JUDGMENT H.V.G. Ramesh, J. This appeal is by the accused challenging the order of the Fast Track Court No. IV, Bangalore City, passed in S. C. No. 699/05 Order dated 26.9.06 in convicting and sentencing the occsed for the offences Punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for a period of three Years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and default Sentence of six months S.I. for the offence under Section 498-A. of IPC and fur the offence under Section 306 of IPC to undergo S.I. for a period of live Years and to pay a tine of Rs.5, 000/- and default Sentence of six months S.I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Pushpalatha was given in marriage to accused No.1 appellant about six years prior to the incident; after the marriage both husband and wife have started residing at Matadahalli in a rented house; the appellant was vending vegetables; out of the wedlock they begot two children; subsequently, deceased Pushpalatha came to know that her husband had developed illicit relationship with accused No.2 and when she questioned the same, accused No.1 stared abusing and assaulting her and accused No.2 also used to join hands with accused No.1; the deceased used to express this fact before her parents, for which the appellant was advised to look after the deceased properly; that on 21.3.05 the complainant received the information that her daughter Pushpalatha is serious and admitted to Ambedkar Hospital and when she rushed to the Hospital, she found that her daughter is dead and later she came to know that being unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by her husband and also by accused No.2, she set herself ablaze. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and also under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and on committal of the case, the learned Fast Track Judge after framing the charges for the above said offences, after the trial, held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced accused No.1 for the said offences while acquitting accused No.2. Hence, this appeal by accused No.1. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Hence, this appeal by accused No.1. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no iota of evidence on record for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC regarding the abetment to commit suicide and that day to day bickering due to some minor misunderstanding between the spouses cannot be treated as harassment when there is no demand for dowry; in the absence of any cogent evidence on record for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in holding the appellant/accused guilty is perverse. It is also submitted that no authenticity is made known even with respect to the so-called death note and also as to at what point of time it was written and except the veracity of the interested witnesses there is no other evidence; the trial Court has committed an error in relying upon their evidence and convicting the appellant. It is also further contended that the mother of the deceased herself deposed to the effect that she had visited the house of the accused 15 days prior to the incident and at that time the deceased had not complained about any harassment meted out to her by her husband which makes it clear that there is no cruelty meted out to the deceased to commit suicide. 5. Per-contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the deceased had disclosed about the harassment meted out to her before her brother and sister who are educated and they have deposed to that effect. Though the harassment was not in respect of payment of dowry, there is cogent evidence on record that due to the cruelty meted out to her she committed suicide. Accordingly, submitted that the order of conviction and sentence does not require any interference. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider whether the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned sessions Judge requires interference? 7. In the decision reported in the case of Habsa Raj Vs. Accordingly, submitted that the order of conviction and sentence does not require any interference. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider whether the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned sessions Judge requires interference? 7. In the decision reported in the case of Habsa Raj Vs. State of Haryana wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 498A and 306 of IPC by the trial Court based on the presumption under Section 113- A of the Evidence Act and the High Court has also upheld the said order of conviction, wherein as per the evidence the accused was addicted to ‘bhang’ and that deceased objected to taking bhang and frequent quarrels took place wherein the Apex Court has held that there is no direct evidence that the appellant either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and that presumption under Section 113- A of the Evidence Act does not raise by operation of law merely on proof of circumstances enumerated under Section 113A of the Act and the provision gives discretion to Court to raise such a presumption and in the facts of the case presumption was not invocable, accordingly, it has held that conviction under Section 306 of IPC is liable to be set aside and that conviction under Section 498A of IPC is maintainable. 8. In the decision reported in the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, the Apex Court has held that harassment of wife by husband or in laws due to differences per se does not attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC, if the wife commits suicide and for a charge under Section 306 of IPC there has to be something more. 9. In the decision reported in the case of Mahendra Sngh and Another Gayathri Bhai Vs. State of M.P. the Apex Court has held that the dying declaration of the deceased wife alone is not sufficient to bring the acts of the appellant/husband and in-laws of the deceased within Section 306 of IPC and conviction for abetment of suicide merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased not sustainable. 