Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr. PC, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-2-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S. T. No. 89/90, whereby the appellant has been found guilty under Section 306, IPC and has been sentenced to 7 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for three months. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant accused Ashwini Kumar is the husband of the deceased Urmilabai, married with her on 7-3-1988 at Neemuch. After marriage, both appellant and his wife Urmilabai were living at Ujjain. The appellant accused was doing the business of sale of Sarees. After one year of the marriage, one daughter was born to the deceased Urmilabai. On 16-10-1989 at Ujjain Urmilabai consumed some poisonous substance and gave this poisonous substance to her daughter, aged about 10 months also and both of them died due to consuming this substance. The matter has been reported to the Police Nilganga, Ujjain, on which basis the police has registered a merg for investigation of the unnatural death of Urmilabai as well as the minor child Chetna, prepared the inquest panchnama, sent the dead bodies of the deceased for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem of Urmilabai was performed by Dr. R. C. Sokhiya (P. W. 3) who found that Urmilabai died due to asphyxia. The viscera has been preserved for further chemical examination. The postmortem report is Ex. P-2. Similarly, Dr. Sunil Zamidar (P. W. 15) performed the post-mortem of the minor child Chetna but could not opine for the cause of death. The viscera of this body has also been preserved for further chemical examination. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-16, which has been issued by the aforesaid doctor. For the first time the written report has been sent to the police by Narayanlal (P. W. 14) father of the deceased Urmilabai, which is Ex. D-l, wherein it is stated that the deceased Urmilabai committed suicide due to the cruel treatment of her husband Ashwinikumar, the present appellant accused. On the basis of that Nilganga Police has registered an offence under Section 306, IPC as per Ex. P-17 on 23-10-1989. Thereafter recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses. D-l, wherein it is stated that the deceased Urmilabai committed suicide due to the cruel treatment of her husband Ashwinikumar, the present appellant accused. On the basis of that Nilganga Police has registered an offence under Section 306, IPC as per Ex. P-17 on 23-10-1989. Thereafter recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The FSL report of the viscera of the deceased Urmilabai and Chetna has been received as Ex. P-3, wherein the poisonous substance "aluminium Phosphide (Sulphas)" has been found in the viscera of the deceased. The appellant accused has been arrested by the police and after due investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the Trial Court. The appellant accused abjured his guilt and his defence is of false implication in the case by the police concerned. The learned Trial Court after due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 16-2-1994 found the appellant guilty under Section 306, IPC and sentenced him, as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3. ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 4. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased has written a letter (Ex. P-14) three days before her death wherein she had not narrated anything about the cruel treatment of her husband Ashwinikumar. Similarly, the statement of the father Narayanlal (P. W. 14), Vidhyasagar (P. W. 13), Sitadevi (P. W. 10) and Dharmendar (P. W. 12) are also having material contradictions with regard to the aforesaid cruel treatment of the appellant accused to his wife Urmilabai. The only thing which has come on record by the statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that the appellant accused was pertubed due to his economic condition and non-earning, the deceased should be a sensational lady and due to this economic condition she committed the suicide, for which the appellant accused cannot be held guilty for the offence of abetment of the aforesaid suicide committed by Urmilabai. Thus, on over-all evidence, as has been produced by the prosecution, the charge of abetment of suicide has not at all been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the appellant accused and the learned Trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellant guilty under the aforesaid offence, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court. ( 5. ) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment and finding recorded by the Trial Court and submits that the prosecution has fully proved the charge of abetment of suicide against the appellant accused by the statement Narayanlal (P. W. 14) father of the deceased Urmilabai, Sitadevi (P. W. 10), Dharmendra (P. W. 12) and one independent witness Vidhyasagar (P. W. 13), who also stated about the cruel treatment of the appellant accused towards his wife Urmilabai. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid statements of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty under Section 306, IPC and no substantial grounds are available to interfere with the aforesaid finding and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 6. ) TO bring home the charge under Section 306, IPC against the appellant accused, an important duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the ingredients of Section 306, IPC to prove that the deceased Urmilabai died due to instigation done by the present appellant by the cruel treatment to her. Most material document on record is Ex. P-14, which is the letter written by the deceased herself to her parents three days before her death. In this letter (Ex. P-14), she has not mentioned about any cruel treatment of her husband Ashwinikumar to her. On the other hand, in this letter she specifically stated that she went with her husband to Dashehara Fair and also to Mahakal temple. This conduct of the appellant accused, which has been mentioned in Ex. P-14, the letter written by the deceased herself three days before her death also indicates that this is a false allegation against the appellant accused that he was repeatedly harassing or treating his wife with cruelty. ( 7. This conduct of the appellant accused, which has been mentioned in Ex. P-14, the letter written by the deceased herself three days before her death also indicates that this is a false allegation against the appellant accused that he was repeatedly harassing or treating his wife with cruelty. ( 7. ) SIMILARLY, two letters are also on record, which have been written by the deceased to her parents and which have been produced by Narayanlal (P. W. 14), who is father of the deceased, these are Exs. P-11 and P-12. In that also, it is nowhere mentioned by the deceased that the husband, the present appellant accused, was drinking liquor and harassing her by giving cruel treatment to her, the only thing which has been alleged in these letters is that due to lack of money her husband Ashwinikumar was continuously in tension and trying to settle down his business. ( 8. ) THESE letters admittedly were written by the deceased Urmilabai herself and may be treated as the best evidence available on record to the