JUDGEMENT:- By way of present appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Billoli in Special Case No. 21/2000 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default R.I. for one month, further convicting them for the offence punishable under section 147 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each, in default R.I. for seven days, also convicting for the offence punishable under section 148 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default R.I. for 15 days and also convicting them for the offence punishable under section 143 of I.P.C. 2) The prosecution case in nut shell is as under; The deceased Dattu S/o Santuka Suryawanshi and all the accused are resident of village Shilvani Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. Dattu was the village Kotwal at the relevant time. It is prosecution case that on 26th January, 1993 on account of Republic day Dattu had gone to the office of Grampanchayat of village Shilvani for Flag Hoisting. His wife complainant Gangubai and daughter Phulubai were present in the house. On that day at about 01.00 p.m. Gangubai came to know that near the Flag post accused No.3 Venkati Hadole told Dattu that he is dealing in tricks of black magic (Bhanamati) to the village women. Said Venkati took Dattu to the shop of accused No.1 Keshav. It is further prosecution case that after the receipt of information Phulubai went in the village towards her father i.e. Dattu. The complainant thereafter informed about the same to her brother-in-law Ranba. Thereafter Ranba told the complainant that let the villagers do what they want to do and she should remain in the home. After some time Phulubai came back to the home. It is prosecution case that thereafter the accused Keshav assaulted Dattu by stick and rest of the accused beat Dattu by kicks and blows. It is further prosecution case that at about 4.00 p.m. all the accused brought Dattu beating to his home by tiding his both hands on his back. After some time Phulubai came back to the home. It is prosecution case that thereafter the accused Keshav assaulted Dattu by stick and rest of the accused beat Dattu by kicks and blows. It is further prosecution case that at about 4.00 p.m. all the accused brought Dattu beating to his home by tiding his both hands on his back. It is alleged that the accused were insisting that Dattu should take out Dolls from his house which were used for tricks of black magic. All the accused entered the house of the deceased and took search of the Doll. It is alleged that thereafter the accused again took Dattu to the village. It is further prosecution case that due to fear the complainant and her daughter stayed at home. It is further case of the prosecution that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. accused again brought Dattu to his home. At that time they there were injuries on his both calf. The accused No.3 Venkat and Manohar applied Turmeric powder on the injuries. That time all the accused asked Dattu to change the blood stained Dhoti. Another Dhoti was given to Datu and he was made to wear it. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused directed Complainant Gangabai to wash the blood stained Dhoti. After that all the accused took Dattu to the village. On the next date i.e. on 27th January, 1993 at morning the complainant Gangabai came to know that Dattu committed suicide by hanging himself to a Tamrind tree near village. Intimation was given by the Police Patil to Markhel Police Station. Accordingly accidental death came to be registered as A.D. No.1/1993. Dead body was taken to the Rural Hospital where postmortem was conducted. In the postmortem the Medical Officer opined cause of death as "asphexia due to hanging" and ante mortem injuries over both legs and scrotum were also noticed. 3. On oral report of Gangabai crime came to be registered on 29th January, 1993 at Crime No. 12/1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 365, 448 and 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was conducted. Blood stained Dhoti of Dattu was seized. 3. On oral report of Gangabai crime came to be registered on 29th January, 1993 at Crime No. 12/1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 365, 448 and 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was conducted. Blood stained Dhoti of Dattu was seized. According to the prosecution one iron rod was seized from the accused No.2 and a stick was seized from accused No.1 Keshav as per memorandum and recovery panchanama under section 127 of the Evidence Act. 4. Since during the investigation it was transpired that Dattu belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused do not belong to Scheduled Caste, section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 3(1)(x), (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added in the crime. After submission of charge sheet, since the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and since the offence was also under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, case was committed to the Special Court/Sessions Court, Nanded. There after, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Billoli. 5. Initially the trial court framed charge under Section 143, 147, 148, 365, 448, 306 r/w 149 of I.P.C., sec. 7()(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequently additional charge under section 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. was also framed. The charges were read over to the accused. The accused pleased not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 6) The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Subsequently court has examined 10 witnesses as court witness. Initially there were 10 accused, however, during the course of trial 2 accused expired and only accused came to be tried. After considering the evidence on record the learned trial court recorded order of conviction and sentence as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved there by the present appeals are filed. 7. The learned Counsel Shri Salunke, Shri Kudale and Shri Gore appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in convicting the accused. It is submitted that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the trial under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved there by the present appeals are filed. 