Judgment Appeal is by the State assailing the order of the Fast Track Court V, Bangalore in SC 209/2004 acquitting the accused of the offences under S.498A and 306, IPC. The Jnanabharathi Police had charge sheeted the accused on the strength of the complaint filed by PW 1 – Giriyappa, father of the deceased – Vasantha Kumari. According to the complaint, the accused had married the deceased about twenty years back and both of them were residing at Nagarbhavi II Stage, Bangalore. After marriage, the accused was subjecting the deceased to mental cruelty and harassed her by suspecting her fidelity and the conduct of the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide as such, the accused had committed the offence punishable under S.498A, IPC. Being unable to tolerate the harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 6.12.2003 by hanging at the house where she and her husband were residing as such, the accused committed the offence punishable under S.306, IPC. The accused, at the relevant point of time, was working as an Executive Engineer in KPTCL, Bangalore. According to the complainant, the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife and also ill-treating her mentally. It is also stated, the complainant decided to advise the accused suitably to avoid complications but the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased went on unabated. The accused had also ill-advised his son not to be cordial with his mother. Despite the same, the complainant had advised his daughter suitably and to carry on day to day work, undisturbed. According to PW 1, on 6.12.2003 around 10.00 a.m. his daughter Vasantha Kumari had called him over phone as such, he along with his relative Krishna went to his daughter’s house and at that time, the accused and his grand son Kiran were in the house. After some time, the accused and his grandson went out of the house and the deceased told him that the accused was suspecting her and ill-treating her and she was sorrowful. However, PW 1 and his relative – Krishna pacified her. However, on the same day evening, on coming to know that his daughter was not keeping well, PW 1 along with his son came to his daughter’s house. There he found the dead body of his daughter outside the house. However, PW 1 and his relative – Krishna pacified her. However, on the same day evening, on coming to know that his daughter was not keeping well, PW 1 along with his son came to his daughter’s house. There he found the dead body of his daughter outside the house. When he questioned his grandson, he told that his mother had committed suicide by hanging herself in the bathroom of the house when there was nobody in the house, around 2.00 p.m. When he (son) returned to the house, he found that his mother had hanged in herself in the bathroom and, with the help of neighbors, he united the rope. It appears, the accused who came there on coming to know of the incident, immediately shifted the deceased to the hospital and there, she was declared dead. According to the complainant, since the deceased was harassed mentally, being unable to tolerate the ill-treatment, she committed suicide. On account of the harassment by way of suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and also abuse by the accused, the deceased committed suicide as such, it is alleged that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. On the strength of the complaint filed at Ex.P1, case came to be registered and FIR was sent. Also, at the time of inquest, one letter said to have been written by the deceased Vasantha Kumari, is said to be seized and marked as MO 1, narrating the details and the reason/cause for her committing suicide. The police conducted mahazar of the scene of offence, marked as Ex.P3, the investigating officer who has recorded the statement of the complainant and several other witnesses, also recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. After conducting the inquest, recording the statement of the brother of the deceased and some other witnesses, after preparing the sketch of the scene of offence with the help of an engineer, after completion of investigation, and in the meanwhile, obtaining the handwriting of the deceased and also the report of the handwriting expert, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet. Charges were prepared against the accused for the offence punishable under S.498 A and 306, IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined in all, sixteen witnesses and got marked Ex.P1-26, MOs 1 to 8 and thereafter, the accused was examined under S.313, Cr.PC. Charges were prepared against the accused for the offence punishable under S.498 A and 306, IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined in all, sixteen witnesses and got marked Ex.P1-26, MOs 1 to 8 and thereafter, the accused was examined under S.313, Cr.PC. The defense was total denial, except producing one attendance card. The trial court after hearing the arguments, opined that the deceased was in habit of frequently going to films and on the previous day of the incident, she had gone for a walk and had also lost her mangala sutra, and being afraid and frustrated, had committed suicide. Accordingly, holding that the accused is not responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased and that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused that the deceased had committed