10. The trial Court, as per the prosecution version having noted that this appellant having developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2 harassed the deceased, as such, she committed suicide, however, holding that accused Nos. 10. The trial Court, as per the prosecution version having noted that this appellant having developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2 harassed the deceased, as such, she committed suicide, however, holding that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not residing under the same roof, has acquitted accused No.2. In so far as this appellant is concerned, the trial Court has noted that he being the husband of the deceased it was his moral obligation to take care of his wife until her death being a dutiful husband and no women in the Indian society would like to share her husband with any other women and if the husband contracts second marriage or develops illicit relationship with other women, naturally the legally wedded wife would not recognise the same and it would cause mental torture and harassment for more than one reason and the love and affection towards the legally wedded wife would be diminished from day by day, thereby it will have an impact on her health and that she would feel aloofness to live without the company of her husband and in such circumstances, it amounts to abetting commission of suicide. Accordingly, it was of the view that the accused No.1 has abetted his wife to commit suicide. 11. Whether such a moral obligation would alone constitute an abetment to commit suicide is to be looked into. Prima facie, on record, apart from the evidence of brother and sister of the deceased, as per the death note which is said to be in the handwriting of the deceased herself as per the opinion of the handwriting expert, it is to the effect that the deceased was being harassed by this appellant consistently. Whether such a harassment lead to abetment to commit suicide is one aspect and the inference drawn by the trial Court that the deceased committed suicide when the appellant failed to carry out his moral obligation is a different aspect. The people who are hypersensitive to certain of the feelings or to certain of the situations may develop a depression or a frustration which would lead to taking of hasty decisions to end their life by committing suicide. The people who are hypersensitive to certain of the feelings or to certain of the situations may develop a depression or a frustration which would lead to taking of hasty decisions to end their life by committing suicide. In the normal course the women if they are reluctant to live with their husband on coming to know that the husband has developed illicit relationship, they would either take the husband to task or they would come out of his house to live separately and would lead a life of their own. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the effect that the husband has created a situation so as to lead the deceased to commit suicide except that he had illicit relationship with accused No.2 and that there was a harassment meted out to the deceased, mere failure to carry out the moral obligation cannot constitute abetment to commit suicide and it is not as if accused No.1 has brought and kept accused No.2 with him and thereafter, both of them together were harassing the deceased to drive her out so as to have a smoothen relationship. Under the circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that there was an abetment to commit suicide cannot be accepted and the finding of the trial Court in convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC requires interference. 12. In so far as the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1-Ramegowda who was the then Deputy Tahasildar is to the effect that he was incharge of Bangalore North Taluk as Addl. Special Tahasildar and on 21.3.05 he received the phone call from R.T. Nagar police station and he was asked to come to Ambedkar Medical College Hospital to conduct inquest mahazar on the body of deceased Pushpalatha who sustained burn injuries, accordingly, he went to the said hospital wherein the relatives of Pushpalatha were there namely, the mother, brother and sister of the deceased. He has secured the panchasand inspected the body. According to him, the entire body was burnt; he has recorded the statement of the witnesses who were present there. He has secured the panchasand inspected the body. According to him, the entire body was burnt; he has recorded the statement of the witnesses who were present there. As per his evidence on recording their statement he came to know that this accused No.1 had developed illicit intimacy with Nagamma and ill-treated Pushpalatha out of the said intimacy and as such, the deceased having disgusted in life having poured kerosene on her body set fire to herself. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion to the contrary. It is clear from the evidence of this witness that the deceased being disgusted has set herself ablaze and also according to him as per the statement of the mother, brother and sister of the deceased, there was a harassment and cruelty meted out to her by accused No.1. 13. P.W.2 is the pancha for the mahazar at EX.P2. He turned hostile to the seizure of Ex.P3. But, however, there is evidence of the I.O. regarding seizure of Ex.P 11, the death note, which is said to be in the handwriting of the deceased herself as per the handwriting expert and also seizure of M.O.3. 