JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J. – The appellant has filed this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 102/89 on 30-4-1990, by which appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly narrated, the prosecution story is : The appellant and Gaurabai had married to each other 13 years back and they were having four sons. The appellant was residing with his family in his house situated at his farm. On 13-5-1988, Gaurabai wife of appellant. committed suicide by jumping into the well along with four sons. As per prosecution story the dispute between husband and wife was going on since last two months. On 135-1988 also some dispute occurred between appellant and deceased and as per Champabai (P.W. 1) deceased told to her that appellant slapped her twice in the morning, because she (deceased) has not prepared the food in time and also told her that he will perform second marriage and will treat deceased as servant. 3. For the suicide committed by Gaura Bai, the appellant (husband) was charge-sheeted for committing offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined Champabai (P.W. 1), Ganga Bai (P.W. 2), Moti Ram (P.W. 3). Lakhmi Chand (P.W. 4). Anakh Lal (P.W. 5) and Awadesh Tiwari (P.W. 6). In defence, appellant examined Shiv Lal (DW 1). 4. Champabai (P.W. 1) in her statement deposed that deceased told her on 13-5-1988 at 3.00 p.m. that in the morning appellant slapped her once. Then P.W.1 further stated that she overheard from her house appellant saying her wife (deceased) that, "you are not preparing the food" should I prepare? I will bring another woman I Treating this sufficient to bring home the guilt of appellant, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as referred above. 5. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State. Perused the record. 7. 5. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State. Perused the record. 7. The case of the prosecution for proving the alleged offence is based on the solitary statement of Champabai (P.W. 1). The other witnesses Ganga Bai (P.W. 2) mother of deceased and Moti Ram P.W. 3) brother of deceased have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, on the other hand they stated that the relationship between appellant and deceased was cordial and the appellant was treating his wife (deceased) properly. In the statement of Champabai (P.W. 1) the only allegation against appellant is that because of non preparation of food in time the appellant slapped his wife and in anger told her that he will marry another woman and keep deceased as servant. 8. I have given my deep consideration to the above referred statement made against appellant by Champabai (P.W. 1). The truthfulness of statement of Champabai (P.W. 1) is doubtful because in her statement, she has stated that she had disclosed this fact of dispute between appellant and his wife to Ganga Bai (P.W. 2), Moti Ram (P.W. 3) and other persons who were present on 14-5-1988 I.e. next day of the date of incident when the dead bodies were recovered from the well. It is surprising that when she was present on 14-5-1988 and was telling about dispute of deceased with appellant, why her statement was not recorded by the police on that day itself or immediately thereafter, instead of being recorded after 14 days on 28-5-1988. However, even assuming statement of Champabai (P.W. l) to be truthful it has to be noted whether it is sufficient to prove the charge of abetment of suicide against appellant. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide which reads as under: Section 306 : "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." 9. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide which reads as under: Section 306 : "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." 9. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines Abetment of thing which reads as under: Section 107 : A person abets the doing of a thing, who: "First - Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing: or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. "Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 - Whoever, either-prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 10. From the definition of Section 306 it is clear that the liability of committing the offence therein is dependant upon the act of abetment, and abetment must be for commission of the suicide. The statement of Champabai (P.W. l) has to be considered in the light of the detention of offence of abetment of suicide as for making the appellant liable, for the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be seen whether the prosecution has established that the appellant has abeted the commission of suicide. After considering the entire statement of Champabai (P.W. l), in my considered opinion, no case is made out to convict the appellant for commission of offence of abetment of suicide. The Sessions Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of statement of Champabai (P.W. l). 11. After considering the entire statement of Champabai (P.W. l), in my considered opinion, no case is made out to convict the appellant for commission of offence of abetment of suicide. The Sessions Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of statement of Champabai (P.W. l). 11. Since there is no abetment to commit suicide there is no question of the offence under section 306 coming into play. Thus, the finding of the Sessions Court that the appellant has committed the offence of abetment of suicide being illegal and based on misappreciation of evidence, the same is set aside. 12. The Appeal is allowed, the judgment passed by the Sessions Court convicting the appellant is set aside. The appellant is acquitted, he is already on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.