7. The learned Counsel Shri Salunke, Shri Kudale and Shri Gore appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in convicting the accused. It is submitted that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the trial under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to prove any act on the part of the accused which can be said to be of such a nature that would instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3202, judgment of the single judge of this court in the case of Satish Narayan Ate vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 197 Crl. L.J. 935 and Criminal Appeal No. 61/2002 in the case of Narayan Ganpatrao Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 19th October, 2007. The learned counsel further submitted that the conviction under Section 147, 148 of I.P.C. was also not sustainable for the reasons that there was no cogent and consistent evidence about the specific act of the accused persons. In this respect reliance is place on judgment of this court in the case of Gourya Kalya @ Pandu Patil and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1998 All MR (Cri.) 670 and in the case of Ajit Mali vs. State of Maharashtra reported in All MR (Cri.) 455. The learned counsel further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report which was not explained by the prosecution and as such there is great shadow of doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. 8. Shri Shinde learned A.P.P. on the contrary submitted that the learned trial court upon appreciation of evidence of the witnesses and also upon appreciation of evidence of court witness Shankar, who is an independent witness, has found that the prosecution has proved the be young reasonable doubt, that the present appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased on the suspicion that he was indulging in black magic and that due to this insult the deceased has committed suicide. He submitted that no interference is warranted in the order of conviction. 9. He submitted that no interference is warranted in the order of conviction. 9. In the light of rival submissions it would be necessary to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so also evidence of court witness. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 Gangabai, P.W. 3 Ranba, P.W. 4 Phulubai, P.W. Investigating officer Mirza Rahematulla Baig and court witness No.7 Shankar. 10. P.W.1 Complainant Gangabai wife of the deceased states that on the date of occurrence her husband was sitting near a flag and she alongwith her daughter was in her house. Some people told her that her husband was assaulted hence she went there. She saw the accused persons before the court were assaulting her husband. It is alleged that Dhoti of her husband was stained with blood. Accused Nagendar caused her daughter to wash that Dhoti. Thereafter, the accused persons took her husband towards village and thereafter her husband did not return. It is to be noted that in her cross-examination P.W. 1 admitted that on the next date of flag hosting police had been to the village and she had also met them. She also admits that on the said date her brother-in-law Ranba also met Police. Her daughter Phulubai had also met the Police. She further admits that on that date she informed the police about the assault on her husband. She also admits that there is police station at Hanegaon. It is about one and half kilometer away from village Shilvani. 11. P.W. 4 Phulubai daughter of the deceased had at around 12.00 O’clock went to the village to call her father near the flag. At that time Venkat came and called Baba to the shop of Keshav. They questioned deceased as to why he played tricks of black magic on his wife. It is stated on this the deceased replied that he did not play tricks of black magic. it is stated that thereafter Shivaji beat her father with an iron rod. Rest of the accused beat deceased by means of fists and kicks. It is stated that at around 4.00 .m. her father was brought to their house. His upper arms were caught by Manohar and Venkat i.e. accused No.1 and 2 and rest of the accused followed them. It is alleged that the accused forced Dattu to remove the Dhoti and asked the witness to give him another Dhoti. It is stated that at around 4.00 .m. her father was brought to their house. His upper arms were caught by Manohar and Venkat i.e. accused No.1 and 2 and rest of the accused followed them. It is alleged that the accused forced Dattu to remove the Dhoti and asked the witness to give him another Dhoti. It is further stated that accused forced the deceased to wear other Dhoti. It is further stated that they asked her to give turmeric powder and she gave it which was applied on the injuries. It is stated that thereafter the accused took her father beating him by means of kicks and fists. She has stated so for the first time in the court. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that the shop of Keshav is situated in a square and villagers had assembled near that shop. 12. P.W. 3 Ranba states that at around 1.00 p.m. P.W.1 Gangabai went to his house and told him that his brother has been called and taken by villagers. On this he replied that he can’t go there and they will see whatever will happen. He stated that at around 4.00 p.m. the accused brought his brother Dattu to his house by beating him by means of sticks, rods and in a condition that his hands were tied on his back. It is stated that thereafter the accused threatened him and took deceased with them. He states that on the next day in the morning at about 5.00 a.m. Sambha elder brother of Dattu told him that Dattu was hanged by a tamarind tree. He states in his chief-examination itself that in the morning on 27th January, police officers came there and took down the dead body and recorded panchnama of clothings and referred dead body to hospital. It seems that this witness was given a suggestion that the deceased was working with Ramesh Deshmukh. It is further to be noted that a suggestion is also given that he and Ramesh Deshmukh had withdrawn nomination form of Balaji and that they are political rivals. It can be seen that there is material improvement in his evidence also. He has not stated in his statement before Police that hands of Dattu were tied and there were injuries on the back of Dattu. He has stated so before the court for the first time. 13. It can be seen that there is material improvement in his evidence also. He has not stated in his statement before Police that hands of Dattu were tied and there were injuries on the back of Dattu. He has stated so before the court for the first time. 13. So far as court witness No. 7 Shankar is concerned he stated that at around 5.00 p.m. on 26th January, 1993 the accused Shivaji and Venkat had gone to him and told him that Sarpanch had called him. He was told that Dattu had handed over the dolls and he should also hand over the dolls. He told them that he had no such dolls. Thereafter the accused started assaulting. The only part of evidence which supports the prosecution is that he was called at the house of Sarpanch when Dattu was sitting there. 