P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Hema jaiswal representing respondent-accused. ( 2 ) THE State had preferred the present appeal as against the judgment of the II Additional Assistant Sessions judge, Warangal, dated the 26th day of August, 1996, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1996. Respondent-accused, Jangili sammaiah @ Babu, was charged with an offence punishable under Section 306 of the indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Jangili Narsamma, the wife of the accused and daughter of PW. 1, was blessed with a son, but subsequent thereto, respondent-accused raised a dispute that the deceased was unfit for sexual intercourse and was harassing her to die so that he could marry again. The accused also drove her away from his house and as such she started living with her parents. A panchayat was also held in this regard and it appears that the panchayatdars advised the accused to pay some amount and also give some land to the deceased. Subsequent thereto, deceased joined the accused. None the less, the accused had not changed his attitude and continued to harass the deceased on the same allegation and the deceased was informing PW. 2 now and then and due to constant mental torture, the deceased was fed up with her life and on 6-3-1995 at about 8. 00 a. m. , jumped into an agricultural well of PW-5 and committed suicide. On the complaint of PW-1, the father of the deceased, Police Atmakur registered Crime no. 26 of 1995 and had taken up investigation, held inquest over the dead body and post-mortem was conducted and the witnesses were examined and the accused was arrested and ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed. ( 4 ) THE III Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Warangal had committed the case, P. R. C. No. 77 of 1995 to the court of Session and the learned Sessions judge, Warangal made over the case to the II Additional Assistant Sessions judge, Warangal and on appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to him and since the accused pleaded not guilty, the learned Judge had examined PW-1 to PW-10 and Ex. P-1 to P-8 were marked and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the harassment of the deceased so as to drive her to commit suicide and, hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and recorded an acquittal. Aggrieved by the same, the State had preferred the present appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, pw-4 and PW-8 and would explain that the evidence of PW-1 is clear and categorical, that the deceased had undergone surgery when she had given birth to a son and after surgery, the accused entertained a doubt that the deceased was unfit for conjugal life and in that connection, panchayat was held with PW-4 and other elders and in the panchayat, accused gave Ac. 1-20 gts of land to the deceased and had not taken the deceased to his house and subsequent thereto though she was taken, the harassment continued which had resulted in the present death of his daughter. The Additional public Prosecutor, in all fairness, submitted that except this evidence, there is no dying declaration recorded in the present case and there is no other material also so as to convict the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but, however, the learned Counsel would argue that this harassment would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and, hence, though acquittal recorded by the learned Judge may be justified under Section 306 of the indian Penal Code on facts and on material available on record, it is a fit case where respondent-accused may have to be convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code. ( 6 ) ON the contrary, Ms. Hema Jaiswal, the learned Counsel representing respondent-accused would submit that the evidence of pw-1, PW-4 and PW-8 also is very vague and on the strength of it, it cannot be said that the said allegation of harassment made against the accused is proved. Even otherwise the learned Counsel would contend that this cannot be said to be the direct result which had ultimately resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. Even otherwise the learned Counsel would contend that this cannot be said to be the direct result which had ultimately resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Sanju v. State of M. P. , 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 956 (SC) - (2002) 5 SCC 371 , and Puttala Saraiah v. State of A. P. , 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 696 (AP) = 2003 (2) ALT (Crl) 1 (A. P ). ( 7 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 8 ) THE report Ex. P-1 dated 7-3-1995 given by PW-1 which reads as hereunder:"i Pogula Chennaiah, s/o Erraiah, Caste golla, aged 50 years, R/o Soorpally (m) chennaraopet, submits that my elder daughter narsamma aged 20 years, marriage was conducted 12 years ago with Jangili sammaiahy Kanugudupalle Village, and they blessed with a son about 4 years ago. At present she is pregnant. Operation was conducted at the time of first delivery. After that my son-in-law kept my daughter in my house as she is not fit for conjugal life. 6 months back elders conducted panchayat and sent my daughter to lead conjugal life. After that they are living happily. Today my daughter sent a message that my daughter fell in a well and died. When we went and seen my daughter died by falling in a well and died. That is the agricultural well of burgula Baburao and found on the water. When I enquired that it is learnt that my daughter yesterday working in the fields. I have some doubt about my daughter s death. I request you to take action. " ( 9 ) PW-1, after deposing about certain details relating to the marriage between his daughter and the accused, also had deposed about the deceased begetting one son and undergoing surgery and accused entertaining a doubt mat she was unfit for conjugal life and this witness also deposed that in this connection, a panchayat was held and in the panchayat, accused gave ac. 1-20 gts of land to the deceased and after panchayat, accused had not taken his daughter and as such he had taken his daughter to the Police Station and in panchayat held at the Police Station, accused took the deceased and his son right from the Police Station promising that she would be looked after well and since then deceased lived with the accused and accused continued to beat and ill-treat the deceased stating that she was unfit for conjugal life and eight days prior to the death of the deceased, he went to her and she informed him that accused was beating her and later he went to his village. One week after he returned home and came to know that the deceased fell into a well and died, he gave a complaint Ex. P-1 to Police, Atmakur and the Mandal Revenue Officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he deposed about the panchayat and also deposed that he mentioned in Ex. P-1 that since three years the deceased was living with him and six months prior to Ex. P-1, the elders united the accused and the deceased and since then they were living amicably. PW-2 and PW-3 were declared hostile. PW-4, the panchayatdar, had deposed that they held panchayat between accused and deceased and accused pleaded before them that the deceased was unfit for conjugal life and the deceased refused the said charge and they advised the deceased and accused to live amicably. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that the deceased want some property by way of security to her life and the accused gave Ac. 1-1/2 gts of land and only after executing the document, giving the said land to the deceased, she joined the accused and except participating the said panchayat, he does not know anything else. PW-5 was declared hostile. PW-6 is the mandal Revenue Officer and Ex. P. 5 is the inquest report which he had signed and he had deposed about the panch witnesses who were present and also deposed that he conducted inquest. PW-7 is the Assistant professor, Forensic Medicine, Kakatiya medical College, Warangal, who conducted post-mortem examination and this witness deposed that the cause of death was due to drowning and the deceased might have died three days prior to conducting of post-mortem examination. Ex. P-6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. PW-7 is the Assistant professor, Forensic Medicine, Kakatiya medical College, Warangal, who conducted post-mortem examination and this witness deposed that the cause of death was due to drowning and the deceased might have died three days prior to conducting of post-mortem examination. Ex. P-6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. PW-8 s evidence is that, accused was not liking the deceased and she was not present at the time of the death of the deceased and once accused beat the deceased and in that connection, there was a panchayat and she did not see the actual beating. It is needless to say that the evidence is as vague as vagueness can be. PW-9 is one of the witnesses who had signed on Ex. P-5. PW-10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who had deposed about the investigation and the other particulars. ( 10 ) THE only evidence available is that of PW-1, PW-4 holding some panchayat and PW-8 vague evidence relating to the beating. Except this evidence, no other material is available on record. No doubt, pw-1 deposed in detail the cause which would have paved the way or made the deceased to take a decision of committing suicide. ( 11 ) SECTION 306 of the Indian Penal code, dealing with abetment of suicide, reads as hereunder:"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 also be liable to fine". ( 12 ) THE mere fact that some allegation was made against the deceased that she was unfit for-conjugal happiness and the mere fact that some panchayat was held in this regard, cannot be sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian penal Code or Section 107 of the Indian penal Code and, hence, the acquittal recorded in this regard by the learned Judge cannot be found fault by this Court. ( 13 ) IN Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M. P. (supra), the Apex Court held that the expression "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite and presence of metis rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. ( 13 ) IN Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M. P. (supra), the Apex Court held that the expression "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite and presence of metis rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation. In Swamy prahaladdas v. State of M. P. , 1995 SCC (Crl.) 943, the appellant was charged with an offence under Section 306 of the Indian penal Code on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased to go and die and the Apex court expressed the view that these mere words by the accused to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. ( 14 ) RELIANCE was also placed on Puttala saraiah and another v. State of A. P. , Rep. by Public Prosecutor (supra ). The episode does not stop there. The learned Additional public Prosecutor in alternative would submit that making an allegation that the deceased was unfit for conjugal happiness would definitely amount to harassment falling under cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498- a of the Indian Penal Code and, hence, on the material available on record, the respondent-accused is liable to be convicted at least under Section 498-A of the Indian -Penal Code. Section 498-A reads as hereunder:"whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. " ( 15 ) THE explanation no doubt specifies what cruelty means for the purposes of this section. " ( 15 ) THE explanation no doubt specifies what cruelty means for the purposes of this section. Stress is laid on the words in explanation (a) "any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide". ( 16 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that the allegation that she was not fit for conjugal happiness would be sufficient so as to make the deceased to commit suicide by drowning herself by jumping into a well. It is needless to say that relating to panchayat, the evidence of PW-4 alone is available. The evidence of PW-8 is also very vague, the other witnesses were declared hostile. This court is left with the evidence of PW-1 and pw-1 alone. A careful scrutiny of Ex. P-1, coupled with the evidence of PW-1, would not inspire the confidence of this Court even to believe the version of the prosecution in this regard. Hence, this contention advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor with vehemence is liable to be rejected. ( 17 ) MS. Hema Jaiswal, the learned counsel also placed reliance on certain judgments, digestive notes and short notes. This Court is of the view that inasmuch as such decisions will not have narration of facts, it would not be desirable to place reliance on such law reports as judicial precedents. ( 18 ) IT is needless to say that in the light of the findings recorded in detail by the learned Judge, the said findings deserve no disturbance at the hands of the Appellate court and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed and the appeal shall stand dismissed.