suicide due to harassment, the trial court has acquired the accused. Against this order of acquittal, the State is in appeal challenged the said order on various grounds. Heard the counsel representing the parties. According to the Government Pleader, PW 1 has specifically stated about the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused and apart from the evidence of PW1, PWs 2, 4 and 5 in the chief examination, have supported the version of the prosecution. Their evidence is corroborated by MO 1 – letter written by the deceased, seized under Ex.P2, which speaks of the mental harassment. MOs 2 and 3 are the supporting documents to prove that MO 1 is in the handwriting of the deceased. It is also submitted, the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and also abusing her about not caring for her son and that she was spoilt his son’s career and, being frustrated, she committed suicide. Learned counsel representing the accused submitted that the evidence on record does not point out towards the guilt of the accused. Whatever is stated by the complainant and other witnesses about the alleged harassment are omissions in that, neither it has been stated in the complaint nor in the statement recorded under S.161, Cr.PC. For the first time, the witnesses have deposed before the court to implicate the accused. The cause of death is not due to harassment meted out to the deceased and also, it is brought on record that the deceased also earlier had attempted to commit suicide. For the first time, the witnesses have deposed before the court to implicate the accused. The cause of death is not due to harassment meted out to the deceased and also, it is brought on record that the deceased also earlier had attempted to commit suicide. Might be, she being depressed and hyper sensitive, and also being afraid of the consequences of having lost her mangala sutra and that she would be questioned by the accused, must have committed suicide. According to the learned counsel, although the prosecution has secured some exhibits at MOs 2 to 3 said to be in the handwriting of the deceased, to compare the same with MO 1 – letter said to have been written by the deceased, seized under Ex.P1, the prosecution could not prove the case that the letter was in the handwriting of the deceased. Rather, it is argued by him that the contents of the letter does not speak of any harassment except the day to day family bickering. It is also stated, the investigating officer in his cross examination, has unequivocally admitted the fact that the witnesses have not given statement regarding alleged harassment. Ultimately, it is proved to be an omission as such, whatever is stated by the witnesses in the examination in chief to support the prosecution is only an afterthought and does not carry any sanctity of legal evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, it is submitted, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not call for interference. In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that arise for consideration are-Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was harassing the deceased mentally and the deceased being unable to tolerate the harassment meted out to her, and due to mental torture, committed suicide thereby, the accused has committed the offence punishable under S.498A, 306 IPC; Whether the trial court has committed an error in acquitting the accused holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt; Whether the order of the trial court suffers from any perversity in acquitting the accused; What order? At the outset, the complainant PW 1, who is the father of the deceased, has spoken about the accused harassing the deceased and in this regard the deceased also had called him i.e., the complainant and had expressed her feelings. In his detail evidence, he has stated that the accused was looking after the deceased well for about 4 to 5 years. Thereafter, the accused started suspecting the deceased and used to tell her not to live with him and to go away. Despite his advise to the accused holding a panchayat, there was no improvement and he continued to harass his daughter. He has also narrated an incident where he had admitted his wife to the hospital and the deceased had come to see her mother. At that time, the accused had asked the deceased where she had gone and not to enter the house and that he was suspecting his daughter. Further, on 6.12.2003, the deceased had requested the complainant to come home, of course, she could not tell everything over phone, and accordingly, he went to the house of his daughter and there, he found his son in law and grandson and after some time, the accused went out of the house and the deceased handed over the letter written by her and after that, thinking to advise the accused through somebody, he went back to his house. On the very day, around 2.00 p.m. the son of the accused and the deceased – Kiran called the complainant’s son stating that his mother was not well as such, the complainant came to the house of the deceased and found the dead body of his daughter and his grandson had told him that the deceased had committed suicide and that he got the deed body removed from hanging position and laid it down. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complainant before the police. Along with the complaint, he also handed over the letter given by his daughter to the police. The police seized the letter under mahazar – Ex.P2. He has also stated in this evidence that the accused had also brainwashed his son not to be affectionate with the deceased. However, in the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the complaint could have been written by some of his relatives. He has also admitted that 6.12.2003 was a working day. He has also stated in this evidence that the accused had also brainwashed his son not to be affectionate with the deceased. However, in the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the complaint could have been written by some of his relatives. He has also admitted that 6.12.2003 was a working day. Several suggestions were made to this witness as to the nature of the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused as is deposed by him. He has admitted that neither he has stated in the complaint nor in his S.161, Cr.PC statement regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused regarding suspecting the fidelity of the deceased by the accused and other vital aspects. Even regarding handing over of the letter by the deceased to the complainant, he has not made a mention in the complaint or in his S.161, Cr.PC statement. The version of the defense is that, although the complainant had got advised the accused through his brother – Ramanna and other persons, but they were not examined for having advised the accused in connection with the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased. Several suggestions were got denied to the effect that the deceased was in the habit of going for a walk during night even at 10.00 or 11.00 p.m. and that she was addicted to watching movies. However, PW 1 has pleaded ignorance as to the fact that, two days prior to the date of the incident, the deceased had been to watch a movie and while returning, she noticed that her mangala sutra was not there. He has also pleaded ignorance that the deceased had kept secret the fact of having lost the mangala sutra and this aspect came to the knowledge of the accused and his son only on the morning of 6.12.2003. A suggestion has also been got denied to the effect that MO 1 is not in the handwriting of the deceased. However, he has admitted that there is no signature on MO 1 by the deceased. A suggestion is also made to this witness to the effect that for some other person reason the deceased committed suicide and not due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused. However, this witness has stated that it is not possible to say for what exact reason the deceased died. A suggestion is also made to this witness to the effect that for some other person reason the deceased committed suicide and not due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused. However, this witness has stated that it is not possible to say for what exact reason the deceased died. PW 2 is the uncle of the deceased. He has spoken about the deceased and accused being cordial with each other and that their marriage had taken place twenty years back. However, he had learnt that the accused and deceased were not in cordial terms and except that, he does not known anything. Later, on coming to know that the deceased had committed suicide, he went to their house. However, this witness has been treated hostile. The version of the prosecution is that, this witness has stated before the police to the effect that the accused was suspecting the deceased and also harassed her and also that despite advise, the accused was abusing the deceased indiscriminately. But this witness has denied the suggestion. PW 3, another uncle of the deceased has deposed that he learnt from the deceased that the accused was suspecting her fidelity and in that regard, he had told her that he would advise the accused. However, on receiving the phone call on 6.12.2003 in the evening, he along with his family, went to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased had died committing suicide. Further, he has deposed that he did not know as to what happened on the previous day of the incident. This witness was also treated as hostile by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, this witness has stated before the police that the accused was abusing the deceased and also the deceased had informed him over phone that her husband was abusing her suspecting her character and harassed her. But this witness has denied that suggestion. PW 4 is the brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the fact of accused harassing the deceased mentally and also calling her as a bitch and also used to express that it is better she goes and die so that he would be peaceful. Since the accused was harassing the deceased, when he went to advise the accused, he was harassing the deceased still more. He has spoken about the fact of accused harassing the deceased mentally and also calling her as a bitch and also used to express that it is better she goes and die so that he would be peaceful. Since the accused was harassing the deceased, when he went to advise the accused, he was harassing the deceased still more. The further evidence of this witness is that, on the evening of 6.12.2003, they received a phone call about the death of the deceased, by her son. Looking into the letter shown to him, this witness has stated that the letter is in the handwriting of the deceased and also that he had seen the handwriting