JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 1/2001 (13/99 ADJ Churu).APPEAL NO. 649/2001 2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Dinesh against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 1/2001 (13/99 ADJ, Churu) by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for offences under Section 3046 and Section 498A I.P.C., convicted him for offence under Section 306 1.PC. and sentenced him to 6 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year's R.I. and by the same judgment dated 12.9.2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted other accused persons namely, Tara Chand, Ginni Devi, Sushil Kurnar, Arvind and Raju for offences under Sections 304B. 306 and 498A I.P.C. 3. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That PW1 Shubhkaran lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) on 4.12.1998 at about 2.20 p.m. before the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Churu (PW9 Mohan Lal) inter alia stating that his daughter Santa alias Pinki (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with the accused appellant Dinesh in the month of Feb., 1994 and marriage was solemnized in high profile and PW1 Shubhkaran gave dowry beyond his capacity to the accused appellant and his family. It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that after marriage her in-laws, namely, husband Dinesh, father-in-law Tara Chand, mother-in-law Ginni, jeth Sushil, devars Raju and Arvind (other accused persons who have been acquitted) used to torture the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry in the marriage and they also used to give mental harassment. (ii) It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that whenever deceased used to come to her father's house, she used to tell that she was being beaten by all the accused persons named above. It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that before two months, the deceased had gone to Ghamana, Tehsil Kapasan where her husband Dinesh used to live and she was sent there against the will of her husband Dinesh (accused appellant) as accused appellant Dinesh did not want to keep her. It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that before two months, the deceased had gone to Ghamana, Tehsil Kapasan where her husband Dinesh used to live and she was sent there against the will of her husband Dinesh (accused appellant) as accused appellant Dinesh did not want to keep her. (iii) It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that she had come back to Churu about 8-10 days back and she told that a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was being made by her in-laws as this amount was to be given in the marriage of her Nanad and she informed over telephone that the above amount be sent otherwise her life would be in danger. (iv) It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that demands of Rs. 21,000. 51,000 and colour T.V. were also made in the marriage. (v) It was further stated in the report (Ex.P/1) that since the accused appellant had become Government doctor, therefore, her in-laws persisted with more demands and because of not satisfying their greedy nature, the deceased had been murdered by the accused persons. (vi) That on the basis of report (Ex.P/1), the police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/2 and started investigation and the investigation was handed over to PW10 Ram Pal. (vii) During investigation, post-mortem of body of the deceased was conducted by PW/2 Dr. Ved Prakash and post mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/34. (viii) The accused appellant Dinesh was got arrested through Fard Ex.P/35 on 7.12.1998. (ix) After investigation challan was filed against two accused persons, namely, accused appellant Dinesh and his father Tara Chand and charges were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against both these persons for offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A I.P.C. on 21.7.99 which were denied by these two accused persons who claimed trial. (x) During trial after recording of statements of some witnesses, an application under Section 319 Cr.PC. was filed by Addl. PP. which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through order dated 29.9.99 and cognizance was taken against other accused persons, namely, Smt. Ginni (Mother-in-law), Sushil Kumar (Jeth), Raju and Arvind (Dewar) and thereafter through order dated 10 11.1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against above four persons for offences under Sections 304E, 306 and 498A I.P.C. who denied the same and claimed trial and the witnesses who were examined earlier were re-examined. (xi) At the trial 12 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and 7 witnesses were produced in defence (accused appellant Dinesh himself appeared in the witness-box as D.W.7) (xii) At the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge through judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 acquitted the accused Tarachand, Ginni Devi, Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC and also acquitted accused appellant Dinesh for offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C., but convicted him for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him as stated above, inter alia holding. (a) That the deceased was married with the accused appellant on 25.2.1994 and deceased committed suicide on 4.1.1998. (b) That learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the documents especially letters written by PW1 Shubh Karan Ex.D/6 dated 3.1.1996, D/8 dated 9.4.1996, D/9 dated 26.9.97, D/3 dated 30.9.97, D/7 dated 6.10.1997. D/2 dated 30.10.1997, D/12 dated 17.12.1997, D/4 dated 28.1.1998, D/11 dated 2.5.1998, D/13 dated 1.9.98, 0/5 dated 19.10.98, D/3 dated 20.10.98 and D/10 and out of above mentioned letters some letters were addressed to the accused appellant Dinesh and some letters were addressed to father-in-law of the deceased i.e. Tara Chand and a perusal of these letters would show that there was no dispute between the complainant party and accused party over demand of dowry and therefore, because of averments made in the above mentioned letters, the statement of PW1 Shubhakaran that there was demand of dowry from the side of in-laws of the deceased had been shattered. (c) That the statements of PW1 Shubh Karan, PW3 Pritam Kumar, PW4 Radhe Shyam, PW5 Sushil Kumar and PW6 Radhe Shyam appeared to be false one in respect of demand of dowry and similarly, demand of TV. and Rs. 21,000 and 51,000 were not found proved and the learned additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused appellant and other accused persons in connection with demand of dowry. (d) That the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by her in-laws. (d) That the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by her in-laws. (e) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge further placed reliance on the statement of DW 7 Dinesh (accused appellant) on the point that on 4.12.