JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- Accused – appellants Walait Singh, aged 40 years (husband), Charta Singh aged about 70 years (father-in-law) and Kashmira Singh alias Sheeta aged 35 years, (brother-in-law of Gurnam Kaur), were prosecuted for abetment to commit suicide Gurnam Kaur (wife of Waliat Singh). Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. 2. The First Information Report (Ex.PL) registered on the basis of the statement made by Piara Singh, father of the deceased reads as under:- “I am resident of village Ladhianwala and doing labour work. My daughter Gurnam Kaur was married with accused Walait Singh about 19/20 years back. Charta Singh accused is father of Walait Singh; Kashmira Singh, is real brother of Walait Singh. Sufficient dowry was given to Gurnam Kaur in her marriage as per my status and capacity. Walait Singh used to remain idle and was addicted to intoxicants. Immediately, after the marriage, he used to beat my daughter for money, about which she had been disclosing while coming to Ladhianwala. Thereafter, I along with Katha Singh Ex.-Sarpanch, Darshan Singh, Member Panchayat and the other respectable persons of my village went to village Boot and persuaded them not to do so, but after some days, my daughter again told me that he had not mend his ways. About 15/20 days before my daughter informed me that Walait Singh was levelling allegations against her that she was characterless, because my daughter used to go for daily labour in the potato field. Then I along with Resham Singh s/o Piara Singh went to village Boot and tried to persuade Walait Singh, but he did not change, rather he started abusing her in our presence and slapped her. On 27.4.1998, in the noon time, he demanded money from my daughter in our presence for construction of the house and further stated that she was characterless and he does not know when she would free him. My daughter has five daughters and two sons. They also started weeping. We both came to our village Ladhianwala and informed the Sarpanch. Today, on 29.4.1998, Balbir Singh s/o Santa Singh r/o village Boot informed me that Gurnam Kaur had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and she was admitted in Sacred Heart Hospital, Jallandhar (Maqsudan) but she had died. They also started weeping. We both came to our village Ladhianwala and informed the Sarpanch. Today, on 29.4.1998, Balbir Singh s/o Santa Singh r/o village Boot informed me that Gurnam Kaur had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and she was admitted in Sacred Heart Hospital, Jallandhar (Maqsudan) but she had died. Upon thus, I along with Sarpanch and my son Resham Singh went to Maqsudan hospital and found my daughter lying in the dead house. Balbir Singh had further informed me that Walait Singh, Kashmir Singh and Charta Singh had beaten her yesterday also and she having been fed up with the behaviour of the accused committed suicide. Sd/- Piara Singh” 3. On the aforesaid statement made by Piara Singh, the case was investigated, statements of the witnesses were recorded and on receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, the accused were challaned. 4. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 5. In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Dr.G.S.Mann (PW1), Dr.Alok (PW2), Head Constable Pargat Singh (PW3), Constable Buta Singh (PW4), Constable Surjit Singh (PW5), Piara Singh (PW6), Katha Singh (PW7), Resham Singh (PW8), ASI Chanan Singh (PW9) and Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh (PW10). 6. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. 7. There is no denying a fact that the deceased was married to accused Walait Singh about 19/20 years back. It has also not been denied that she gave birth to five daughters and two sons, out of them the eldest daughter is already married. It is also not disputed that she died on 28.4.1998 at 1.30 PM and his post mortem examination was conducted on 29.4.1998 at 3.00 PM. It is not disputed that on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the cause of death was found to be ‘Aluminum Phosphide’, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is also found that the probable time between the injury and the death was 36 hours and the time lapsed between death and post mortem was 12 hours. 8. It is also found that the probable time between the injury and the death was 36 hours and the time lapsed between death and post mortem was 12 hours. 8. Now, the question into controversy is two-fold:- (1)Whether sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution in order to hold that the accused had been maltreating and harassing the deceased on account of demand of dowry? and (2)Whether the accused had levelled allegations on the deceased Gurnam Kaur about her character and she having fed up with this attitude of the accused had committed suicide? 