JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (1), (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 16/11/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 61/1994, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short, is that on 14/7/1994 Manorma Pathak W/o Radha Prasad R/o Kakarhati consumed sulphas. She was brought to P.H.C. Kakarhati for treatment. The information was sent to police Station Kakarhati. At the request of concerned police, Assistant Surgeon of Primary Health Centre Kakarhati recorded dying declaration of Manorma Pathak. Her statement was also recorded by police. She was sent to Civil Hospital, Panna where she was admitted but died, hence the information was sent by the concerned doctor to Kotwali Panna. Marg Intimation No. 25/1994 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. Postmortem was done. Her viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. A container (dibbi) of sulphas was seized from her husband. Spot map was prepared. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. It was alleged that respondent Jagdish Pathak Brother- In- Law of the deceased used to look at her malevolently and harass her on account of which she committed suicide. Offence under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the respondent. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. Respondent accused was charged under Section 306 of IPC. Respondent denied his guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and placed the documents Ex. P-l to EX.P-3l on record. Respondent did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court did not find him guilty, hence acquitted from the charge levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. It has been amply proved by the prosecution evidence that respondent has harassed the deceased, in spite of it trial Court has acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. The finding of acquittal is erroneous, which deserves to be set aside and the respondent be punished. 5. On the contrary, Smt. Sandhya Pathak and Shri V.K. Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. The trial Court has rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge, hence no interference is called for. 6. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondent from the charge under Section 306 of IPC? 7. On 14.7.1994 Manorama consumed sulphas at .village Kakarhati. She was brought to P.H.C. Kakarhati for treatment in the morning. At about 5:00 a.m. Dr. R.K. Balotiya (PW-14), Assistant Surgeon sent the information to the officer in-charge of Police putpost Kakarhati. The Assistant Surgeon was asked to medically examine and to record her dying declaration. At about 5:30 a.m. he examined her and found the injuries as mentioned in the medical report. It was mentioned that pulse was imperceptible. B.P. was un recordable. Pupils diluted. She was semiconscious and her general condition was poor. According to him, Manorama was brought at P.H.C. she was about to go into coma. Thus from his statement and medical report it is evident that the condition of Manorama was serious. 8. Dr. R.K. Balotiya (PW-14) recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-23) but it was not mentioned in the dying declaration that she was fit to give statement. It was also not mentioned that she remained conscious during recording her statement. Such certificate ought to have been given because the condition of Manorama was quite serious. Doctor has not asked any question as to when she consumed sulphas. Hence, Doctor failed to record statement properly. 9. K.B.L. Rajpali (Pw-13) was in-charge at Police Outpost-Kakarhati. It was also not mentioned that she remained conscious during recording her statement. Such certificate ought to have been given because the condition of Manorama was quite serious. Doctor has not asked any question as to when she consumed sulphas. Hence, Doctor failed to record statement properly. 9. K.B.L. Rajpali (Pw-13) was in-charge at Police Outpost-Kakarhati. He has also recorded her statement (Ex. P-27) but has not asked as to when she consumed sulphas. He has not recorded the time at which Ex. P-27 was recorded. It was essential because the condition of Manorama was very serious when she was brought to P.H.C. Kakarhati. The question is that if she was in a position to give the statement why F.I.R. was not recorded by this witness at that time. 10. According to the statement of Dr. R.K. Balotiya(PW-14) and K.B.L. Rajpali (PW-13) Manorama gave the statement that the respondent used t look her a malevolently and harass her therefore she consumed the sulphas. But, as stated earlier, that the statement of Manorama has not been properly recorded nothing is mentioned therein as to when she was misbehaved by the respondent or when she consumed the sulphas. The trial Court has found that the signature of Manorama in dying declaration Ex. P-23 and in Police statement Ex. P-27 are not similar. In such circumstances, these statement do not appear to be trustworthy and voluntarily made. 11. On the next day of incident I.S. Netam (PW.10) recorded police statement of Sadhuram, the father of deceased but he did not make any complaint against the respondent. It appears that looking to his police statement the prosecution did not examine the father of deceased. There is no evidence of her parents that respondent used to misbehave or harass her. If respondent was doing so she might have made the complaint to her parents but nothing has been done which go to show that she was not harassed by respondent. 12. Radhika Prasad (PW-9) who is the husband of deceased Manorama has stated that she never told him about misbehaviour and misconduct done by the respondent. 13. Meera Bai (PW-l) and Guddi Bai (PW-2) have also deposed that Manorama never told them regarding the misbehaviour done by respondent. All these witnesses have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. 14. 13. Meera Bai (PW-l) and Guddi Bai (PW-2) have also deposed that Manorama never told them regarding the misbehaviour done by respondent. All these witnesses have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. 14. Lakhan Yadav (PW-8) has also not supported the prosecution case that deceased told him about the misbehaviour or harassment -by the respondent. He has also been declared hostile. Only one witness Ramawtar Sharma @ Awtari (PW-7) has given evidence against the respondent that the respondent was having bad intention towards Manorama and wanted to keep her as his wife but it is evident that he has never talked with the deceased. He is giving such statement on the basis of the information given by some other person hence his evidence is hearsay evidence and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. 15. Thus there is no dependable evidence to show that respondent used to harass the deceased. 16. To constitute, offence under Section 306 IPC accused must have provoked, incited or induced deceased to commit suicide. There must be mens rea also. The act of accused must be such that deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. [See (2001) 9 SCC 618 ]. 17. In the case of An ant Kumar Danial v. State of Chattisgarh, 2003 (5) M.P.H.T. 6 (CG), it has been held that in order to prove the offence under Section 306 the prosecution has to prove the abetment caused by the accused persons. In order to prove the abetment by the accused persons there must be an element if instigation, urge forward far provocation, incitement or encouragement to do "an act". In order to satisfy the requirement of instigation it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide in which instigation may have to be inferred. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide in which instigation may have to be inferred. If it transpires to the Court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance is not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced 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. 18. In the case of Betu vs. State of M.P., 2002(2) M.P.H.T. 5 (NOC), it has been held that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each ·case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim has in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced 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 abeting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 19. There is no iota of evidence as to how the respondent instigated Manorama to commit suicide. All the ingredients required to prove the offence under Section 306 of LP.C. have not been made out. 20. The trial Court has dealt with every aspect in great detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent and acquitted him. by giving benefit of doubt. Such finding cannot be said unreasonable or perverse hence does not call for any interference in this appeal. The appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 21. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.