JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 19.1.2011, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, thereby convicting appellant nos. 1 to 3 herein (original accused nos. 1 to 3) for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- by each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 60 days by each of them; and also sentencing them for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- by each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 days by each of them, and also directing that out of the total fine amount of Rs.6,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/be paid to the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 herein i.e. father of the victim as compensation under Section 357 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further directing that all the afore said sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts and the events leading to the present appeal are briefly stated herein below: Victim Bhagyashri married with appellant no.1 Kailash in December, 2008 and appellant no.2 Baburao is her father-in-law and appellant no.3 Sanjeevani is her mother-in-law. After the marriage, deceased Bhagyashri started residing with appellant nos. 1 to 3 at her matrimonial home. Initially, appellants herein treated victim Bhagyashri well for the period of one month. However, it is alleged that thereafter they started making demand of Rs.2,00,000/- from her for purchase of plot. According to the complainant, appellant no.1 used to demand money even on phone, as well as they used to insist the deceased to bring money from her parental house. However, respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant could not comply with the said demand due to his poor financial condition, and therefore, the accused even left deceased Bhagyashri to his house. At that time, it is alleged that victim Bhagyashri informed that the appellants used to drive her out of house and they used to insult her on account of her black complexion. Victim Bhagyashri remained pregnant, but accused nos. At that time, it is alleged that victim Bhagyashri informed that the appellants used to drive her out of house and they used to insult her on account of her black complexion. Victim Bhagyashri remained pregnant, but accused nos. 2 and 3 were saying that they were not able to maintain three persons including her child, and hence, they insisted upon her to abort the child. According to the complainant, he tried to persuade the appellants, but they subjected victim Bhagyashri to mental and physical torture. It is alleged that appellant no.1 used to consume liquor and assault victim Bhagyashri. It is also alleged that even the appellants used to starve victim Bhagyashri. It is further alleged that the harassment, ill-treatment and mental and physical torture, to which victim Bhagyashri was subjected at the hands of the appellants, ultimately culminated into committal of suicide by deceased Bhagyashri by hanging herself by means of nylon rope on 4.7.2009. 3. Accordingly, a report about suicidal death of married woman, namely Bhagyashri was lodged on 4.7.2009 by PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde at Sonpeth police station and in pursuance of the registration of A.D. No. 14 of 2009 (Exh.27), under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inquiry was initiated in the matter. Accordingly PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde along with the staff went to the spot of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.18) and seized one white colour nylon rope from the spot. PW5 Head Constable Kejgir prepared the inquest panchanama (Exh.16) of the dead body of the victim, which was sent for postmortem examination and on the same day, PW7 Dr. Siddheshwar Halge performed the postmortem on the dead body of victim Bhagyashri and issued the provisional death certificate (Exh.31) mentioning the provisional cause of death, as cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to hanging and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. 4. On the same day i.e. 4.7.2009, PW1 Dinkar Ghodke i.e. father of victim Bhagyashri lodged the complaint before the police personnel against the appellants, which was treated as the first information report (Exh.12) and offence was registered against the appellants under C.R. No. 45 of 2009 under Sections 306, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the same day i.e. 4.7.2009, PW1 Dinkar Ghodke i.e. father of victim Bhagyashri lodged the complaint before the police personnel against the appellants, which was treated as the first information report (Exh.12) and offence was registered against the appellants under C.R. No. 45 of 2009 under Sections 306, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged in the said first information report that the appellants herein subjected his daughter, namely victim Bhagyashri to mental and physical torture and thereby abeted committal of suicide by her when she was pregnant. 5. During the course of investigation, PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde arrested the appellants on 4.7.2009 and collected the memorandum of postmortem examination (Exh.30). Moreover, he recorded the statement of mother of deceased, namely PW2 Shakuntala, as well as he recorded the statements of other witnesses, residing at Shepwadi and also the witnesses at Patti Wadgaon. Moreover, sample of viscera was sent to the office of Chemical Analyser for examination purpose and report thereof is produced at Exh.26. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde filed the charge sheet against the appellants. Since the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Gangakhed. Accordingly, learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed framed the charge (Exh.7) against the appellant under Sections 304, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 1.7.2010. However, the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution examined in as much as 7 witnesses as mentioned below : PW1 Dinkar Namdeo Ghodke – Complainant i.e. father of deceased Bhagyashri. PW2 Shakuntala Dinkar Ghodke – mother of victim. PW3 Rameshwar Baburao Shinde, panch to inquest panchanama (Exh.16). PW4 Ankush Rambhau Parve, panch to seizure panchanama (Exh.18). PW5 Head Constable Subhash Ambaji Kejgir, who prepared inquest panchanama (Exh.16). PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Dnyanoba Shinde, investigating officer. PW7 Dr. Siddheshwar Shivraj Halge, Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on dead body of victim Bhagyashri and proved postmortem notes at Exh.30. 7. PW3 Rameshwar Baburao Shinde, panch to inquest panchanama (Exh.16). PW4 Ankush Rambhau Parve, panch to seizure panchanama (Exh.18). PW5 Head Constable Subhash Ambaji Kejgir, who prepared inquest panchanama (Exh.16). PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Dnyanoba Shinde, investigating officer. PW7 Dr. Siddheshwar Shivraj Halge, Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on dead body of victim Bhagyashri and proved postmortem notes at Exh.30. 7. The defence of the appellants was of total denial and appellant no.1 contended that deceased Bhagyashri and her father insisted upon him to leave home to go with her father to do job of Peon in a School, but he refused to the same. He stated that he was illiterate, and hence, victim Bhagyashri was not willing to reside with him. He also stated that he was not rich, so she wanted to reside with a rich person, and hence, she committed suicide under frustration and the witnesses being relatives have deposed against him falsely. However, the appellants neither examined themselves on oath, nor examined any defence witness. 8. Accordingly, after considering oral and documentary evidence, adduced and produced by the prosecution and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as afore stated. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction, dated 9.1.2011, the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the same and prayed for quashment thereof. 10. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties effectively, it is necessary to advert to the material evidence, adduced and produced by the prosecution and in the said context, coming to the evidence of PW1 Dinkar Namdeo Ghodke i.e. the complainant, who is the father of deceased Bhagyashri, stated that marriage of his daughter, namely Bhagyashri was solemnized with accused no.1 Kailash and he gave Rs.50,000/0 dowry and articles necessary for marital life at the time of said marriage. After marriage, she started residing with her husband and in-laws together at Sonpeth. He also stated that they treated well to the victim for initial period of one month from the marriage and thereafter they started harassing her and they used to ask her to bring Rs.2,00,000/from her parents for the purpose of purchasing plot. After marriage, she started residing with her husband and in-laws together at Sonpeth. He also stated that they treated well to the victim for initial period of one month from the marriage and thereafter they started harassing her and they used to ask her to bring Rs.2,00,000/from her parents for the purpose of purchasing plot. He also stated that his son-in-law i.e. accused no.1 gave threats on phone to him to bring Rs.2,00,000/for the purchase of plot. Thereupon PW1 Dinkar informed him that he was not able to give said amount, as his financial condition was poor. However, still accused used to insist upon his daughter and used to make demand of money from him on phone. He also stated that after lapse of about 23 months, appellant no.1 herein brought the deceased to the house of PW1 Dinkar and left her there. Thereupon, she informed PW1 Dinkar about harassment sustained by her at the hands of accused persons on account of payment of money. She also informed that accused used to assault and abuse her and they also used to drive her out of the house. She further informed that appellant no.1 used to consume liquor and used to drive her out of the house. She also informed that all the accused used to insult her saying that she was of dark complexion. 11. Moreover, Dinkar (PW 1) has also stated that his daughter was pregnant but accused used to say her to abort her child as they disliked her and they did not want child, as well as they had no capacity to maintain the child. He has further stated that his daughter had come to his house and resided for about 1012 days. Thereafter his wife Shakuntala and father-in-law Kashinath went to Sonpeth to the house of accused and gave amount of Rs. 5,000/- and one nose ring (Nath) to the accused and requested the accused to give proper treatment to Bhagyashri and not to illtreat her. At that time, Bhagyashri informed Kashinath, that accused were not behaving properly and they were harassing her. Hence, Dinkar's wife, namely, Shakuntala, and Kashinath persuaded the accused and returned back. He has also stated that on 4-7-2009, his wife Shankuntala had made a phone call to Bhagyashri and asked about whereabouts of Bhagyashri. But accused no.1 Kailash took the phone and demanded amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shankuntala. Hence, Dinkar's wife, namely, Shakuntala, and Kashinath persuaded the accused and returned back. He has