prosecution, but in these letters, nowhere it has been mentioned by the deceased that she ever been treated with cruelty by her husband Ashwinikumar, which instigated her to commit suicide on 16-10-1989. ( 9. ) WITH regard to oral evidence is concerned, Narayanlal (P. W. 14), father of the deceased, stated before the Trial Court that his daughter Urmilabai was complaining about misbehaviour of the appellant accused and also stated that her husband used to drink liquor and also contracted with some other lady and used to come late daily in the house but these allegations are not made by this witness in his written report Ex. D-1. These allegations have not at all been made by the deceased Urmilabai in her letter in Exs. P-11, P-12, P-13 and P-14, as stated herein above, therefore, these allegations appear to be an afterthought statement of the father of the deceased Narayanlal (P. W. 14 ). Same is the statement of Sitadevi (P. W. 10), Dharmendra (P. W. 12), Vidhyasagar (P. W. 13) that the appellant accused Ashwinikumar was repeatedly harassing and giving cruel treatment to Urmilabai and drinking liquor etc. but as stated hereinabove, such allegations are not found in the letters (Exs. P-11 to P-14), which have been admittedly written by the deceased Urmilabai herself. but as stated hereinabove, such allegations are not found in the letters (Exs. P-11 to P-14), which have been admittedly written by the deceased Urmilabai herself. In such circumstances, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses at the later stage cannot be found much reliable. ( 10. ) SIMILARLY, the incident took place on 16-10-1989 but Narayanlal (P. W. 14), who is admittedly a practicing advocate at Neemuch has not lodged any FIR at Police Station Nilganga immediately after the incident that his daughter Urmilabai committed suicide due to the instigation of the appellant accused Ashwinikumar and his written report, as stated herein above, is Ex. D-l, which has been sent by him on 23-10-1989, near about 10 days after the incident and for which no reasonable explanation is on record as to why there was the delay from 16-10-1989 to 23-10-1989 when he knew the consequences of the delayed report as an advocate. In these circumstances also it appears that it is the afterthought version that Urmilabai died or committed the suicide due to the instigation by cruel treatment by the appellant accused to her. ( 11. ) THE learned Trial Court has relied upon the statement of Vidhyasagar (P. W. 13) and found him an independent witness of the fact that Urmilabai stated before him that her husband Ashwinikumar was harassing her and giving cruel treatment to her and also demanding ornaments for starting his business. This fact has not been stated by Narayanlal (P. W. 14) that his daughter Urmilabai ever stated before him that Ashwinikumar her husband is demanding her ornaments to start his new business and this has also not been stated in the aforesaid letters written by the deceased Urmilabai, as stated herein above. ( 12. ) THUS, on over-all re-appreciation of the prosecution evidence on record, there is no reliable evidence on record, on which basis it can be inferred that before the unnatural death of Urmilabai she was harassed or instigated by the appellant accused to commit suicide. Honble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Dandalwar 2000 Cr. ) THUS, on over-all re-appreciation of the prosecution evidence on record, there is no reliable evidence on record, on which basis it can be inferred that before the unnatural death of Urmilabai she was harassed or instigated by the appellant accused to commit suicide. Honble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Dandalwar 2000 Cr. LJ 4993 has held as under: But, having gone through the letters produced by the prosecution, we do not find even a slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or he has assaulted or treated the wife with cruelty or torture. In that view of the matter, when in so many letters (Exs. 11 to 17) the deceased has not reflected any cruelty alleged to have been meted out to her by the husband. It is difficult to maintain a conviction on the oral testimony of the younger brother of the deceased and, in our view, the High Court was fully justified in recording an order of acquittal. We see no merits in this appeal to interfere with the said order of acquittal. On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by Honble the Apex Court, ; on perusal of the facts of the present case, which are also similar, wherein the deceased has not written about any harassment or cruel treatment by the appellant accused in her letter Ex. P-14, which has been written three days before the unnatural death of Urmilabai, therefore, on that basis itself the statement of the other witnesses with regard to the harassment cannot be believed. ( 13. ) SIMILARLY, this Court in the case of Shailendrasingh v. State of M. P. 2005 (I) MPWN, Note No. 138 has held that if the evidence of immediate harassment or instigation is not available on record, then the appellant accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306, IPC. ( 13. ) SIMILARLY, this Court in the case of Shailendrasingh v. State of M. P. 2005 (I) MPWN, Note No. 138 has held that if the evidence of immediate harassment or instigation is not available on record, then the appellant accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306, IPC. The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in the case of Vishnu Prasad v. State of M. P. 2005 (5) M. P. H. T. 62 : 2005 (3) MPLJ 23 and held as under: Section 306 of IPC reads as under: 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. It is apparent that from the language of this section the abetment is most important ingredients of the offence and the abetment is not defined separately in that section. Therefore, Section 107 of IPC which defines abetment is referable at this stage in which the ingredients of the abetment are explained. Section 107 of IPC reads as under: 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 things, 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. It is apparent that the 3 ingredients are basic requirement for determining the case of abetment. First, the concerning person who committed suicide should be instigated by the accused for the same and secondly there should be an involvement of the accused in conspiracy whereby the deceased committed said act, and thirdly there should be intentional criminal aids to deceased at the instance of the accused either by act or by omission for doing such act. ( 14. ( 14. ) THUS, on the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by Honble the Apex Court and by this Court, on re-appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the facts that the deceased Urmilabai has been instigated by the appellant accused by treating her with cruelty, on which basis she committed suicide on the date of the incident on 16-10-1989, therefore, the finding and sentence recorded by the Trial Court appears to be erroneous and is liable to be set aside. ( 15. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appellant accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 306, IPC. Fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, be returned to him accordingly. The appellant accused is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.