of the deceased since his childhood. He has also stated that he learnt that the said letter at MO1, was given to the police by his father. This witness was also cross-examined in detail by the counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, it was got denied by the defense that he had not stated before the police about the accused suspecting the fidelity of his sister and also that the accused was abusing the deceased calling her a bitch and if she dies, he would live peacefully. Further, he has stated that the accused was abusing the deceased stating that she is the reason for their son having failed in the examination and, also that the deceased had made a mention as to the harassment meted out to her by her husband as stated in the letter written by her. He has denied the suggestion that the accused never harassed the deceased except on small things and bickering between them. PW 5, cousin of the deceased has also spoken about the accused harassing the deceased stating that she is a bitch and it is better she dies and that he was also suspecting her character and also for every small things. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his statement was taken by the police, but he does not remember the name of the police. He has also denied the suggestion that he had never stated before the police regarding the accused suspecting the deceased always and on petty things. A suggestion has also been got denied to the effect that since he is related to the deceased, he is deposing falsely against the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that he had never stated before the police regarding the accused suspecting the deceased always and on petty things. A suggestion has also been got denied to the effect that since he is related to the deceased, he is deposing falsely against the accused. PW 6 – Banna, a First Division Assistant working in the BDA and PW 7 – Suryanarayana, who are familiar with the family of the accused and deceased, have been examined by the prosecution to speak about the frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased and also to the effect that the accused was suspecting the deceased and abused her and that these witnesses have advised the accused. Both of them have turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. PW 8, a friend of the accused, was also examined to a similar effect. He has also turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. PW 9 is the pancha for the seizure of MO 1 under Ex.P2 and also one rope at MO 4. He has supported the version of the prosecution. PW 10 is the constable who apprehended the accused and produced him before the police. Pw 11 is the person who has drawn the sketch of the scene of offence. PW 12 is the pancha for the inquest under Ex.P11 and he has spoken about the same. PW 13 is the person who has reached the dead body from the house of the deceased to Victoria hospital and handed over the dead body to the relatives and thereafter, brought and produced the clothes of the deceased to the doctor and, he has spoken about the same. PW 14 is the son of the accused and deceased. According to him, the accused never used to harass the deceased. On 6.12.2003, his father went to the temple and came back and questioned his mother as to why she was telling lies regarding the loss of managala sutra in stead of telling that somebody had snatched it. At that time, his mother told him that out of fear she did not inform him and wept. His mother, out of frustration, committed suicide on the same day by hanging and at that time, he had been to college and his father had been to office. He has stated that his maternal grandfather filed the complaint to the police. At that time, his mother told him that out of fear she did not inform him and wept. His mother, out of frustration, committed suicide on the same day by hanging and at that time, he had been to college and his father had been to office. He has stated that his maternal grandfather filed the complaint to the police. Since, he turned hostile to the prosecution version, he was cross-examined by the prosecution to the effect, on the previous day of the incident, his father had abused his mother indiscriminately as such, his mother was frustrated, later on, his maternal grandfather came and advised her. At that time, his mother told her father that the accused always abused her and that, his mother committed suicide being frustrated due to harassment. He has denied the said suggestion. However, the defense took advantage to cross-examine the witness to depose that they were having a dog in their house and the deceased was in the habit of going for a walk in the night around 11.00 and 11.30 p.m. for which his father used to object. The witness has also stated that his mother was in the habit of watching movies and he has also stated that the mangala sutra of his mother was snatched away and she had not lost it. However, in the cross-examination this witness has stated that he returned back from driving school around 3.00 p.m. and, he got released the dead body which was in a hanging position and later called his grandfather and father. His father came first and shifted his mother’s body to the hospital and there the doctor examined the body and declared that she is dead. Pw 15 is the investigating officer who has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and also regarding the