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. when father-in-law of the deceased (Tara Chand) was sitting with him, they had stated that they had purchased all the goods which were to be given by them to the nanad of the deceased. but a Chowki was not found proper therefore, the Chowki which was given by father of the deceased to the deceased in the marriage should be given to nanad of the deceased and upon this deceased became angry and went in the room and thereafter she committed suicide by hanging herself as the deceased was of quarrelsome nature and therefore, this act was sufficient to make out a case of abetment on the part of the accused appellant for committing suicide by the deceased and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also took help of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act and thus, he came to the conclusion that since there was abetment on the part of the accused appellant and accused appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and hence the accused appellant Dinesh was convicted for offence under Section 306 I P.C. (xii) After being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal and the State has also filed an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.9.2001 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused appellant Dinesh for offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.0 and other accused persons. namely. Tara Chand, Ginni Devi. Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offences under Sections 306, 304B and 498A I.P.C. 4. namely. Tara Chand, Ginni Devi. Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offences under Sections 306, 304B and 498A I.P.C. 4. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that when the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not found the case of demand of dowry against the accused appellant and has not found that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry, therefore, findings of a single instance for which the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that this act was sufficient for making out a case of abetment on the part of the accused appellant are absolutely erroneous one as this fact was not sufficient for proving the case of abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. and since the deceased was not subjected to cruelty soon before her death, therefore, the presumption which the learned Additional Sessions Judge drew from Section 113A of the Evidence Act was also wrong one and thus the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal for offence under Section 306, I.P.C. also. 5. On the other hand, the learned PP has supported the judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 and submitted that the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and do not require any interference by this Court. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute on the point that the learned Additional Sessions Judge after discussing all the evidence especially the letters produced by the defence as well as evidence of both the sides, positively came to the conclusion that no case for dowry death or demand of dowry had been proved against the accused persons and similarly no case for mental harassment on account of demand of dowry was found proved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against all the accused persons. 8. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that the accused appellant and his father Tara Chand wanted to give Chowki of the deceased to her nanad in the marriage and that chowki no doubt was given to the deceased by her father PW1 Shubh Karan in the marriage and the deceased did not want to give that chowki in the marriage to her nanad and for that she became angry and committed suicide and this fact alone was found sufficient for proving the case of abetment against the accused appellant. 9. Now, the most important question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether by his acts and deeds, the accused appellant has made that situation which resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased or not in other words, whether accused appellant abetted the commission of suicide by deceased or not. 10. To prove the charge of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove the following two facts: 1. The commission of suicide by a person; and 2. The accused abetted the commission thereof. POINT NO. 1 11. So far as point No. 1 is concerned, there is no dispute on the point that the deceased committed suicide and for that post mortem report Ex.P/14 and statement of PW12 Dr. Ved Prakash may be referred to in which PW12 Dr. Ved Prakash has stated that cause of death was due to asphyxia due to hanging and he found ligature marks around neck. 12. Thus, it is held that death of deceased was unnatural one in the shape of suicide.POINT NO. 2 13. Before proceeding further. something should be said about abetment. 14. What is abetment, it has been defined in Section 107 1PC which reads as under: "107 Abetment of a thing: 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 of the doing of that thing; or Thirdly, Intentionally aids. by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 15. The intention to aid the commission of the crime, is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid. by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 15. The intention to aid the commission of the crime, is the gist of the offence of abetment by aid. In case of demand of dowry or ill-treatment and beating, the case would be covered in first category i.e. instigating any person to do that thing. 16. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally' aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor, is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107 I.P.C. 17. On plain reading of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obvious that if a wife is shown to have committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and there is evidence that she was subjected to curelty by her husband or his relative, it would be permissible for the court to presume that such suicide was abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. 18. In light of the above observations. the present case in regard to abetment has to be seen. 19. In my considered opinion, since the nature of the deceased was hot and for single instance, if she had committed suicide, it would not make out a case for abetment. Apart from this, when the prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it would not be permissible for the Court to presume that said suicide was abetted by her husband and in view of above facts, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act which was drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was also not correct one. 20. It may further be observed that if there was quarrel between the accused appellant and the deceased and for such quarrel if deceased took extreme step of committing suicide, such suicide cannot be said to be so proximate to that quarrel as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P. 2002(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 36 (2002) (5) SCC 371 . 