also stated that on 4-7-2009, his wife Shankuntala had made a phone call to Bhagyashri and asked about whereabouts of Bhagyashri. But accused no.1 Kailash took the phone and demanded amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Shankuntala. But she expressed her inability to pay the said amount due to poor financial condition and her daughter Bhagyashri was weeping at that time. Accused no.1 Kailash then disconnected the said telephone call. He has further stated that at about 2 to 2.30 p.m., on the same day, maternal aunt of accused no.1 Kailash informed them on telephone, that their daughter hanged herself. Hence, Dinkar (PW 1) rushed to the hospital at Sonpeth and saw the dead body of his daughter. On inquiry, he came to know that his daughter had hanged herself by means of Nylon rope in the house of Madan Raut, maternal uncle of accused no.1 Kailash. Accordingly, he has stated that his daughter committed suicide on account of harassment by the accused. Hence, he lodged complaint at Sonpeth Police Station, on the same day, which is at Exhibit 12. 12. During cross examination, he has stated that he had given amount of Rs. 50,000/-towards dowry and thereafter marriage of Bhagyashri was performed. He collected the said amount out of his income since he was doing job of cutting hair since last 26 years. He has also stated that he spent amount of about Rs. 1,50,000/-at the time of marriage of deceased Bhagyashri. He has further stated that accused nos.2 and 3 i.e. in-laws of deceased Bhagyashri used to do work in the field of others. He has admitted that accused never compelled his daughter Bhagyashri to do labour work outside the house. He has also stated that after 2 days of marriage, his daughter had come back to his house. Dinkar (PW 1) has also admitted that after about 2 3 months after the marriage, accused had purchased a television set for entertainment of deceased Bhagyashri. He has also stated that the accused had knowledge about his economical condition. 13. As regards unlawful demands, Dinkar (PW 1) has stated that he was unable to specify when demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-was made by the accused. He has also stated that the accused had knowledge about his economical condition. 13. As regards unlawful demands, Dinkar (PW 1) has stated that he was unable to specify when demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-was made by the accused. He has also stated that he did not give information to other relatives about harassment to deceased Bhagyashri at the hands of accused. Accused used to assault Bhagyashri and drive out of the house. He has further stated that after 3 and half months of marriage, his daughter remained pregnant. He had no information whether accused no.1 used to take deceased to doctor. He has also admitted that about 15 days prior to the incident of death of his daughter, accused had called him and his family members to Sonpeth and offered clothes to them. 14. Considering the testimony of Dinkar (PW 1), it is apparent that the contention of Dinkar (PW 1), that his wife Shakuntala and his father-in-law Kashinath went to the house of accused, after his daughter Bhagyashri remained pregnant, and paid amount of Rs. 5,000/- and one nose ring (Nath) to the accused and requested the accused not to illtreat Bhagyashri, has gone unchallenged. Moreover, there is no cross examination in respect of further contention of Dinkar (PW 1), that on 472009, his wife Shakuntala made telephone call to Bhagyashri and asked her whereabouts. The said telephone call was attended by accused no.1 Kailash and he demanded amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-from her, however, Shakuntala expressed inability to pay the same due to poor financial condition and thereafter accused no.1 Kailash disconnected the phone call. 15. As regards alleged demand of unlawful amount, Dinkar (PW 1) has admitted in his cross examination, that he cannot give exact day when demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-was made by the accused. Accordingly, Dinkar (PW 1) could not give the particulars of the said alleged unlawful demand made by the accused to deceased Bhagyashri. Moreover, it has also come in the cross examination, that deceased Bhagyashri was never compelled to do labour work outside the house and even accused had purchased a television set for her entertainment. Moreover, 15 days prior to the incident of death of Bhagyashri, accused had called Dinkar (PW 1) and his family members to Sonpeth and offered clothes to them. Moreover, 15 days prior to the incident of death of Bhagyashri, accused had called Dinkar (PW 1) and his family members to Sonpeth and offered clothes to them. A suggestion was given to him in the cross examination, that accused never illtreated to deceased and never insisted upon her to terminate her pregnancy. But the same was denied by him. 16. Coming to the deposition of Shakuntala (PW 2), she has stated that deceased Bhagyashri was her daughter and her marriage was performed with accused no.1 Kailash and after marriage, she went to reside with her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home. Initially, she was treated well for about one month and thereafter they started harassment to her. Accused used to tease her on account of black complexion and they were insisting her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/-from her parents for the purpose of purchasing plot. She has also stated that the accused used to assault deceased Bhagyashri and compel her to stay outside the door for whole night. She has also stated that accused used to consume liquor and used to assault