JUDGMENT 1. This is State appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28th April, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in SC No. 138 of 2001. 2. Sullia Police charge-sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the accused and out of the said wedlock they had children by name Mahesh and Shubha. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased for petty reasons. On 1-3-2001 at about 2.00 a.m. when the complainant was in Bangalore his sister Shubha called him and informed that the accused has assaulted the deceased on 25-2-2001. Even on previous day of the filing of the complaint the accused had taken deceased to the garden land and had assaulted. The deceased frustrated by the act of the accused consumed poison and she succumbed to the same in the hospital. When the complainant reached the village at 6.50 a.m. his mother had already dead. At about 12.15 p.m. on 1-3-2001 complainant lodged the complaint. 3. Based on the said complaint, the Sullia Police registered a case in Cr.No.22 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. In the course of investigation the Police recorded the statement of the witnesses including the complainant, his sister Shubha and others. On the basis of the materials collected police filed charge-sheet. 4. On framing of the charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.W.s1 to 18 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20, produced M.O.1-empty bottle of alleged poison. On the defence side D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. 5. The Trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, however, held that the prosecution is only able to prove the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, he convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, he convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him with imprisonment, but released him under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. State feeling aggrieved by the said judgment is in appeal. 6. Accordingly, he convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, he convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him with imprisonment, but released him under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. State feeling aggrieved by the said judgment is in appeal. 6. Mr. A.V. Ramakrishna, learned Government Advocate submitted that, prosecution in order to prove its case had examined as many as 18 witnesses. From amongst 18 witnesses P.W.12-Udayakumar is the neighbour of the accused and P.W.14 Smt.Shubba is the daughter of the accused, who has spoken of the harassment and ill-treatment. The learned Trial Judge without appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 14 has erroneously held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that, the accused was assaulting and abusing the deceased for every small reason. This evidence is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, who are none other than the sisters of the deceased, who have also stated that the accused used to pick up quarrel for petty reasons and used to assaulted the deceased. This fact is also supported by the evidence of P.W.12, who is an independent witness. Though P.W.14 has not fully supported the prosecution case the other evidence recorded do prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 7. The prosecution, no doubt, has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. But, the prosecution is required to adduce cogent and clinching evidence to prove the said offence. Section 306 of IPC, requires abatement for commission of suicide. Merely because there used to be quarrel frequently earlier to the incident, that does not by itself could become an abatement. Assuming that the accused used to frequently quarrel for several years and the deceased was used it such quarrels and petty disputes, cannot be become reason for suicide. 8. The main witness examined in this case is P.W.14. P.W.1 though he is son of the accused and deceased, but at the time of incident or prior to that he was not in the villae. Even according to his complaint he has stated that he was in Bangalore and he reached the village only at 6.50 p.m. on the said day. P.W.1 though he is son of the accused and deceased, but at the time of incident or prior to that he was not in the villae. Even according to his complaint he has stated that he was in Bangalore and he reached the village only at 6.50 p.m. on the said day. Incident, according to P.W.1, is alleged to have been seen by P.W.14. However, P.W. 14 has not supported the case of the prosecution so far as offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned. Other than P.W.14 no other witness had spoken either of the particular incident or that there is quarrel which abated to commission of offence by the accused. However, P.W.14 depose that there used to be petty quarrels between the accused and deceased, it cannot be the reason to hold that the accused has abated the commission of offence. 9. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence and on appreciation has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 if IPC. The other witness examined by the prosecution, particularly, P.Ws.2 to 5 are concerned, they are none other than the sisters of the deceased, they speak of the petty quarrels between the accused and deceased prior in time. There is no direct evidence which could prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, I find that the Trial Court has not committed any error. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.