S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Betu has been convicted under Section 306, I. P. C. and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. His mother Appellant Mst. Dhania has been convicted under Section 306, I. P. C. and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is not sustainable. ( 3 ) APPELLANT Betu is husband of deceased Kallu Bai and appellant Dhania is hek mother-in-law. She has committed suicide by consuming poison on 22-7-1994. She was married three years ago. The only point for determination is whether the accused persons abetted the commission of suicide by Kallu Bai. ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence regarding the abetment. There is also no direct evidence on the point that the accused persons subjected Kallu Bai to cruelty. The conviction is based on the testimony of Kamta (P. W. 3), Brother of the deceased and Narbada Prasad (P. W. 2) who is his neighbour. Kamta (P. W. 3) has deposed that his sister Kallu Bai did not make any complaint during the first year of her marriage with Betu. After one year she told him that once accused Betu had tied her hands and feet with a rope and left her alone in the house. At that time she had also told him that her mother-in-law was quarrelling with her. Kallu Bai remained alive for one and half years more after the said incident of tying her with a rope. There is no specific evidence that Kallu Bai made any complaint during the later one and half years that she has been beaten by her husband or her mother-in-law. The testimony of Kamta (P. W. 3) is of general nature. According to him he went to the house of his sister to bring her to her fathers house. She did not say anything from her house on way to her fathers house. It is only next day in the morning she revealed that she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law. According to him he went to the house of his sister to bring her to her fathers house. She did not say anything from her house on way to her fathers house. It is only next day in the morning she revealed that she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law. He did not ask her to report the matter to the police or to convene a village Panchayat. Narbada Prasad (P. W. 2) has also stated that during the first year of her marriage Kallu Bai did not make any complaint. He has also deposed that Kallu Bai had once told him that she was tied with a rope by her husband. In cross-examination he has clarified that this incident had taken place one and half years before her death. He does not say, that during the later one and half years Kallu Bai made any complaint about any cruelty. ( 5 ) IT does not appear that the incident of tying Kallu Bai with a rope one and half years ago weighed with her in bringing an end to her life on 22-7-1994. The testimony of the two witnesses mentioned above is not of such a character on which it can be held beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was being treated with cruelty by accused persons. ( 6 ) DHARMI (P. W. 4), Paramlal (P. W. 5) and Swami (P. W. 6) are the neighbours of the accused. According to these witnesses the accused persons never treated Kallu Bai with cruelty. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is difficult to hold that the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Kallu Bai. On incident of tying her with a rope one and half years ago could not induce her to commit suicide. It has been held in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. It has been held in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance dischord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance dischord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 306. I. P. C. Appeal allowed. .