14. As per the evidence of P.W.4, the mother of the deceased, accused No.1 started giving cruel treatment to the deceased after developing intimacy with accused No.2 and both of them colluding together started harassing her daughter; accused No.1 used to abuse and assault her daughter and although they enquired with accused No.1 about his illicit intimacy with accused No.2 he denied the same, despite that her another daughter and son went and advised accused No.1; one year prior to her death the deceased had come to her maternal house having quarreled with her husband in this regard and of that time the deceased had stayed in their house for 15 days and accused No.1 had come there to take her back and at that time also they advised him and thereafter they were happy for somedays. According to this witness, she had come to the house of accused No.1 about 15 days prior to the death of the deceased and at that time, the deceased did not tell anything about the harassment meted out to her and thereafter after 15 days she came to know about the death of her daughter. According to this witness, she had come to the house of accused No.1 about 15 days prior to the death of the deceased and at that time, the deceased did not tell anything about the harassment meted out to her and thereafter after 15 days she came to know about the death of her daughter. She has also identified the letter at Ex.P 11 which is in the handwriting of the dece- ased and as well as the letter at Ex.P3. 15. P.W5-Rangaraju is the brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the ill treatment meted out to the deceased after accused No.1 developing illicit intimacy with accused No.2. According to him, whenever the deceased used to question accused No.1 about this, he used to harass her by abusing and assaulting. Similar is the evidence of P.W6, the sister of the deceased. 16. The evidence of P.W 7 -Somashekar is to the effect that accused No.1 after one year of the marriage had developed illicit intimacy with accused No.2 and as such, the deceased had come back to her village by quarrelling with accused No.1. 17. P.W8 is the owner of the house in which the accused No.1 and the deceased were residing, he has turned hostile. 18. P.W 9-Jayamma is the neighbor of the accused, she has also not supported the prosecution version. 19. P.W10-B.M.Nagaraj is the doctor who has conducted the autopsy of the dead body and spoken to about the burn injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to shock as a result of burn injuries. 20. As noted, apart from the evidence of P.Ws 4,5,6, the mother, brother and sister of the deceased respectively, there is a evidence of one independent witness P. W 7 who has spoken about the quarrel between the spouses in connection with accused No.1 having developed illicit intimacy with some other lady. What transpires from the record is that all these witnesses have spoken about the death of the deceased due to frustration since accused No.1 had developed intimacy with accused No.2 and also due to the harassment meted out by him in assaulting and abusing her after developing illicit relation with accused No.2. What transpires from the record is that all these witnesses have spoken about the death of the deceased due to frustration since accused No.1 had developed intimacy with accused No.2 and also due to the harassment meted out by him in assaulting and abusing her after developing illicit relation with accused No.2. As noted earlier, the death of the deceased was due to the attitude of accused No.1 would not be sufficient to hold that there is an abetment to commit suicide and the finding of the trial Court that it was duty bound on accused No.1 to maintain moral obligation and that he failed to do so, as such, she committed suicide cannot be accepted to hold that there is an abetment to commit suicide. 21. As per Section 498A of IPC, 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 extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The cruelty in the context may be a willful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life and the cruelty may be mental or physical and also the harassment is with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand. In the instant case it is only cruelty in harassing her and ill-treating her and not either to meet his unlawful demand of dowry or to commit suicide. But the cruelty is of such a nature that there is a willful conduct on the part of accused No.1 in abusing and harassing her after having developed illicit relationship with accused No.2. Though not necessarily such a cruelty has lead or abetted to commit suicide but the deceased having developed frustration by the attitude and conduct of accused No.1, has committed suicide. Under the circumstances, the order of conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has to be upheld, however, the order of conviction and sentence passed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC requires interference. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Under the circumstances, the order of conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC has to be upheld, however, the order of conviction and sentence passed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC requires interference. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the order of the trial Court, while maintaining the conviction passed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, it is ordered that accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for a period of two years instead of three years. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The accused is also entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of detention he has already undergone.