JUDGMENT HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Session Trial No. 10 of 1989, State v. Shakambari Devi, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 498-A/306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced her for six months R.I. under Section 498-A of IPC and three years R.I. under Section 306 of IPC. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that Smt. Laxmi Devi, the daughter of the complainant Maheshanand Pokhariyal, was married with Rajendra Prasad, son of the present appellant Shakambari Devi, in the night of 17/18.11.1986. It was alleged that after some time of marriage the daughter of the complainant was harassed by the present appellant-Shakambari Devi. On 2.5.1988 at about 11:00 A.M., Luxmi Devi consumed some poisonous substance (Nuwan) and later on, she died in the hospital. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Maheshanand Pokhariyal in Police Station Muni-ki-Reti, that FIR is Ex.Ka-1. On the basis of this report, a Chik FIR was prepared by Girdhar Prasad, Head Moharrir on 4.5.1988, that Chik FIR is Ex.Ka-3. The FIR was registered in the P.S. Muni-ki-Reti on 4.5.1988 at 21:35 P.M. and the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 2 ½ Kms. The entry was also made in the G.D., the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.6 Vijay Singh Tyagi, S.O. Muni-ki-Reti. The dead body of the deceased Luxmi Devi was sent for post-mortem in Doon Hospital, Dehradun, the post-mortem report is Ex.Ka-2. During the course of investigation, the I.O. prepared the site plan, i.e. Ex.Ka-5. P.W.6 S.O. Vijay Singh Tyagi investigated the matter up to 11.5.1988 and on 11.5.1988, the investigation was transferred to Mahesh Chandra Bhatnagar, Deputy S.P., Tehri Garhwal who has filed the charge sheet after the investigation, that charge sheet is Ex.Ka-6. During the course of investigation, the Viscera was also sent for the chemical examination and the Scientific Officer after examining the Viscera has submitted the report, that report is Ex.Ka-7. 3. During the course of investigation, the Viscera was also sent for the chemical examination and the Scientific Officer after examining the Viscera has submitted the report, that report is Ex.Ka-7. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehri has committed the case to the court of Sessions on 3.4.1989 under section 209 Cr.P.C. after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. On 11.05.1989, Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal framed the charge against the appellant Shakambari Devi u/Ss 498-A/306 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Bindeshwari, mother of the deceased Luxmi, P.W.2 Savitri Devi, who was the tenant of the house of the appellant Shakmbari Devi, P.W.3 Ram Krishan, brother of deceased Luxmi, P.W.4 Maheshanand, father of deceased Luxmi and complainant of the case, P.W.5 Dr. R.C. Nautiyal, who has conducted the post-mortem of dead body of Luxmi Devi along with Dr. V.K. Andley, P.W.6 S.O. Vijay Singh Tyagi, I.O. of the case, P.W.7 Mahesh Chand Bhatnagar, Dy. S.P. Tehri Garhwal, I.O. of the case and P.W.8 Constable Hari Singh who had taken the Viscera for the chemical examination to Scientific Laboratory, Agra. 6. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant Shakambari Devi was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the questions were put to her. She had denied the allegations made against her and stated that she had been falsely implicated, however she had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide his judgment and order dated 5.10.1990 convicted the appellant-Shakambari Devi under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 of IPC and sentenced her for six months’ R.I. under Section 498-A IPC and three years’ R.I. under Section 306 IPC. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Against the said judgment and order dated 5.10.1990, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 9. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Against the said judgment and order dated 5.10.1990, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Smt. Bindeshwari who has stated that deceased Luxmi Devi was her daughter and marriage of Luxmi Devi was solemnized with Rajendra Prasad about 3 ¾ years back. After 2-3 months of marriage, the appellant started to harass deceased Luxmi Devi and asked her to got to her father’s house. When Luxmi Devi felt uncomfortable to live with the appellant, then she and her husband Rajendra Prasad took a room on rent in the market and in that room, deceased Luxmi Devi was living with her husband separately from the appellant and at that time, Luxmi Devi was pregnant. Thereafter, the appellant asked her son to construct a room for himself and then Rajendra Prasad had constructed a room, however in that room, the appellant kept her own articles. She has also stated that when her daughter was admitted to the hospital, then she