Judgment : 1. By consent of respective counsel appearing for the parties, Appeal is taken up for final hearing, at the admission stage. Parties were put to notice that the Appeal may be disposed of finally pursuant to the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by this Court. 2. Heard submissions at the Bar, at length. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2009 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge2 Wardha in Sessions Trial No.159/2004 whereby the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein for offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts briefly stated are: the victim Sau. Smita Narendra Ramteke was found dead in the house on 1st May, 2004 between 6.00 and 7.00 a.m. in Gond Plot Area, Wardha. She was taken to the Hospital and declared dead prior to her admission. Inquest over the dead body was held and the body was referred for postmortem examination in which it was revealed that she had died on account of consumption of insecticides. The investigating agency proceeded with the investigation and recorded statement of relatives of the victim. It is not in dispute that the victim had a love affair with the accused and they were married since two years prior to the incident. The deceased had, in fact, conceived twice or thrice but could not deliver a child and, therefore, she was in nervous breakdown as even one day prior to the incident, there was a miscarriage and she had pain in her stomach and she had been taken to the Doctor. On the next morning, it is case of the prosecution that she was found dead in her house after the incident of miscarriage. 4. The investigation was set in motion by elder sister of the victim who, on or about 20th July 2004, (after about 2andahalf months from the date of incident) lodged a report to Superintendent of Police, Wardha regarding allegations against the accused. It was also alleged that in the third week of June, 2004 a chit was found in a notebook kept in an almirah, in which it was alleged that allegations were beyond the tolerance of the victim made by her husband. Thus, according to the report, the accused husband was guilty of abetting the suicide by the victim. It was also alleged that in the third week of June, 2004 a chit was found in a notebook kept in an almirah, in which it was alleged that allegations were beyond the tolerance of the victim made by her husband. Thus, according to the report, the accused husband was guilty of abetting the suicide by the victim. Pursuant to the FIR No.247/2004 for offence punishable under section 306 IPC, investigation was undertaken. The chit was seized in the course of investigation along with notebook and the accused was put on trial pursuant to the committal order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. 5. It appears that the trial Court by a detailed judgment considered the evidence led by the prosecution and found that the alleged chit was not duly proved as in the handwriting of the victim, which was made the basis of alleged ill-treatment meted out at the hands of the accused. The trial Court also considered the circumstances brought on record in the prosecution evidence as also in the cross of the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses which revealed that the victim had no issue because of abortion 2/3 times and that she was crestfallen (vide paragraph 18 of the judgment). Regarding the so called chitthi (chit), the trial Court observed with reference to the ruling cited in the case of Bapurao vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 943 that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert if exhibited, in the absence of Handwriting Expert being examined, no value or weightage whatsoever can be given to the mere opinion of the Handwriting Expert in the absence of any oral evidence of the said Expert regarding his own opinion; and thus concluded that the report of the Handwriting Expert can not be used against the accused. It was indeed necessary for the prosecution to prove chit recovered during the course of investigation as in the handwriting of the victim and it could have been done with the help of disputed handwriting compared with the admitted handwritings of the deceased, either with the help of the Expert or with prayer by application specifically made on that ground before the trial Court. None of the steps appear to have been adopted in the present case. None of the steps appear to have been adopted in the present case. Under these circumstances, the observations made by the trial Court that the report Exh.73 can be suspected because as per Manjusha (PW 6), in June 2004 itself, she found chit in the almirah. There was no reason for her to wait for about one month and then to lodge the report on 20th July 2004 as per Exh.73. Thus, on the principle that suspicion howsoever strong against the accused can not be a substitute for legal proof, the learned trial Judge appears to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused and found that prosecution has failed to prove offence punishable u/s 306 IPC against the accused. Ruling in Ashwinikumar vs. State of MP (2007 (1) Acquittal 125 was also referred for the principle that evidence of immediate harassment or instigation is not available, the accused-husband cannot be convicted for offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. Under these circumstances, no infirmity whatsoever can be found with the finding recorded by the trial Court. The accused was rightly acquitted. No ground is made out for interference. Hence Appeal is dismissed.