P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) KUPPILI Surya Rao, the sole accused in sessions Case No. 77 of 1997 on the file of assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam, is the appellant. ( 2 ) SRI D. Ramalinga Swamy, the learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained since absolutely there was no harassment or cruelty and the ingredients of the offence charged with had not been satisfied. The learned counsel also would submit the story that the accused eloped with a lady, cannot be believed for the reason that there is no acceptable evidence in this regard. The learned counsel also would submit that P. Ws. 3 to 6 deposed that this couple was living happily. The learned counsel also would further submit that the accused himself gave First Information report (for brevity fir ) to the police and even presuming that he absconded after giving FIR, it cannot be taken as, though, he is guilty of abetment of suicide, in the absence of any acceptable evidence. The learned counsel also drawn the attention of this court to the sketch and also the evidence of investigating Officer and would contend that the parapet wall of the well is only 1 1/2 feet in height and even if one tries to draw out water from the well with a bucket or a pot with an insufficient length of rope tied to it, there is likelihood of his/her slipping into the well. In this view of the matter, this may be just accidental and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal. ( 3 ) PER con tra, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that P. W. 1 brother of the deceased deposed in detail what had happened and though details were not given the fact that the appellant had gone away with another lady and had been carrying on illicit intimacy had been established and this would definitely amount to sufficient harassment, with much of resultant in the incident. The learned counsel had taken this court through the evidence available on record and also placed reliance on Pawan kumarv. State of Haryana and Girdhar Shankar tawade v. State of Maharashtra. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel on record. ( 5 ) IT is not in controversy that the First information Report was given by the accused himself after detection of the dead body. State of Haryana and Girdhar Shankar tawade v. State of Maharashtra. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel on record. ( 5 ) IT is not in controversy that the First information Report was given by the accused himself after detection of the dead body. ( 6 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponduru, filed a charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ipc ). ( 7 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one revati is the wife of accused and Jyoti is the daughter of the accused. One year prior to the offence, the accused deserted his wife and daughter and eloped with one Sunkari sankaramma and came back after some time and rejoined his wife. The accused was not looking after his wife and daughter and he was not even providing daily necessities to them. The mother and brother of Revati arrived at a decision to take her away to their house for Sankranthi Festival. While so, on the night of 21-11-1996, the accused beat his wife and expressed that he will be happy if she dies and asked her to die. On 22-11-1996 the deceased Revati went to the washermanghat along with her daughter at about 8-00 hours and committed suicide, disgusted with the life. The accused himself gave the First Information Report. After inquest of the post-mortem report, doctor opined that due to asphyxia due to drowning, revati and Jyoti died. The accused was arrested on 28-11-1996. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and the learned sessions Judge made over the same to the assistant Sessions Judge Rajam, who tried the case, examined P. Ws. l to 10, D. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs-P-1 to P-10 and Exs. D-1 to d-3. After recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty for an offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and the accused was also convicted under Sec. 498-A ipc and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and the accused was also convicted under Sec. 498-A ipc and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months and no doubt both sentences to run concurrently. The charges framed as against the accused are hereunder: firstly: That you, on or about the one year prior to the offence, you willfully harassing the deceased Revathi, your wife, and demand her to commit suicide or to die to fulfill your unlawful and illegitimate acts, and also you are not looking your wife and daughter by providing daily necessities, and that you there by committed an offence punishable u/sec. 498-A IPC and within my cognizance; secondly: That you on or about the 21st day of November, 1996 in the night, voluntarily caused hurt to deceased revathi, your wife by beating with hands, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec. 323 IPC and within my cognizance; thirdly: that you on or about the 22nd day of November, 1996, the deceased revathi, your wife committed suicide along with daughter, and that you abetted its commission by harassing her and played cruelty on her, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec. 306 IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Session. ( 9 ) P. W. 1, who is the brother of deceased revati and accused is none other than his maternal uncle. This witness deposed that the marriage of the deceased was celebrated about nine years ago and accused got intimacy with some other lady who is resident of Lakshmipeta and he eloped with that lady and she was kept-mistress for six or seven months and the deceased and her daughter used to live with them during the said period and the matter was referred to the elders and as per the advise of elders, the deceased and her daughter kept at Ponduru. Accused promised that he would look after them properly. He also gave such assurance before elders, so they sent the deceased again to the house of accused. Again there are disputes between the deceased and accused. The accused used to beat the deceased frequently and the deceased informed the same to their mother. Accused promised that he would look after them properly. He also gave such assurance before elders, so they sent the deceased again to the house of accused. Again there are disputes between the deceased and accused. The accused used to beat the deceased frequently and the deceased informed the same to their mother. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 further deposed that the accused s brother came to their house on 22-11-1996 and informed that there was quarrel between wife and husband and the deceased was not traced along with Jyothi in the house and they informed that she did not come to their house and they wanted to settle the matter forever. They came in the early morning from Srikakulam to Ponduru and when they reached the house of the accused, they were informed that his sister committed suicide by falling into the well with her daughter Jyoti and this was informed by neighbours and the neighbours also informed that there was a quarrel between his sister and her husband in the previous night and the accused beat her. They questioned the brother of the accused, and also informed that the accused used to beat the deceased. Because of harassment caused by the accused, the deceased was disgusted and committed suicide along with her daughter. This witness was cross-examined at length and also certain contradictions also had been marked in 161 code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity cr. P. C. ) statement. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of P. W. 1 and accused is her brother and also son-in-law. She had deposed about the same and specifically stated that due to harassment caused by the accused, her daughter vexed with life and committed suicide along with her daughter. This witness also was cross- examined at length. ( 12 ) P. WS. 3 to 6 were declared hostile. P. W. 7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government community Hospital, Narasannapeta, deposed that he conducted post-mortem over the deadbody of a female, aged 26 years, by name Kuppili Revathi, at 10 a. m. to 1 p. m. on 24-11-1996. Approximate time of death is 36 to 48 hours. The reason of death is drowning and he found one injury contusion 2" x 2" on the right side back of the chest. Ex. P-5 is the post-mortem certificate. Approximate time of death is 36 to 48 hours. The reason of death is drowning and he found one injury contusion 2" x 2" on the right side back of the chest. Ex. P-5 is the post-mortem certificate. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is M. R. O. who conducted inquest as per the requisition of Station House officer, Ponduru. Ex. P-6 is the inquest report and Village Administrative Officer, Ponduru scribed the same as per his instructions and they died due to drowning in the well. ( 14 ) P. W. 9 is Assistant Civil Surgeon, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased-Jyothi and issued Ex. P-7 certificate and opined that the death might have occurred 36 to 48 hours prior to postmortem. ( 15 ) P. W. 10 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who had deposed about receiving report from the accused on 23-11-1996 and registered the same in Crime No. 167 of 1996 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. and sending the original FIR to Mandal Revenue Officer, ponduru and issued requisition to Mandal revenue Officer to conduct inquest and on visiting the scene of offence along with mandal Revenue Officer, found two dead bodies in the well and also deposed about examining the persons cited in the charge sheet and recording the statements and preparing rough sketch Ex. P-10. This witness also deposed that he measured the well and parapet wall is 1 1/2 feet height and diameter is 75 feet. The width of the wall is 1 1/2 feet. He also deposed about the further details of the investigation and altering provision of law and filing charge sheet after completion of investigation. ( 16 ) D. W. 1 is the father of the accused who had deposed that the accused is his son and there are no disputes between his sons and deceased and they were cordial and accused had not taken any girl of Lakshmipeta nor got illicit intimacy with her. And his grand daughter and his great grand daughter did not commit suicide due to harassment and this witness also deposed that he refused to give share to P. W. 2 and hence, she gave evidence in that fashion. And his grand daughter and his great grand daughter did not commit suicide due to harassment and this witness also deposed that he refused to give share to P. W. 2 and hence, she gave evidence in that fashion. ( 17 ) D. W. 2 is the person living opposite to the house of the accused who deposed that there are no disputes between the accused and the wife and they were cordial. ( 18 ) ON the strength of this evidence available, the learned Judge after recording the reasons, came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 498-A and 306 IPC had been made out. Section 498-A IPC reads hereunder: husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-"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 be extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. "section 306 IPC reads as specified hereunder: abetment of suicide:-"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. " ( 19 ) THE deceased and also the accused are relatives even prior to their marriage. The accused is the maternal uncle of the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is just vague about harassment. The question of illicit intimacy and the accused eloping with a lady cannot be believed since even the name of the lady was not spoken to by any of the close relatives P. Ws. 1 and 2. Whereas the father of the accused who is also incidentally father of P. W. 2 and grand father of Revati and_great erand father of Jyothi, specifically deposed thac there were no such disputes. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution. There cannot be any controversy about the medical evidence and the other investigating details and conducting of inquest and the other aspects. The incident happened due to drowning. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution. There cannot be any controversy about the medical evidence and the other investigating details and conducting of inquest and the other aspects. The incident happened due to drowning. ( 20 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the height of the parapet wall of the well is so limited and that the possibility of the accidental falling of these cannot be ruled out totally, whatever the reason may be, definitely, the prosecution was unable to establish the guilt of the accused either under sec. 498-A or 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. On such material, just the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 the vague evidence, conviction cannot be sustained. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned judge in this regard, definitely, are not in accordance with law. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no legally acceptable evidence before the court, so as to sustain the conviction under section 498-A and 306 IPC. ( 21 ) NO doubt certain decisions were placed (supra) by the Additional public Prosecutor. It is needless to say that in a criminal case a precedent value would be very limited and mostly the matters are to be decided on the facts of a particular given case in the facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentences imposed both under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are hereby set aside. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.