seizure of the letter at MO 1 and standard letters at MOs 2 and 3. In the cross-examination, he has admitted the several suggestions made by the counsel for the accused to the effect that some of the witness have not given statement before him as stated by him. PW 16 is the doctor who has given opinion as to the cause of death and after examination, has given a report that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of handing. PW 16 is the doctor who has given opinion as to the cause of death and after examination, has given a report that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of handing. The trial court, as noted above, having discussed the evidence in detail and also the definition of ‘cruelty’ under S.498A, IPC, has opined that since MO 1 – letter does not bear the signature of the deceased, it is doubtful it was written by the deceased and, while accepting the version of the defense and also noting that PW 14, son of the accused and deceased who is a star witness, has not supported the version of the prosecution and that the letter at MO 1 being in the handwriting of the deceased has not been proved at the instance of the prosecution since the handwriting in MOs 2 and 3 could not be matched. Although PW 4 the brother of the deceased has deposed that it is the handwriting of the deceased in MO 1 and MO 1 said to have been produced by PW 1 / complainant to the police, is in handwriting of the deceased, as per the evidence of PW 1 also, ignoring MOs 2 and 3 which contained the standard handwriting of the deceased to compare with the same MO 1, it is inconclusive opinion rendered by the handwriting expert as MOs 2 and 3 did not match with MO 1 as they could not come to a just conclusion as the writings in MOs 2 and 3 were not sufficient to compare with the alleged seized letter which is said to have been written by the deceased. MO 1 contains the details regarding the harassment/abuse of the deceased by the accused and her frustration. Though MO 1 is not proved by the prudence of the handwriting expert, as per the evidence of PW 1 and 4, father and brother of the deceased, it is in the handwriting of the deceased. To that extent, it could be said that it is in the handwriting of the deceased herself, though it is not signed. Might be on the morning of 6th December, 2003 the deceased would have handed over the letter addressed to PW 1. It is also evident from the evidence of PW 14 that PW 1 had visited their house in the morning of 6th December, 2003. Might be on the morning of 6th December, 2003 the deceased would have handed over the letter addressed to PW 1. It is also evident from the evidence of PW 14 that PW 1 had visited their house in the morning of 6th December, 2003. In the letter, the deceased has expressed that it is very difficult to express what is being felt by her and she did not want to make her father feel sorry for her and that she has made all efforts to pull on with life and she has also expressed that for her son Kiran failing in the examination, the accused is blaming her. She has also expressed that his maternal uncle Ramakrishan advised her husband not to harass the deceased also stating that deceased is of good character and to lead life peacefully. Taking the said incident, the accused has expressed that but for the advise of his maternal uncle, he would have left her long back, then she would have learnt a lesson and he had committed a blunder in taking her back to the house and it is also expressed by him that he had become a borrower because of her and he had to clear the same by selling the house and to this, the deceased has expressed she is not the reason and she never gifted anything to anybody and unnecessarily, he is abusing her. She has written in detail about the accused abusing her and also that he was suspecting that she has set up rowdies to finish him of but, she expressed her innocence in the letter. Also, on one occasion, when she went to see her mother who was hospitalised, on her return, the accused inquired as to where she had been and from where she is coming and to go back to the place from where she is coming for which she has also explained that she had not phoned her husband before going to the hospital and that she thought of telling her husband on her return, but he did not believe her. Also she has expressed in the letter that she was called a bitch and not to live in the house and it is better she goes out. Also, she has stated that, the accused expressed that she would receive a lawyer’s notice and then only, she would learn a lesson, etc. Also she has expressed in the letter that she was called a bitch and not to live in the house and it is better she goes out. Also, she has stated that, the accused expressed that she would receive a lawyer’s notice and then only, she would learn a lesson, etc. What is noted regarding the letter written by the deceased, said to have been seized by the police under panchanama under Ex.P2 on such handing over by PW 1 stating that it was given to him by the deceased is, though the police have made efforts to get identified her handwriting with the help of MOs 2 and 3 – the standard handwriting, but, opinion could not be furnished. However, the identification of the hand writing in the said letter by PW 4 and PW 1, cannot be ruled out. What is being noted is, in day to day family affairs, it is apparent and evident that the accused