Judgment ( 1. ) FOUR persons were charge-sheeted and prosecuted in this case. Out of them three persons have been acquitted by the trial court and this appellant has been convicted and sentenced who is before us in this appeal. ( 2. ) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 26. 07. 1994 passed by II additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Multai, District Betul in sessions Trial No. 154/1990, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine R. I. for 3 months. ( 3. ) PROSECUTION case in short is that on 10. 10. 1990 at 5:30 p. m. one sahdeo gave information to the police station Saikheda that sushila Bai was married with his son Gulabrao. One daughter was born out of their wedlock who was aged about 3 years. Sushila Bai with her husband was working at their field. At about 3:00 p. m. she went at the well for drinking water but she did not return, therefore, he went there and found that her sickle was lying near the well and on search the dead bodies of sushila Bai and her daughter Shashikala were found lying in the well. Marg intimation Nos. 28, 29/90 under Section 174 of cr. P. C. was registered. The panchnama of dead bodies were prepared. Post mortem examination was done. Accordingly it was found that they died on account of asphyxia as a result of drowning. Map was prepared. Inquiry was made. After inquiry it was found that she was being harassed and given beating by the appellant and his family members. The F. I. R. was written wherein Crime No. 74/90 under Section 498/34 and 306 of i. P. C. was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Multai who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. ( 4. ) ACCUSED persons were charged under Section 306 of I. P. C. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and the accused persons also examined one witness in defence. ( 4. ) ACCUSED persons were charged under Section 306 of I. P. C. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and the accused persons also examined one witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court acquitted Rukmani, Nausu and Kantibai but convicted this appellant under Section 306 of I. P. C. and sentenced thereunder as stated hereinabove in para No. 2 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that three persons have been acquitted on the same set of evidence whereas this appellant has been convicted. Similar allegations were made against all the accused persons, therefore, this appellant ought to have been acquitted. Learned counsel further submitted that no any external injuries were found on the dead bodies of sushila Bai and Shashikala. The prosecution could not prove the demand of dowry and harassment, therefore, the finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 6. ) ON the contrary, Shri Pankaj Dixit, learned P. L. appearing on behalf of respondent/state submitted that appellant used to harass his wife. He used to deprive her of food. Being harassed, she committed suicide with her daughter. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, therefore, it does not call for any interference. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 306 of I. P. C. ? ( 8. ) KISNA (PW-2) is the father of deceased Sushila Bai. He has deposed that appellant used to demand dowry and also cause marpeet. Her daughter told him about it. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that no dowry was settled at the time of marriage. His daughter did not tell him about the demand of dowry and causing marpeet upto three years of her marriage. The appellant came to take her before 8-10 days of her death and at that time no discussion took place regarding demand of dowry or causing marpeet. ( 9. His daughter did not tell him about the demand of dowry and causing marpeet upto three years of her marriage. The appellant came to take her before 8-10 days of her death and at that time no discussion took place regarding demand of dowry or causing marpeet. ( 9. ) THUS, it is reflected from his evidence that no dowry was settled and no demand of dowry was made. He is exaggerating the statement to this effect. She did not even tell him about causing marpeet when her husband came there to take her before death. ( 10. ) GUNI Bai (PW-3) is the mother of deceased Sushila Bai. She has also given the evidence that appellant used to demand dowry and cause her marpeet and used to deprive her of food. Sushila bai committed suicide on account of harassment made by the appellant. ( 11. ) SHE has also admitted in cross-examination that no demand of dowry was settled at the time of marriage. She did not mention regarding the demand of dowry in the police statement. She did not lodge any report regarding demand of dowry and causing of marpeet by the appellant. Thus she is also exaggerating the statement regarding demand of dowry. ( 12. ) RAMU (PW-9) and Gopinath (PW-10) are her brothers. They have also given similar evidence regarding demand of dowry and causing marpeet and harassment but they have admitted that at the time of marriage no any demand of dowry was settled. No any panchayat was convened. No any report was made regarding these matters. The relations were cordial before this incident. ( 13. ) THUS all these witnesses are related to the deceased but they have admitted that no demand of dowry was settled at the time of marriage. No any report was made regarding causing of marpeet. The relations were quite good before death of Sushila bai. On perusal of panchnama of dead bodies it is apparent that kisna (PW-2), Guni Bai (PW-3) and Ramu (PW-9) were present at that time but did not tell about these facts to police officer who prepared these panchnamas. If the relations might not have been cordial then some sort of panchayat ought to have been convened. The report ought to have been lodged or some complaint might have been done. If the relations might not have been cordial then some sort of panchayat ought to have been convened. The report ought to have been lodged or some complaint might have been done. It appears that when Sushila bai died they developed the story of demand of dowry and causing marpeet and harassment, therefore, the evidence of these related witnesses can not be accepted. ( 14. ) THERE is no dispute that Sushila Bai and Shashikala had died due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. No external injuries were found. The possibility of death by accidental fall can not be ruled out. ( 15. ) THERE is no evidence that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There was no such intention or motive to abet her for commission of suicide. Almost similar allegations were made against all accused persons but three accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court and this appellant has been convicted. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has arrived on the erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the appellant, therefore, it deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 16. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by trial Court under Section 306 of I. P. C. is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He be set at liberty. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to him as per rules.