Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.129 of 2006 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. By judgment dated 16.2.2007, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and further to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. Challenging the same, he filed an Appeal in C.A. No.65 of 2007. The learned Additional District, and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Erode by judgment dated 16.2.2008 while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence. Instead of three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C., the learned Appellate Court reduced the same to two years. The fine imposed for the said offence was confirmed. The sentence imposed for offence under Section 498-A was also confirmed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Revision. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: This case relates to the death of two persons. For the sake of convenience, the deceased Mrs. Akilandeshwari shall be referred as D1 and the deceased Devadharishini shall be referred as D2. D1 is the wife and D2 is the daughter of the petitioner/accused. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the foster parents of D1. P.W.2 is the natural mother and P.W.3 had settled down in Mangalore. The marriage between the petitioner and D1 was solemnized in the month of March 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner and D1 lived together as husband and wife at Bodinaickanur. Out of the wed lock, D1 became pregnant. When she was 8 months pregnant, she allegedly called P.W.1 over phone and informed him that her family members were compelling her to undergo abortion since it was presumed that a female child would be born. Two days thereafter, D1 again called P.W.1 over phone and started crying. The father-in-law of D1 informed P.W.1 that D1 was not well, on the same day, P.W.1 and P.W.5 went to the house of D1 and they found that D1 was lying on the bed. Two days thereafter, D1 again called P.W.1 over phone and started crying. The father-in-law of D1 informed P.W.1 that D1 was not well, on the same day, P.W.1 and P.W.5 went to the house of D1 and they found that D1 was lying on the bed. P.W.1 and P.W.5 were informed that D1 had fallen down from upstairs and therefore, she was taking rest. Immediately thereafter, D1 was taken to the hospital. While in the hospital, she informed P.W.1 and P.W.5 that she fell down because she was pushed by the accused from the stairs. Thereafter the life went on end D2 was born. At that point of time, P.W.1 and other family members came to know that the accused was only in a temporary job drawing a meager sum of Rs.1,500/-per month. Therefore, P.W.1 and his family members started to help D1 monetarily. One year prior to the occurrence, D1 and the accused went the house of P.W.2 at Mangalore. At that time, P.W.6 who is the nephew of D1 visited the house of P.W.2 with her husband. During the conversation, P.W.6 and her husband advised the accused to seek some other better job. The said advice was not to the liking of the accused. He got angry and returned to Erode leaving D1 alone at Mangalore itself. After that, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 took D1 to Erode and persuaded the accused and his family members to take care of D1 and left her with them. Again on 19.6.2003, D1 spoke to P.W.2 over phone and informed that she was being harassed by the accused suspecting her fidelity. On 18.9.2003 at about 1.30 p.m., D2 committed suicide by hanging, after hanging D2 also. Both died instantaneously. 3. On the Complaint of P.W.1, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station registered a case in Crime No.488 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, I.P.C. and 174, Cr.P.C. in Crime No.488 of 2003. P.W.14, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode conducted inquest over the dead body of both D1 and D2. The inquest report prepared by him is Ex.P.12. Thereafter, he forwarded the body of both D1 and D2 for autopsy. P.W.7, Dr. Rejeswari conducted autopsy of both D1 and D2. According to her, both the deceased died due to hanging. On the basis of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s report, P.W.15 further proceeded to investigate the case. The inquest report prepared by him is Ex.P.12. Thereafter, he forwarded the body of both D1 and D2 for autopsy. P.W.7, Dr. Rejeswari conducted autopsy of both D1 and D2. According to her, both the deceased died due to hanging. On the basis of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s report, P.W.15 further proceeded to investigate the case. On the date of occurrence, he prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar regarding the place of occurrence. He examined P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and recorded their statements. He collected the medical records, examined the Doctor and other witnesses including the Revenue Divisional Officer. Finally, on completing investigation, he filed Final Report against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. 4. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C. Since the accused denied the charges, he was put on trial. During the trial, as many as 15 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution as well as 17 documents and 9 material objects were also exhibited. When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials, he denied the same. On his side, a defence witness was examined as D.W.1 and a Bank Passbook was exhibited as Ex.D1. Having considered the above materials, both the Courts below found the accused guilty of the charges under the above penal provisions. Aggrieved over the same, the accused is now before this Court with this Revision. 5. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have spoken to about the ill-feeling and the alleged harassment meted out to D1 at the hands of the accused. They have narrated at length about the telephonic talks and as to what happened t Mangalore, etc. The prosecution mainly relied on the letter (Ex.P2) dated 8.9.2003 said to have been written by D1 which was 10 days before her demise. The said document can be taken as dying declaration falling within the scope of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court has mainly relied on P.W.1 to 3, 5, 6 and Ex.P2 to hold the accused guilty. 6. The said document can be taken as dying declaration falling within the scope of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court has mainly relied on P.W.1 to 3, 5, 6 and Ex.P2 to hold the accused guilty. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made against the petitioner/accused are accepted to be true, even then, there is no possibility for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges either under Section 498-A or 306, I.P.C . He further submits that all the facts spoken to by the witnesses would only indicate the misunderstanding between the husband and wife and there was no love lost. Apart from that, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner abated the commission of offence as defined in Section 107, I.P.C. To substantiate the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the oral evidences and Ex.P2. He has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (4) MLJ (Crl) 983, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to hold s to what constitute ‘abetment of suicide’ as contemplated under Section 306, I.P.C. in terms of Section 107, I.P.C. In para 11 to 13 read as follows: “Section 107, I.P.C. 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 anything. 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 act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for 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. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for 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 proved offence. 12. In case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife cruelty is not enough. See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 AIR SCW 4570. 13. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., 2007 (10) SCC 797 : 2007 (2) MLJ (Crl) 1830; Randhir Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097 : 2005 SCC (Cr) 56 : 2004 (13) SCC 129 ; and Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.1464 of 2007 disposed of on 7.4.2008.” 7. A close look into the above would show that it is crystal clear that unless it is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that there was either direct or indirect act of inducement to the commission of suicide, the mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not at all enough to convict, the accused under Section 306, I.P.C. In the case on hand, the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 6 have spoken only about what the deceased/D1 told them. They have only spoken that on several occasions either by phone or in person, the deceased/D1 told them that she was subjected to harassment by her husband. Except such vague statement, nothing more is found to satisfy the ingredients under Section 107, I.P.C. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the allegations which were spoken by the witnesses do not find a place in the earlier report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said omission has also been established by way of contradictions and so much weightage cannot be given to the evidence of these witnesses. 8. In my opinion, the evidence of these witnesses would indicate that, the deceased/D1 was harassed by the accused as there was misunderstanding between them. The said omission has also been established by way of contradictions and so much weightage cannot be given to the evidence of these witnesses. 8. In my opinion, the evidence of these witnesses would indicate that, the deceased/D1 was harassed by the accused as there was misunderstanding between them. This will not constitute abetment as defined under Section 107, I.P.C. and therefore, the conviction under Section 306, I.P.C. cannot be sustained at all. 9. Now so far as the question of conviction under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is concerned, here, the term “Cruelty” has been explained in Section 498-A, I.P.C. as follows: (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 he 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. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the act of the accused would fall within the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A, I.P.C. But, I am not persuaded by the said argument. In my considered opinion, a close look into the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 would go to show that though the conduct of the petitioner would amount to harassment, the same would not fall within the definition of cruelty in terms of Section 498-A, I.P.C. since the conduct of the petitioner was not in the nature of likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. As I have already stated, misunderstanding between the husband and wife and the consequent domestic quarrels cannot be termed as “Cruelty” in terms of Section 498-A, I.P.C. Therefore, the conviction under Section 498-A, I.P.C. also cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306, I.P.C.