ORDER: The petitioners are A.1 and A.2 in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1994. They were tried along with three other accused under Secs. 306 and 201, I.P.C. The trial Court: acquitted the other three accused, who in this order will be referred to as “A.3 to A.5”. The petitioners, who are A. 1 and A.2 were alone convicted. A.1 was convicted under Sec. 201, I.P.C. and A.2 was convicted under Sec. 306, I.P.C and on being convicted, A. 1 was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with a default sentence of two months simple imprisonment. A.2, on being convicted for the offence under Sec. 306, I.P.C., was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with a direction that in default of payment of fine, he will undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months and aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, both the petitioners preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the revision. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that A.2, being the son of A. 1, had sexual intercourse with Shanthi and Chitra by promising them that he will marry and on 13.3.1994, took them to Paramakudi, where they took photos and later refused to marry and therefore, on 14.3.1994, both Shanthi and Chitra committed suicide. To establish the said allegation, the prosecution before the trial Court, examined P.Ws. 1 to 15. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the entire facts, even if they are taken to be true, no offence under Sec. 306, I.P.C. is made out against A.2 and in the absence of any evidence to show that there was an offence punishable under the Penal Code, A.1 also cannot be convicted under Sec. 201, I.P.C. In support of his plea, he has relied upon the evidence of the witnesses. 4. Though the revisional Court is naturally reluctant to appraise the evidence in a revision case, I have allowed the petitioner’s counsel to read the relevant portions in view of the seriousness of the allegations. The facts are as follows: P.W. 1 is the mother of Shanthi and P.W. 2 is the father of Shanthi. Similarly, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the mother and father of Chitra respectively. The facts are as follows: P.W. 1 is the mother of Shanthi and P.W. 2 is the father of Shanthi. Similarly, P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the mother and father of Chitra respectively. According to P.W. 1, her daughter Shanthi left the house on 13.3.1994 and that she did not return home. P.W. 1 did not search for her since she was under the impression that she might have stayed in her friend Chitra’s house. On the morning of 14.3.1994, she went in search of her daughter and the parents of Chitra also informed her that their daughter is also missing. Thereafter, on search, they found the dead bodies of two girls and by the side of the dead bodies, an empty pesticide can was seen. P.W. 4, the mother of Chitra, wanted to give a complaint to the police station regarding the suicide of the two girls, but the villagers including A. 1 prevented the parents from giving a complaint after promising that if any action is initiated by the police for not informing them, they will take care of the situation. Thereafter, the two bodies were cremated. According to P.W. 1, six days thereafter, her brother-in-law, Ramachandran had come from Singapore and he wanted the parents to give a complaint and accordingly the complaint, prepared by the said Ramachandran, was given at the police station on 21.3.1994, which was registered under Secs. 302 and 201 I.P.C. under Crime No. 34 of 1994. After investigation, the final report was filed against the petitioners and three others under Secs. 306 and 201 I.P.C. 5. Even at the outset, I may say, that, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the evidence of the witnesses does not show that A.2 had sexual intercourse with the girls and that thereafter he refused to marry them, thereby forcing the two girls to commit suicide The evidence of the parents P.Ws. 1 to 4 is to the effect that when they searched for the two girls, they only found their dead bodies and by the side of the dead bodies an empty pesticide can was seen and that the villagers prevented them from giving a complaint at the police station. 1 to 4 is to the effect that when they searched for the two girls, they only found their dead bodies and by the side of the dead bodies an empty pesticide can was seen and that the villagers prevented them from giving a complaint at the police station. This Court, from the above averments, is unable to come to a conclusion that A.2 had sexual intercourse with Shanthi and Chitra and the two girls committed suicide on account of his refusal to marry them. Of course, P.W. 1 made an attempt in Chief examination by coming out with a version that her daughter informed her that A.2 had intercourse with her and has also promised to marry her. Though P.W. 1 had such a version to give before the Court in evidence, he did not mention all these important facts before the investigating officer at the time of investigation, which shows that the present version of P.W. 1 is only an afterthought. If her daughter committed suicide on account of the refusal of A.2 to marry Shanthi and if Shanthi had informed P.W. 1 that A.2 had intercourse, she would have certainly mentioned the fact to the investigating officer. It is to be remembered that no complaint was also given at the police station after the death of the two girls. But the complaint, admittedly, came to be given only after the arrival of the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 from Singapore. The said complaint, admittedly, was drafted by the said Ramachandran. He was not examined in Court for reasons best known to the prosecution. Similarly, the prosecution also did not examine Sundhu, who according to P.W. 1, informed her that the two girls were seen in the company of A.2 at 6.00 a.m. on the date of incident. Since P.W. 1’s evidence is hearsay in nature and as Sundhu was not examined, this Court is unable to give any importance to the said statement of P.W. 1. There is also no explanation as to why Sundhu was not examined. The prosecution marked M.O. 5, the photograph, and examined P.W. 9, the photographer, who has, in his evidence, stated that the features of the person found in the photograph do not tally with the features of A.2. He has further submitted that the photograph was taken by Ramasamy of Sambalkulam. The prosecution marked M.O. 5, the photograph, and examined P.W. 9, the photographer, who has, in his evidence, stated that the features of the person found in the photograph do not tally with the features of A.2. He has further submitted that the photograph was taken by Ramasamy of Sambalkulam. The suggestion made to P.W. 9 is that the photograph was manipulated later to suit the prosecution version and it cannot be said that the said suggestion is artificial in view of the admission of P.W. 9 that the features of the person found in the photograph and the features of the A.2 do not tally. In any event, a perusal of the photograph shows that it is only a group photograph and from the said photograph, the Court cannot infer that A.2 took Shanthi and Chitra to Paramakudi on the pretext that he will marry them. As stated earlier, there is absolutely no material that A.2 had sexual intercourse with Shanthi and Chitra and that on account of his refusal to marry them, they committed suicide. Sec. 306, I.P.C. contemplates punishment for abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The facts which I have extracted above do not show that A.2 abetted the suicide by his refusal to marry Shanthi and Chitra and therefore, A.2/the second petitioner, cannot be convicted under Sec. 306, I.P.C. Similarly, A.1/the first petitioner, cannot also be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 201, I.P.C., since for a person to be convicted under Sec. 201, I.P.C., he must have had the knowledge or should at least have a reason to believe that an offence has been committed and thereafter with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, must cause disappearance of evidence of the commission of that offence. As no offence was made out by the second petitioner/A.2 and since suicide is not an offence, the first petitioner/A. 1 cannot be convicted under Sec. 201, I.P.C. even if it is to be assumed that he along with other villagers prevented the parents from giving a complaint at the police station regarding the suicide. 6. As no offence was made out by the second petitioner/A.2 and since suicide is not an offence, the first petitioner/A. 1 cannot be convicted under Sec. 201, I.P.C. even if it is to be assumed that he along with other villagers prevented the parents from giving a complaint at the police station regarding the suicide. 6. On the discussion made above, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners have to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The revision is allowed.