36 (2002) (5) SCC 371 . Similarly, in this case, if the accused appellant had said that chowki which was given by the father (PW1 Shubhkaran) of the deceased be given to her nanad in the marriage and on that issue, if there was quarrel between accused appellant (husband) and the deceased (wife) and thereafter being angry, if the deceased had committed suicide, it would not make out a case of abetment of suicide on the part of the accused appellant and it cannot be said that accused appellant abetted the deceased wife to commit suicide or intentionally aiding her to commit suicide and from point of view also, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 21. Apart from this, where the evidence of prosecution has not been found trustworthy in respect of dowry demand etc. and if there is little evidence that wife was not treated properly by the husband, that fact alone would not be sufficient to establish abetment for committing suicide. The suicide might be owing to psychotropic factors and symptoms taking shape independent of abetment, but for that accused appellant cannot be punished for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, the findings of conviction recorded by the judgment and order dated 12.9,2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused appellant is entitled to acquittal for offence under Section 306 I.P.C.APPEAL NO. 222/2002 23. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Ratangarh by which he acquitted the accused respondent Dinesh for offence under Section 304B and 498A 1,PC. and accused respondents Tara Chand, Ginni Devi, Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 I.P.C. 24. and accused respondents Tara Chand, Ginni Devi, Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 I.P.C. 24. It may be stated here that in the appeal No. 649/2001 filed by the accused Dinesh against his conviction for offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the findings of conviction for offence under Section 306 have been set aside, therefore, the arguments of the learned P.P. that all the accused persons should have been convicted for offences under Section 304B and 498A I.P.C. cannot be accepted and when principal offender is going to be acquitted, other accused persons cannot be convicted. 25. Apart from this, in my considered opinion, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he acquitted the accused Dinesh for offences under Section 304B and 498A I.P.C. and other accused persons Ginni Devi, Tara Chand, Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offences under Sections 306, 498A and 304B I.P.C. are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal on flimsy grounds.FINDINGS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad v. Pratap Narain AIR 1951 SC 120 has observed that when the question for consideration is one of the fact, the decision which depends upon the appreciation of oral evidence, the appellate Court has got to bear in mind that it has not the advantage which the trial Court had of having witnesses before him and of observing the manner in which they deposed in Court. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the Appellate court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. The rule is, when there :s conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses then unless there is special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped trial Judge's notice and there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace the opinion as to where the credibility lies, appellate court should not disturb the findings of fact by the trial Judge. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Jagdomal v. Southern Indian Education Centre AIR 1988 SC 103 has held that so far as appreciation of oral testimony is concerned by the appellate Court, there are two views. One view is that the Court of appeal has undoubted duty to review the recorded evidence and to draw its own interence and conclusion. The other view is that the Court of appeal must attach due weight to the opinion of the trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and noticing their look and manners. The rule of practice which was almost the force of law is that the appellate Court does not reverse a finding of fact rested on a proper appreciation of oral evidence. 28. Thus, on the basis of above observations just mentioned above, it can be concluded that opinion of the trial Judge on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed except for exceptional reasons. 29. Since in the present case, the learned trial Judge has given so many cogent reasons after discussing the evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of defence especially of accused appellant Dinesh (PW7) and after going through various letters which were produced in defence, this Court has no reason to disturb the findings of facts regarding acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court and they do not suffer from basic infirmity or illegality and the exceptional circumstances are missing in this case. 30. Apart from this, since the learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at the findings after correct appreciation of evidence, this Court should also give proper weight and consideration as the views of the trial Court as to the credibility of the witnesses must be respected. That apart, the Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Judge as the learned trial Judge had advantage of seeing the witnesses and even if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 31. Furthermore, the grounds which have been taken by the State in appeal are also very shaky and appear to have been made in a very casual manner and are not substantial ones. 31. Furthermore, the grounds which have been taken by the State in appeal are also very shaky and appear to have been made in a very casual manner and are not substantial ones. Hence, the state appeal is liable to be dismissed.APPEAL NO. 649/2001For the reasons mentioned above, the Appeal No. 649/2001 filed by the accused appellant Dinesh is allowed and the judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Dinesh for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are quashed and set aside arid the accused appellant is acquitted for offence under Section 306 I.P.C.Since the accused appellant Dinesh is in jail he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.APPEAL NO. 222/2002The appeal No. 222/2002 filed by the State of Rajasthan against judgment and order of acquittal 12.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh by which learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Dinesh for offences under Section 3048 and 498A and other accused persons Tara Chand, Ginni Devi, Sushil Kumar, Arvind and Raju for offence under Sections 306, 3046 and 498A I.P.C. is dismissed.Appeal of accused allowed - State Appeal dismissed. *******