JUDGMENT G.M. AKBAR ALI, J. All the appeals preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Dindigul in S.C. Nos. 35 of 2000 and 73 of 2003 dated 7.1.2004. 2. Appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Dindigul convicting the appellants 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of ` 1000/- each, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting the 1st appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: On an information given by the 1st appellant on 30.8.1996, regarding the unnatural death of his wife Eswari in his residence, the Inspector of Police, Thuthukudi Thermal Nagar Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 65 of 1996 under Section 174 Cr.P.C, forwarded a printed first information report to the Revenue Divisional Officer and to the superior officers. On receipt of such information, the Revenue Divisional Officer, proceeded to the scene of occurrance around 4.20 p.m on the same day and conducted inquest on the deady body of the deceased. He examined witnesses which includes the parents and brothers of the deceased and sent a request for a post mortem. On completion of the post mortem it was found that the death was due to hanging and the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded a report stating that the appellants have subjected the deceased to cruelty by demanding dowry, which resulted in her death and requested the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct an investigation. 4. One Mr. Varadaraju, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thermal Nagar conducted, investigation. He examined various witnesses and obtained post mortem report and on completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tuthukudi against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for demand of dowry and abetting the suicide. 5. Varadaraju, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thermal Nagar conducted, investigation. He examined various witnesses and obtained post mortem report and on completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tuthukudi against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for demand of dowry and abetting the suicide. 5. On committal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. 2, Tuticorin, framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused and they have denied the charges. The trial was conducted. 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 20 exhibits were marked. 6 exhibits were maked by the defence. 6. On the basis of the oral and documentry evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved both the charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. Aggrieved by which, the appellants have come forward before this Court. 7. One Easwari was the daughter of Bagavathy Ammal. Nagalingam and Murugan are the brothers of Easwari and they belong to Perakalpudhur, Nagercoil. On 1.12.1991, Easwari was married to the 1st appellant and the marriage took place in a Kalyana Mandapam at Nagercoil. For the marriage, Easwari was given 30 sovereigns of jewels and a sum of ` 20,000/- was also given. The 2nd appellant is the mother of the 1st appellant. After the marriage, both the appellants and the deceased were residing at Thermal Nagar, Thuthukudi where the first appellant was working. 8. According to P.W.1 to P.W.3, the mother and brothers of the deceased, the appellants were demanding more jewels and properties. The deceased was not living happily with the 1st appellant. Whenever the deceased came to her mother’s house, she was complaining about the demands of the appellants not only to her mother and brothers and also to her neighbours, who were examined as P.Ws.4 to 6. In December, 1992, the deceased came to her parents house for delivery and she delivered a boy. The 1st appellant visited the deceased and he asked ` 5,000/- which was given by P.W.2. The appellants were demanding 5 sovereigns of jewels for the child and only after giving 5 sovereigns, the deceased and child were taken to the appellants’ residence. 9. The 1st appellant visited the deceased and he asked ` 5,000/- which was given by P.W.2. The appellants were demanding 5 sovereigns of jewels for the child and only after giving 5 sovereigns, the deceased and child were taken to the appellants’ residence. 9. The second appellant always demanded more jewels and used to say as and thereby instigating the deceased to go away from the house and commit suicide. The 1st appellant demanded property. P.W.2 promised to give 3 cents of land in the name of his sister. The appellants continuously subjected the deceased to cruelty by demanding jewels and property. On 30.8.1996, both the appellants scolded the deceased by stating that she could very well die so that the 1st appellant could marry any other woman with much more dowry. On 30.8.1996, around 10.30 a.m the deceased was found hanging in her room and the 1st appellant gave information to the Inspector of Police P.W.16. In the inquest enquiry by P.W.12, P.Ws.1 to 6 stated that the appellants used to demand dowry and subjected the deceased to cruelty and also instigated her to commit suicide. Therefore, Revenue Divisional Officer, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct investigation. 10. When P.W.1 to 3 who are mother and brothers of the deceased were examined before the trial Court, they have narrated about the marriage, demand of jewels, property and also the complaints made by the deceased to them regarding the attitude of the appellants. P.W.4, 5 and 6 who are the neighbours of P.Ws.1 to 3 had also corroborated P.W.1 to 3. One Manimekalai was examined as P.W.8 who is the neighbour of the appellant. But she had not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, one Shankar who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Thermal Nagar was examined as P.W.9 to speak about the demand of dowry and he also turned hostile. P.W.10 and 11 are the magazar witnesses. As stated earlier, P.W.12 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted inquest and P.W.13 is the post mortem doctor who had opined that the death is due to hanging. P.W.16 is the Inspector who registered the First information report and P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer. 11. The trial Court found the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are cogent and also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 and found that the prosecution has proved both the charges. P.W.16 is the Inspector who registered the First information report and P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer. 11. The trial Court found the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are cogent and also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 and found that the prosecution has proved both the charges. 12. The point for consideration that arises is whether the conviction and sentence by the trial Court is sustainable. 13. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon the interested evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is no independent witness to speak about the cruelty of demanding of dowry. The learned senior counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the various contradictions between P.Ws.1 to 3. The learned seior counsel would state that all the witnesses have spoken about the complaints made by the deceased much prior to the incident and there is no evidence to show that immediately prior to the incident the deceased was subjected to cruelty and was instigated to commit suicide. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that in common parlance a husband or mother-in-law may say “Go and die” and that itself would not consitute an instigation to die. The learned counsel relied on a decision AIR 2002 SC 1998 : (2002) SCC (Cr) 1141 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “13. ... Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased ‘to go and die’, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge tht the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea”. 14. Mr. L. Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage of the deceased and the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 have cogently spoken about the demand of dowry and also the instigation by the appellants to the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the prosecution has proved both the charges beyond reasonable doubts. 15. I gave my anxious consideration to materials placed before me. 15. I gave my anxious consideration to materials placed before me. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 1.12.1991 between the 1st appellant and the deceased at Nagercoil. P.Ws.1 to 3 , who are the mother and brothers of the deceased, would state that the bride was given 30 sovereigns of jewels and ` 20,000/- cash. It is not their case that even at the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry. P.Ws.1 to 3 would state that after the marriage, the deceased was living at Thermal Nagar along with the appellants and she was not living happily with the 1st appellant. According to their evidence, the 2nd appellant was telling that if the deceased is got rid (sic) off, they can go for a bride with more dowry. 16. According to their evidence, in December, 1992, the deceased came for delivery and when the 1st appellant came to see her, he demanded ` 5,000/- which was given and also demanded 5 sovereigns to take the child and the mother to the matrimonial home. According to their evidence, 5 sovereigns were given and even thereafter, the 1st appellant was demanding property and the 2nd appellant continued to tell the deceased to “go and die, so that 1st appellant can be married to some other person. 17. P.Ws.4 to 6 who are the neighbours would corroborate P.Ws.1 to 3. According to them, whenever the deceased came to Nagercoil, she used to complain that the appellants were demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty. 18. P.W.2 would state that twelve days before the occurence, the 1st appellant and the deceased came to Nagercoil and the 1st appellant went to Chennai leaving behind the deceased, P.W.2 would state that the.deceased complained that she was always subjected to cruelty by A.1 and she wished to remain permanently at her parents’ place. However, the deceased was pacified and sent back to the matrimonial home and on 30.8.1996, the occurrence took place. 19. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel, the neighbours of the appellants were not examined by the investigating officer. P.W.8 who was residing in the fourth floor did not support the prosecution. The narration of events by P.Ws.1 to 3 would show that the deceased was demanded cash, jewels and property right from her marriage. But no complaint was made either by the deceased nor by P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.8 who was residing in the fourth floor did not support the prosecution. The narration of events by P.Ws.1 to 3 would show that the deceased was demanded cash, jewels and property right from her marriage. But no complaint was made either by the deceased nor by P.W.1 to P.W.3. The second specific complaint is in the year 1992 when the child was born. According to P.W.2, when the deceased came to his house, tweleve days prior to the occurrence, she complained that the appellants were subjecting her to cruelty and she never wanted to go back. The other witnesses did not corroborate this aspect. There is no evidence to show that what has happened on the fateful day which drove her to take the extreme step for committing suicide. It is pertinent to note that the 2nd appellant was not in the place of occurrence. The 1st appellant was attending his duty at the time of occurrence. 20. P.Ws.1 to 3 would state that the deceased complained to them about utterance of words like “go and die” by appellants. In Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) the Supreme Court has held that telling the deceased to go and die itself does not constitute the ingredients of instigation. Moreover, the second appellant was not present when the occurence took place. 21. As stated earlier, the entire evidence would only point out that the appellants were demanding cash, jewels and property and was subjecting the deceased to cruelty by uttering the above words. But there was no complaint by the mother and by the brothers all along. There is no substantive evidence against the appellants either for demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and also instigating the deceased to commit the sucide immiedately prior to the occurrence. 22. The perusal of evidence would show that the prosecution has not proved that immediately prior to the occurence, the deceased was subjeced to cruelty by the appellants. 23. The 1st appellant is also charged for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. According to the charge, on 29.8.1996, i.e., one day prior to the occurrence he had uttered the word “go and die” so that he can marry the woman who can give more dowry. To speak about such specific instigation on 29.8.1996, no witness was examined by the prosecution. 24. According to the charge, on 29.8.1996, i.e., one day prior to the occurrence he had uttered the word “go and die” so that he can marry the woman who can give more dowry. To speak about such specific instigation on 29.8.1996, no witness was examined by the prosecution. 24. To sum up, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, corroborated by P.W.4 to 6, would show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty right from the marriage but there was no complaint. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected for cruelty immediately prior to the occurence. The specific allegation that on the previous day to the occurence the first appellant demanded dowry and uttered the word “go and die” is not proved. There is no independent witness to speak about the offences. Therefore the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 25. For the reasons stated above, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 26. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. Fine amount if paid directed to be refunded. Appeal allowed.