14. In so far as offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is concerned what is required to be considered is the instigation to commit suicide. The Apex court in the case of Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana [2008 AIR SCW 3202] has observed thus; "8. 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 fr 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 State of West Bengal V. Orilal Jaiswal [AIR 1994 SC 1418] this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and incur stances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If is transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ’Abetted’ in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the provided offence. 15. It can be seen that for proving the charge under section 306 of IPC what is necessary to be established is that there was some direct or indirect act on the part of the accused which can be said to be an instigation to commit the crime of suicide. Even on accepting the entire evidence of the prosecution on its face value it cannot be said that the prosecution has established that there was some act on the part of the present accused which can be said to be an instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. In that view of the matter I find that the conviction under section 306 of IPC is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 16. In that view of the matter I find that the conviction under section 306 of IPC is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Even so far as the rest of the charges under section 147, 148 and 143 of IPC are concerned, I do not find that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is of such a nature on which the conviction can be besd. It is to be noted that three star witnesses on which the prosecution relies have given totally inconsistent version regarding the incident. Where as PW 1 Gangabai says that at the time of incident when she was at house along with Phulubai, some people told her that her husband was assaulted and hence she went on the spot where she saw the accused persons assaulting her husband. In so far as P.W.3 ranba brother of dattu is concerned he has stated that at around 1.00 O’clock he was informed about the incident by PW 1 Gangabai, however, he told that he can not go there and they will see whatever happens. He stated that the accused at around 4.00 p.m. brought the deceased Dattu to his house by beating with sticks and rods and that there were injuries on the back and bones of his legs were fractured. In his examination-in-chief he states that he and Police patil went to the Markhel police station and narrated the incident to the police. However, P.W. 4 Phulubai states that when she went to the spot of incident she saw that Venkat called her father to the shop of Keshav and that Keshav beat her father by means of Bamboo stick, Shivaji beat her father by an iron rod and other accused beat him with fists and kick blows. She further narrated that her father was brought back at about 4.00 p.m. to their house and regarding change of Dhoti and accused asked her to give other Dhoti. 17 It could then seen that there is material variance in the deposition of PW 1 Gangabai, PW Phulubai. As per the say of Gangabai when the incident occurred they were at home, they ere informed by villagers about the incident of assault. If the version of Phulubai is perused states that she she has witnessed the incident. Then there is again variance in the version given by the PW 4 Phulubai and PW 2 Ranba. As per the say of Gangabai when the incident occurred they were at home, they ere informed by villagers about the incident of assault. If the version of Phulubai is perused states that she she has witnessed the incident. Then there is again variance in the version given by the PW 4 Phulubai and PW 2 Ranba. According to Phulubai the accused brought the deceased at her home at about 4.00 O’clock. According to Ranba the deceased was brought by accused to his home, at 4.00 O’clock. 18 It is further to be noted that even according to the prosecution witness the Police had arrived in the village in the morning of 27th January. Even according to PW 1 Gangabai and PW 4 Phulubai they had informed about the incident to the Police on 27th itself. According to PW 2 Ranba in his examination-in-chief itself he stated that he has gone to the Police station on the day of incident itself along with Police patil and narrated the incident to the police. Thereafter Police officers came and took away the dead body. If the police are informed about the incident on 27th January, 1993 itself then the statement of complainant which is at Exhibit 94 can not be treated as First Information Report. The prosecution has withheld the complaint given by Ranba PW 2 on 27th January, 1993. In any case it could be seen that there is delay of more than 48 hours in registration of complaint of PW 1. Even according to the prosecution witness the Police had arrived at seen of occurrence on 27th January, 1993 while the complaint of PW 1 Gangabai is registered on 29th January, 1993. The apex court in the case of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 973 SC 501 has observed thus; “12........First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation." 19. In the present case it could be seen that though the police station is about one and half kilometer away from the place of occurrence and though even according to the prosecution witnesses they had informed about the incident at the morning on 27th January, 1993 and though according to the PW 1 she alongwith Police patil went to police station, no explanation is coming forward for inordinate delay of 48 hours in lodging the first information report. Taking into consideration the variance in the versions of the prosecution witnesses on material aspects and inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, I find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyound reasonable doubt. 20. In that view of the matter the order of conviction even for the rest of the charges is not sustainable in the eye of law. The appeals are therefore, allowed. The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited, is directed to be returned to the appellants.