9. Before entering into appreciation of evidence qua the aforesaid queries, I need to consider if Piara Singh – complainant (PW6) in his initial version given in Ex.PL levelled allegations of dowry and about blaming her character in the First Information Report. While going through the entire file, it transpires that the entire FIR rounds about the accused Walait Singh. The allegations against other two accused Kashmira Singh alias Sheeta and Charta Singh at the end of the FIR are regarding maltreatment, are in the different ink and appear to have been introduced later on. 10. Any way, now coming to the first question with regard to maltreatment for the demand of dowry, it may be recapitulated that the deceased had married to Walait Singh about 19/20 years back. She had five daughters and two sons, one of them admittedly was married, therefore, after such a long time question of demanding dowry does not remain alive and becomes insignificant. Even the FIR does not disclose as to what specific demand was raised by the accused or what amount was demanded. The substantive statement made by the complainant Piara Singh appears to be an improvement wherein, it has been stated that the accused was a drugaddict and had been demanding money and he used to pay Rs.200/400 and sometimes Rs.500/-. Irrespective of the fact that it is a serious improvement, no such date, time and manner has been given as to when the amount was demanded and when the same was paid by the complainant. Moreover, such petty money paid by the complainant for satisfaction of his lust for intoxication does not amount to demand of dowry. Irrespective of the fact that it is a serious improvement, no such date, time and manner has been given as to when the amount was demanded and when the same was paid by the complainant. Moreover, such petty money paid by the complainant for satisfaction of his lust for intoxication does not amount to demand of dowry. Moreover, the complainant has given complete improved version in his statement in the court, by stating that in the month of February, 1998, all the accused gave beatings to Gurnam Kaur and turned her out of the house and fractured her head and consequently, she came to him and stayed for two months and, thereafter, on 27.4.1998, he accompanied by his son and the wife of his son took Gurnam Kaur to her matrimonial home on the assurance of the accused that they would take care of her well-being. On 28.4.1998, in the evening, Balbir Singh s/o Santa Singh r/o village Boot informed the complainant that Gurnam Kaur had died, whereas, in the FIR, no such facts are mentioned, rather, in the FIR, he had stated that they were informed about the death of Gurnam Kaur on 29.4.1998, whereas, in his statement in Court, he has stated that they left for Police Station on the night of 28.4.1998 for lodging the FIR. Thus, this statement, which completely deviates from the original version with regard to the demand of dowry and if it is read alone being the substantive statement in the court, no credence can be attached to it, on account of it being a vague and uncertain. Not only this, the statement of the complainant Piara Singh is in contradiction with the statement of Katha Singh (PW7). Katha Singh has given three instances, while commencing from 7/8 months prior to the death; firstly he says that 7/8 months prior to the death of Gurnam Kaur, the Panchayat comprising of himself, Piara Singh, his wife and son Resham Singh had gone to the accused to persuade them from maltreating Gurnam Kaur and had left Gurnam Kaur in their house. After about fortnight again, Gurnam Kaur came back and stayed with her father for two months. Thereafter, three Panchayats came from village Boot and ultimately, a compromise was effected and the accused took Gurnam Kaur to their house. After about fortnight again, Gurnam Kaur came back and stayed with her father for two months. Thereafter, three Panchayats came from village Boot and ultimately, a compromise was effected and the accused took Gurnam Kaur to their house. Then on 28.4.1998, Balbir Singh from village Boot came and informed about the death of Gurnam Kaur. It may be mentioned here that Piara Singh (PW6) has not made any statement with regard to the compromise or visit of three Panchayats to his village and taking of Gurnam Kaur to the house of the accused. Again, it is noticed that Gurnam Kaur never complained directly to Katha Singh about the maltreatment and his statement is based upon hear-say. Anyway, his statement is completely in contradiction of Piara Singh (PW6) and the same also cannot be believed. 11. Now, coming to the next question with regard to the allegation being levelled by the accused about her character, not a word has been said by both Piara Singh (PW6) and Katha Singh (PW7) that the accused were accusing the deceased of being characterless. However, Resham Singh (PW8) in contradiction of the statements of aforesaid two witnesses stated that the accused were suspecting about the character of Gurnam Kaur, but he has not supported the allegation that the accused were taunting Gurnam Kaur giving her reason to commit suicide. It may be observed that had there been so bitterness in the relations of the couple, then the marriage, in all human probabilities, would not have survived for such a long time. 12. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and prove as to what invited the deceased to commit suicide. It has not been denied that Walait Singh was a drug-addict and he was earning nothing and Gurnam Kaur was carrying the whole responsibility and it was increasing as her daughters were becoming of marriageable age, she might be wanting to get rid of. In such circumstances, she must be under heavy pressure to take such a drastic step, but the accused on the basis of such weak evidence cannot be indicted for the crime. 13. Non-discussion of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the flaws in the evidence while recording the finding of conviction, has rendered the impugned judgment invalid, as such, interference by this court has become essential. 14. 13. Non-discussion of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the flaws in the evidence while recording the finding of conviction, has rendered the impugned judgment invalid, as such, interference by this court has become essential. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Fine, if any, deposited by them be refunded. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. ----------------