JUDGMENT :- Being aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code and the resultant sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively and fine of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- respectively, imposed on him by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Nagpur, the accused in Sessions Case No.1 04/1993 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts which led to the prosecution of the appellant are as under. The appellant was married to deceased Rajas in May, 1986. The parties started residing at village Nimtalai in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Khapa. It was alleged that the accused ill-treated his wife, beat her, assaulted and abused her. On 19-10-1992, Rajas consumed poison and committed suicide. Accused reported the matter to the Police Station on 2010-1992 and an accidental death was registered. After inquest, dead body was sent for postmortem. On the report and Purushottam, brother of deceased, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, police sent charge-sheet against the accused alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 306 of the Penal Code. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nagpur. The learned 7th Additional Session Judge, Nagpur to whom the case was assigned charged the appellant of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, he has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. It may be seen that the appellant was married to the victim for almost 6½ years. There was no evidence of any discord between the parties. All the allegations about ill-treatment etc. have surfaced only after the unfortunate incident in which the victim met with her death. There is nothing to show that prior to death of the victim, she was subjected to any ill-treatment. The accidental death was registered on the death being reported by the accused himself. All the allegations about ill-treatment etc. have surfaced only after the unfortunate incident in which the victim met with her death. There is nothing to show that prior to death of the victim, she was subjected to any ill-treatment. The accidental death was registered on the death being reported by the accused himself. The victim seems to have consumed poison - "Thimate". 6. Speculation as to why victim should have committed suicide is aired by PW1 and PW-3 to PW-8, all relations of the victim. PW 1 father Vithoba stated that his daughter used to be ill treated by the appellant, though, he does not give any reasons for such illtreatment. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no demand of dowry or any illtreatment relating to any demand. PW 1 Vithoba was not only alleging that the appellant was ill treating his daughter but also stated that the parents-in-law of the victim were also ill-treating her which is not deposed by any other witness. Though, Vithoba stated that he had received some letters from his daughter 2 to 3 days before the incident, he had not produced any such letter, or chit, stating that it was misplaced. His mention about the chits seems to be only an after thought. He stated that he had also received a letter in which it was mentioned that accused was not providing food or clothes to his daughter, but that letter too is misplaced. He denied the suggestion that he had charged the accused to be responsible for the fact that his daughter has no issues because the accused had undergone family planning operation. Significantly, he stated that his daughter had never told him that she was fed up with the life or that she was left with no option but to end her life. 7. PW 3 Rama, the elder sister of victim, stated that victim had told her that accused used to beat her and was not providing her with food. She stated that while they were Carpenters by caste, PW 2 Shewantabai was not of their caste. She stated that deceased Rajas was sensitive woman. She stated that accused used to be out of house for his work and used to visit the house once or twice in a month. She stated that while they were Carpenters by caste, PW 2 Shewantabai was not of their caste. She stated that deceased Rajas was sensitive woman. She stated that accused used to be out of house for his work and used to visit the house once or twice in a month. If that is so, it is very difficult to conceive that as to how accused would have any reason for illtreatment. PW 3 Rama stated that victim had not told as to what was the nature of trouble to her from the accused. 8. PW 4 Purushottam, brother of victim stated that his sister told him that the accused used to suspect her character and, therefore, used to beat her. He stated that he found that accused was not staying at the house of victim for two to three months at a stretch. He stated that accused was not providing food or clothes to the victim. PW 4 Purushottam had proved his report to the police at Exh.32. In the report, it is stated that victim had told her brother that the appellant resides away from village for work for stretches of fifteen days and at that time, does not provide her food etc. and, therefore, she had to work as a labourer for her livelihood. She had further told her brother that after returning, the accused used to suspect her character and give her filthy abuses. 9. PW 5 Sitabai, victim's mother, also stated in the same vein. In cross-examination, she admitted that her daughter had not told her that accused had any illicit relations with the landlady and denied having stated so to the police. She contradicted the relevant portion of her police statement. This contradiction was duly proved by the Investigation Officer PW 9 P.I. Tiwari at Exh.47. The learned A.P.P. conducting the case got this aspect proved in the examination-in-chief itself since it seems that it was the prosecution case that the victim was subjected to ill-treatment because of the illicit relations of the accused with landlady PW 2 Shewantabai. PW 5 Sitabai denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the case because they were under the wrong impression that accused had il1icit relations with the landlady. 10. PW 6 Hemraj, another brother of the victim also stated about the victim being abused by the accused. PW 5 Sitabai denied that the accused was falsely implicated in the case because they were under the wrong impression that accused had il1icit relations with the landlady. 10. PW 6 Hemraj, another brother of the victim also stated about the victim being abused by the accused. PW 7 Pradip, another brother, added a new dimension to the story by stating that his sister had told him that the accused used to beat her under the influence of liquor. He added that accused used to take his meals at the house of his landlady and did not provide any food to the victim. In the cross-examination he stated that the appellant used to beat the victim because she was not preparing food properly. If the accused was taking meals at the house of landlady, there would be no question of his tasting food prepared by his wife and getting annoyed for preparation of the said food. It is pertinent to note that the reasons given by this witness PW 7 Pradip for the ill-treatment are not stated by any other witness. 11. PW 8 Usha, another sister of the victim, stated that victim had told her that the accused used to suspect her character whenever she used to go alone in the field. She stated that the accused told the victim not to go to the field alone. Nevertheless, the victim used to go in the fields alone. She stated that the accused used to beat victim whenever she used to go to the field alone. She too stated that the victim had not disclosed to her the manner of beating. No witness had ever observed any marks of violence on the person of the victim. None of the witnesses stated having disclosed such illtreatment to anyone else. 12. PW 2 Shewanta is the landlady of the accused. She stated that the accused is her grand son and occupies a separate room in her house since last six to seven years. She stated that there were no quarrels between the accused and his wife Rajas. 13. It may be seen that there is no independent witness, to whom any of the family members of the victim had ever reported before her death that, the victim was subjected to illtreatment. All the allegations about ill-treatment came after the unfortunate incident. She stated that there were no quarrels between the accused and his wife Rajas. 13. It may be seen that there is no independent witness, to whom any of the family members of the victim had ever reported before her death that, the victim was subjected to illtreatment. All the allegations about ill-treatment came after the unfortunate incident. Though, the witnesses are parents and siblings of the victim, they speak in different voices. There is no unanimity amongst them as to what was the cause of the victim's ill-treatment and how it was meted out. It, therefore, seems that the entire story about ill-treatment is after thought. The victim did not have any issue. This too, could have weighed on her mind. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that prior to the victim's death, she was subjected to any illtreatment to provoke her to commit suicide, it is not possible to hold that the appellant had abetted commission of suicide or instigated the victim by his ill-treatment to end her life. Consequently, notwithstanding the testimony of entire family of the victim comprising of parents, brothers and sisters the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge cannot be upheld. Hence, the order. 14. The appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant and resultant sentence imposed upon him for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offences. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the appellant, shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be returned to him.