ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal by the accused who was convicted under Section 306, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for having committed offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two yeas for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for having committed offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as accused. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - Smt.Gunwantabai ñ the complainant ñ is the mother of deceased Kavita. She has two daughters. Elder daughter Mangala resides at village Panora. Deceased Kavita was married to the accused two years prior to her death. Deceased Kavita was treated well for two months after the marriage and thereafter accused started ill-treating the deceased. Since accused was in the habit of consuming liquor, he used to beat the deceased under influence of liquor. Since the complainant received such information, she had sent her husband to the house of the accused. She also had gone once to the house of the accused. At that time, it is alleged that, Kavita used to tell her that accused suspects here fidelity and asks her different questions. He does not like her talking with anybodyelse. Kavita was therefore fed up of this harassment. Kavita was brought by her to her house and stayed for fifteen days after Diwali. She was again sent back. One day, complainant received an information that her daughter has been admitted in the hospital. The complainant went there. Her daughter had already expired. The complainant, therefore, lodged the report with the police. The Police registered offences under Section 306, 498-A and 201 of the Indian penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet-against the accused. 3. The Sessions court framed the charge against the accused after the case was committed and came to the conclusion after recording the evidence that all charges against the accused have been proved. He was, therefore, sentenced to imprisonment as stated above. Being aggrieved by that order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. 3. The Sessions court framed the charge against the accused after the case was committed and came to the conclusion after recording the evidence that all charges against the accused have been proved. He was, therefore, sentenced to imprisonment as stated above. Being aggrieved by that order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the accused at the very outset contended that the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in any case. He submitted that the deceased was not a legally wedded wife of accused at all. He also contended that only a legally wedded wife can acquired a status of wife. The accused and his wife are both Hindus and therefore are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it is incumbent that neither of the party to marriage should be a spouse living at the time of the marriage. PW 1 Gunwantabai ñ the mother of the deceased, in cross examination admits that when the marriage between accused and the deceased took place, there was no divorce between accused and his first wife. Obviously, the accused had a spouse living at the time of his marriage with the deceased. This court in a case reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J. Pg.425 (Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat ..vs.. State of Maharashtra) has observed as follows - ìIt is thus clear that if at all there is any marriage between Baburao and the present applicant, it is void. If it is void, it is non est. In any case, therefore, second wife cannot assume a character as wife. It is no marriage in the eye of law. A person can become a relative only by blood or marriage and not otherwise. The word relative has been defined in the Chamber Dictionary ìperson who is related by blood or marriage.î The applicant cannot, therefore, be said to be related to Baburao either by blood or by marriage. Since she is not a relative, she does not fall within the scope of section 498A of Indian Penal Code at all. She certainly deserves to be discharged as far as offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned. Since she is not a relative, she does not fall within the scope of section 498A of Indian Penal Code at all. She certainly deserves to be discharged as far as offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned. She is accordingly discharged as regards offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As far as offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, that need not be considered at this stage since Mr.Mardikar, the learned counsel, does not desire to press that aspect here. Order accordingly. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 2005 Cri.L.J.2925 (John Indiculla and anr. ..vs.. State of Kerala) to hold that the second wife is the relative of the husband. I respectfully disagree with the ratio of the Kerala High Court. Moreover, I am bound by the decision of this High Court. I find that in the instant case the deceased could not acquire status of the wife since the first marriage of the accused was still subsisting. The accused could not, therefore, be convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. This takes me to the question of abetment of suicide. In this regard the post mortem note (Exh.31) shows that the deceased died of consumption of Organo Phosphores kind of poison. Chemical Analyser report (Exh.18) shows that same poison was found in the viscera. Exh.19 ñ the other C.A. report ñ shows that the container had also same kind of poison. It is thus clear that the death of the deceased is due to the consumption of the poison. The complainant Gunwantabai has alleged that her daughter herself consumed it. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly held that the death was suicidal. 8. The question now is whether the accused abetted such suicide. PW 1 Gunwantabai has stated that accused was in habit of consumption of liquor and is of suspicious nature. She says that accused did not allow Kavita to talk to anybody and he used to raise doubt about her character and beat her. She further states that Kavita used to tell her about that when she had gone to her house. She also claims that just two days before the incident she had gone to the house of the accused and before her reaching there, the accused had beaten Kavita. She further states that Kavita used to tell her about that when she had gone to her house. She also claims that just two days before the incident she had gone to the house of the accused and before her reaching there, the accused had beaten Kavita. Obviously, all this evidence is hearsay. The evidence does not go to show any kind of abetment to commit suicide. On the other hand, it is admitted by PW 1 Gunwantabai that her daughter herself was very hot tempered. The Supreme Court has held in AIR 2004 SC 5097 (Randhir Singh and anr. ..vs.. State of Punjab) as follows - ì12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. 9. In a decision reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2306 (S.C.) (K.R.Soorachari ..vs.. State of Karnataka) , the Supreme Court has observed thus - 6. Shri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no justification for the High Court to set aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant. He submitted that so far as the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is concerned, there is no material on record to support the aforesaid charge. The evidence only disclosed that A-1 husband of the deceased entertained a suspicion about her chastity and that was the reason why she was harassed by him. There is no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellant with the offence under Section 498A IPC. He also submitted that so far as the offences under Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the High Court has not justified in setting aside the finding of fact recorded by the trial court in favour of the appellant. We have, therefore, considered the evidence on record placed before us by counsel for the parties. 7. We have, therefore, considered the evidence on record placed before us by counsel for the parties. 7. So far as charge under Section 498-A, IPC is concerned, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is really no material to connect the appellant with that offence,. In fact the High Court has not even noticed any such evidence which may justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A, IPC. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled of acquittal so far the charge under section 498-A, IPC is concerned.î In the instant case also the facts are identical. In fact, in the case at hand there is no evidence of beating at all. Although PW 2 Shankar Dhakare ñ Police Patil ñ of village is examined to prove the factum of beating, his evidence is most uninspiring. He claims to have seen the deceased being beaten while passing by the road. He is thus a chance witness and being a police Patil is bound to help the prosecution. It is difficult to accept that he could see what was happening inside the house. He sates that accused used to raise doubt about character of Kavita which also seems incredible. There is no reason for him to know that. Secondly, he admits that accused was not allowing Kavita to talk to anybody or meet anybody. If that is so, one wonders as to how could PW 2 come to know that the accused raised doubt on her fidelity. For this reason, his evidence is also not worthy of any credit. 10. There is, in fact, therefore no evidence of instigation or aiding the accused to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge fell in error in holding the accused guilty of offences under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. If the accused cannot be held guilty of above two offences, there is no question of accused causing disappearance of evidence of any offence at all. He, therefore, needs to be acquitted of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the following order. The appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offences for which he was convicted. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. He, therefore, needs to be acquitted of the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the following order. The appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offences for which he was convicted. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Lawyer's fee is quantified at Rs.3000/- which would be payable by High Court Legal Aid Services, Sub Committee, Nagpur.