was hurling abuses at the deceased suspecting her fidelity. Whether this conduct of the accused would amount to mental harassment to the deceased so as to drive her to commit suicide, has to be considered. It is pertinent to note, on the date of the incident, on coming to know of the fact that the deceased committed suicide, the accused is shown to have taken the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. It is also evident from the evidence of PW 14 who is the son of the accused and deceased, though he is a star witness, he has suppressed the fact of family bickering. What is also noticed is, the accused being bad tempered, must have expressed something against the deceased regarding she often going to movies or her attitude. Although certain wordings in the letter of the deceased that the accused used to express stating that he should have left the deceased long back and he continued with her only on the advise of his maternal uncle and he abusing her as a bitch and she better goes out of the house cannot be brushed aside, keeping aside the fact of the deceased having lead marital life of twenty years, those expressions show that the harassment meted out to the deceased appears to be in the form of mental harassment. The deceased must have been frustrated by the attitude of the accused and annoyed by the frequent expressions of the accused. The normal human conduct would be, if a woman is more assertive, she would withstand the harassment or hurling of abuses without taking a decision to come out of family life either by taking a divorce or going away. The expressions sometimes made by the accused by way of abuse i.e., calling her a bitch and it is better she goes and die and that he could be at peace if she leaves the house, appears to be a sort of mental harassment meted out to the deceased. The evidence of some of the witnesses, though they are related, point out towards the abuse by the accused to the deceased. In this regard, there appears to be some advise given to the accused. But, if really the accused intended to gel rid of the deceased, as is expressed in his abuse towards the deceased, he would not have attempted to take the deceased to the hospital the moment he came to know about the incident through his son. It appears to be a natural conduct of the accused in hurling abuses at the deceased in day to day family life, he being not so matured in the context, to call him cultured and to avoid such expressions with his wife. The background in which the accused is brought up also shows that he was rude in his behavior and the expressions made by him would not necessarily mean to abuse the deceased so as to abet her to commit suicide. Even admitting the fact that he has abused her, the conduct of the deceased at times – that she frequently went to watch movies and she was going for walk in the night, for which the accused would have objected, though not suspecting her fidelity, but because of security or other reason and, he would have expressed doubt regarding her character in a casual way. Rather, it is difficult to say whether that itself is sufficient to take the extreme step to commit suicide. Might be the deceased being hyper sensitive and having felt annoyed, after having lead twenty years of married life with the accused and also having known about the temperamental incompatibility between them, decided to commit suicide. Rather, it is difficult to say whether that itself is sufficient to take the extreme step to commit suicide. Might be the deceased being hyper sensitive and having felt annoyed, after having lead twenty years of married life with the accused and also having known about the temperamental incompatibility between them, decided to commit suicide. Added to that, she had also lost her mangala sutra either because of somebody’s act or some other reason. Being afraid of the consequences i.e., when the accused used to abuse her in the usual course, and if he came to know about the loss of the gold mangala sutra, he would take her to task, she must have decided to take the extreme step. In the circumstances, it cannot be exactly said that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment meted out to her by the accused. Even it is not a case of dowry harassment that is, when the accused has lead marital life with the deceased for twenty years and she begot a child aged about 19 years, necessarily might be due to misunderstanding between the spouses, due to temperamental incompatibility between the two, she must have committed suicide and it cannot be exactly said that the accused has committed the offence punishable under S.498A and 306, IPC. In this context, I may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another – AIR 2009 SC 923 wherein, referring to Section 306 of I.P.C, the Apex Court has held that the words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention, do not amount to abetment. In view of the same, although the trial court has formed an opinion that MO1 cannot be believed, but, accepting MO1 and the contents there in the background of the circumstances stated above, for the deceased having committed suicide, it cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence under S.498A and 306, IPC. In the result, the appeal by the State is dismissed while confirming the order of acquittal passed by the trial judge. The bail bond executed by the accused stands discharged.