceeds on the basic premises that since the accused used to consume alcohol and eat meat therefore, this conduct of the accused appellant drove the deceased to commit suicide. In my considered opinion these two factors constitute the personal habits of the accused appellant and they are not such acts which were intended to force the deceased to commit suicide. There existence cannot be said to be sufficient enough to constitute a valid factor whereby it can be said with definiteness that it was these factors alone which forced the deceased to commit suicide. In this back-ground, the finding of the learned trial court that on this count she has committed suicide is not sufficient to hold the accused appellant guilty. Therefore, it is held that the offence under Section 306 I.PC. has not been established against the accused appellant. These factors cannot be said to be a valid consideration for holding the accused guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. has not been established against the accused appellant. These factors cannot be said to be a valid consideration for holding the accused guilty under Section 306 I.P.C. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******