reached to the hospital and at that time, Luxmi was at Srinagar. Then she had informed the father of deceased Luxmi and at about 9:00 P.M. Luxmi had died in the hospital. In cross-examination, she has stated that the new room which was constructed, that was constructed by Rajendra Prasad with his own money. She has also stated that she had not stated to I.O. in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that she had given Rs. 7,000/- to Rajendra Prasad for the construction of that room. 10. P.W.2 is Savitri who was declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution case. 11. P.W.3 is Ram Krishan, who is the brother of deceased Luxmi Devi, has stated that Luxmi Devi was his sister and she was married with Rajenra Prasad, son of the appellant Shakambari Devi on 17.12.1986. Up to 5-6 months of marriage, the behaviour of the appellant with the deceased Luxmi was normal and after that the appellant started to harass Luxmi Devi. Up to 5-6 months of marriage, the behaviour of the appellant with the deceased Luxmi was normal and after that the appellant started to harass Luxmi Devi. He has also stated that when he came back on leave in the year 1987 on Holi vacations, then Luxmi had given birth to a daughter and her daughter was about 1 ½ months of age. He has also stated that Luxmi had told him that her mother in law Shakumbri (present appellant) used to harass her. Later on, he came to know that Luxmi had consumed poison. 12. P.W.4 is Maheshanand, who is the father of deceased Luxmi, has stated that he was working in P.W.D. Pauri and her daughter Luxmi was married with Rajendra Prasad on 17/18.11.1986. Up to six months of marriage, the relations between the appellant and Luxmi were normal and after that period, the appellant had tried to harass Luxmi Devi. After that Luxmi along with her husband Rajendra Prasad took a room on rent in the market and he had also given Rs. 7,000/- to Rajendra Prasad for the construction of a room. Thereafter, Rajendra Prasad along with his wife Luxmi had come to that room after its construction but the appellant Shakambari Devi herself started to reside in that room. On 2.5.1988, Luxmi Devi had died due to consumption of poison and on that day, he was on his duty at Srinagar and he was informed about the said incident from his house. On receiving this information, he came to his house and submitted the written report i.e. Ex.Ka-1 in the police station. He has also stated that the deceased Luxmi Devi had died in the hospital. In cross-examination in para 5, he has stated that he had not given the statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had given Rs. 7,000/- to Rajendra Prasad for the construction of a room. In para 8 of the cross-examination, he has stated that whatever he has stated about the said incident of 2.5.1988, that is on the hearsay basis and he had got no personal knowledge about the said incident and he had also not written in the report that he had paid Rs. 7,000/- to Rajendra Prasad. 13. P.W.5 is Dr. R.C. Nautiyal who has stated that on 4.5.1988, he was posted as a Medical Officer in Doon Hospital, Dehradun and he and Dr. 7,000/- to Rajendra Prasad. 13. P.W.5 is Dr. R.C. Nautiyal who has stated that on 4.5.1988, he was posted as a Medical Officer in Doon Hospital, Dehradun and he and Dr. V.K. Andley had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Smt. Luxmi Devi. The dead body was brought to the hospital by Constable Upendra Singh and Constable Vikram Singh in a sealed condition along with specimen of seal. The deceased was about 18 years old and deceased had died in S.P.S. Government Hospital, Rishikesh on 2.5.1988 at 8:45 P.M. He has also proved the post-mortem report, that report is Ex.Ka-2. 14. P.W.6 is S.O. Vijay Singh Tyagi, I.O. of the case, who has stated that on 4.5.1988, he was posted as S.O. Muni-ki-Reti. On that day, the case was registered in the police station and on the basis of the report Ex.Ka-1, Head Moharrir Girdhar Prasad prepared the Chik FIR, i.e. Ex.Ka-3. The entry was also made in the G.D., the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-4. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Head Moharrir Girdhar Prasad, Maheshanand Pokhariyal, Rajendra Prasad and Smt. Savitri Devi. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan i.e. Ex.Ka-5. After that the investigation of the case was transferred on 11.5.1988 to Deputy S.P. Mahesh Chand Bhatnagar. 15. P.W.7 is Deputy S.P. Mahesh Chand Bhatnagar, I.O. of the case, who has stated that he started the investigation on 11.5.1988 and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and also examined the relevant papers and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet i.e. Ex. Ka-6. 16. P.W.8 is Constable Hari Singh who has stated that on 29.8.1988, he was posted in Muni-ki-Reti. On that day, he had taken the Viscera of deceased Luxmi Devi from the Doon Hospital, Dehradun and submitted the same for the chemical examination in the Agra Laboratory. 17. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant-Shakambari Devi was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the questions were put to her. She had denied the allegations made against her and stated that she had been falsely implicated, however she had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 18. 17. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant-Shakambari Devi was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the questions were put to her. She had denied the allegations made against her and stated that she had been falsely implicated, however she had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 18. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that on the basis of the evidence discussed above, there is no offence made out against the appellant under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC. Firstly, he submitted that as per the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC, there is no offence made out against the appellant. It is pertinent to mention the definition of Section 498-A IPC, which is reproduced as under:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – 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.” Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means – (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 19. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument also cited a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder vs. State of W.B. reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 172. He relied on para 14 which reads as under :- “14. In this case we find that there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B IPC. There is also no finding in that regard. This deficiency in evidence proves fatal for the prosecution case. Even otherwise mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B IPC. It has to be shown in addition that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that aspect, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained.” 20. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present case there is no direct evidence or eyewitness available against the appellant and only the circumstantial evidence and the hearsay evidence is there against the appellant. He further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.1 Bindeshwari Devi, mother of deceased Luxmi Devi, P.W.3 Ram Krishan, brother of deceased Luxmi Devi and P.W.4 Maheshanand Pokhariyal, father of deceased Luxmi Devi, any of them has not stated a single word that the appellant Shakambari Devi had harassed Luxmi Devi due to demand of dowry. From a perusal of statements of all these three witnesses who are the mother, brother and father of the deceased respectively, it emerges out that they have not stated that the present appellant had demanded dowry either by way of cash or by property and due to that reason, appellant had harassed the deceased Luxmi Devi. Hence, from the evidence of the above-said three witnesses, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the present appellant had harassed Luxmi Devi and due to that reason, Luxmi Devi had consumed poison. Hence, the case under Section 498-A IPC is not proved against the appellant. 21. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the ingredients of-Section 306 IPC also, no case is made out against the appellant under Section 306 IPC, Section 306 IPC is relevant to mention here which reads as under:- “306. 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.” 22. 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.” 22. As per the evidence of P.W.1 Bindeshwari Devi, P.W.3 Ram Krishan and P.W.4 Maheshanand Pokhariyal, who are the mother, brother and father of deceased Luxmi Devi respectively it is ample clear that they are not the eyewitnesses and whatever they had stated, they had stated on the basis of hearsay evidence and further the chain of the circumstance is also complete against the appellant to prove the offence of the abetment or to prove that the appellant had abetted Luxmi Devi for committing the suicide. As such, the prosecution had also not successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had abetted the deceased Luxmi Devi to commit suicide. Therefore, the case under Section 306 IPC is also not proved against the appellant. 23. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that no case under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and as such the appeal is liable to be allowed. 24. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant-Shakambari Devi is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.10.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal convicting the appellant Shakambari Devi u/Ss 498-A IPC and 306 IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. She needs not to surrender. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.