JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.6.2010, whereby the appellants have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. but convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Narayan filed a written complaint before P.S. Bichhiwara as Ex.P-10 and stated that his daughter Manisha got married with appellant No. 1 Babulal. He gave dowry articles as per his capacity but after the marriage, the accused persons, who are husband and father-in-law, started harassing his daughter in relation to demand of dowry and they demanded Rs. 10,000/- on various occasions. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that on 4.10.2009, at about 11.00 P.M., the appellants came to his house and narrated about the illness of his daughter Manisha and with Manisha, her husband and father-in-law, they also accompanied to the Ahmedabad Hospital. During the course of treatment, his daughter narrated that appellant No. 2 Babulal poured kerosene on her and appellant No.. 1 Devilal fired match box due to which she received serious injuries and later on she died. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed for the same offences. After committal of the case, trial of the case was conducted by the concerned Court and after trial the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the F.I.R. was lodged after 7 days of the incident and no explanation of delay has been offered in the F.I.R. or during the investigation, PW-3 Narayan and PW-6 Smt. Panu were with deceased right from the night of 4.10.2009 and they accompanied her at the Ahmedabad Hospital but nothing has been stated to the authorities and the F.I.R. has also been lodged on 11.10.2009. No specific reason has been given for this delay. 6. No specific reason has been given for this delay. 6. The main contention in the F.I.R. is that the present appellants were in habit of harassing his daughter in connection with demand of dowry but no report has been lodged anywhere since the marriage of Manisha. PW-3 Narayan has stated that his daughter and son-in-law were having cordial relations and it has also been stated that the appellant No. 2 father-in-law, was used to scold his son and no allegation of demand of dowry has been attributed for the appellant No. 2. He has also stated that in their community, there is no convention of taking dowry and at the engagement, there was no demand of dowry. He has further stated that when the matter was not taken by the Punches of the community, he has lodged this F.I.R. and there was no demand of any money. 7. Another witness PW-6 Sint. Panu, who is the mother of the deceased, stated that the she never saw any dispute between her daughter and son-in-law and she has also stated that there is no convention of dowry in their community. 8. Other set of evidence has been stated by Narayan and Smt. Panu is that during the course of treatment, Manisha has stated that appellant No. 2 Babulal poured kerosene on her and Devilal caught her but this statement of Narayan and Smt. Panu seems to be totally concocted as in their previous statements, this material fact has not been stated. Hence, it is a clear case of improvement. At the same time, PW-4, Dr. Kupesh Patel, who was surgeon in Modasa, where the deceased was first taken after she received burn injuries, has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that Manisha stated him that fire was burnt due to broken of the bottle of kerosene. 9. Hence, there was no evidence before the trial Court that any appellant, in any way, caused burn injuries to the deceased. The learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. are not made out and thus the appellants were acquitted of those offences but, at the same time, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 10. The learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. are not made out and thus the appellants were acquitted of those offences but, at the same time, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 10. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded during the trial, goes to show that there is no evidence regarding abetment, and rather the case of the prosecution is that death of Manisha was homicidal, whereas to make out the case under Section 306 I.P.C., the death should be suicidal. At the same time, there should be cogent evidence that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even father and mother of the deceased have not narrated anything that in any way, the present appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, there is no iota of evidence against the present appellants to attract the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. 11. In view of the above, the accused-appellants are liable to be acquitted of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 9.6.2010 is quashed and set aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The appellants are behind the bars. They be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******