her. She has also stated that whenever deceased Bhagyashri used to come to their house, she used to inform the same to her, as well as she used to inform them on telephone also. She has further stated that her daughter remained pregnant. Accused nos.2 and 3 had told her, that accused no.1 Kailash was jobless and they were unable to maintain all of them. Thereafter, when accused no.1 Kailash brought deceased Bhagyashri to house of Shakuntala, they convinced accused no.1 not to ill-treat deceased Bhagyashri. After the lapse of about 8 days, Bhagyashri was taken to her matrimonial home, but she informed Shakuntala (PW 2), after lapse of further 15 days, that accused were harassing her in severe manner. Hence, Shakuntala (PW 2) along with her father Kashinath went to the house of accused to Sonpeth and paid amount of Rs. 5,000/-and gave gold nose ring (Nath) to the accused. But accused nos.1 to 3 stated that less amount was brought and they demanded more money. Thereupon Shakuntala (PW 2) convinced the accused, stating that she was not in a position to give more money and requested not to harass deceased Bhagyashri. She has further stated that on 472009, she had a talk on telephone with her son-in-law i.e. accused no.1. Thereupon Shakuntala (PW 2) convinced the accused, stating that she was not in a position to give more money and requested not to harass deceased Bhagyashri. She has further stated that on 472009, she had a talk on telephone with her son-in-law i.e. accused no.1. Accused no.1 Kailash said that if they do not provide Rs. 2,00,000/- by evening time, see what would happen and thereafter accused no. 1 disconnected phone call before Shakuntala (PW 2) could talk further to him. She has further stated that thereafter at about 2.30 p.m., maternal aunt of accused no.1 gave information on telephone that their daughter had hanged herself. 17. During cross examination, Shakuntala (PW 2) has stated that deceased Bhagyashri was her elder daughter and in addition to deceased Bhagyashri, she had 3 daughters and one son. She has also stated that they paid amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry as well as gave other household articles to the accused during marriage of deceased Bhagyashri. Moreover, 200 to 250 persons attended the said marriage. As regards the alleged unlawful demand, she was also unable to give exact date thereof and also stated that she did not inform other relatives about harassment at the hands of accused persons. She has also stated that after about 2 months after the marriage, her daughter remained pregnant. She has admitted that after 15 days prior to the incident, accused had offered clothes to all members and she has voluntarily stated that she had also offered clothes to them. A suggestion was given to her, that they did not give amount of Rs. 50,000/and accused never illtreated or harassed the deceased and never compelled her to stay outside the house whole night. But the same was denied by her. It was also suggested to her, that on 4-7-2009, she did not have telephone call and talk with accused no.1 and accused no.1 did not warn to bring Rs. 2,00,000/. But the same was denied by her. 18. It is apparent from the testimony of Shakuntala (PW 2), that deceased Bhagyashri was subjected to ill-treatment by the accused, more particularly, by accused no.1 due to non-fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-by her or by her relatives. Moreover, accused no.1 used to consume liquor and used to assault her and pertinently there is no cross examination in that respect. 2,00,000/-by her or by her relatives. Moreover, accused no.1 used to consume liquor and used to assault her and pertinently there is no cross examination in that respect. Moreover, the contention raised by Shakuntala (PW 2), that she along with her father Kashinath went to the house of accused at Sonpeth and gave gold ring (Nath) to the still, still the accused demanded more amount, has gone unchallenged in the cross examination. Pertinently, Shakuntala (PW 2) has stated in the cross examination itself, that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given towards dowry at the time of marriage. Few suggestions were given in the cross examination, that amount of Rs. 50,000/was not paid to the accused and accused never ill-treated or harassed deceased Bhagyashri. But the same were denied by her. It is pertinent to note that on 4.7.2009 i.e. soon before the incident, PW2 Shakuntala made a phone call to her daughter, victim Bhagyashri, which was taken by accused no.1 and he made categorical demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-from PW2 Shakuntala on telephone till evening, and also threatened to face the consequence, if the said demand is not complied with, and thereafter disconnected the phone call, and hence, PW2 Shakuntala could not talk to the victim. It was suggested to her, that on 4-7-2009 she did not have any phone call and talk with accused no.1 and accused no.1 did not warn to bring Rs. 2,00,000/ on telephone, but same was denied by her. 19. Coming to the testimony of Rameshwar Shinde (PW 3), Panch to the inquest panchanama, he has stated that Panchanama, Exhibit 16, was prepared in the house but his signatures were taken thereon outside the house. He has also stated that he did not observe any beating or injury on the dead body of Bhagyashri. Moreover, Ankush Parve (PW 4), Panch to seizure panchanama, has stated in his deposition that the rope was seized from one house at Kumbhar Galli and he had seen the rope in the Police Station for the first time and it was not seized from the house and when his signature was obtained on Panchanama, Exhibit 18, it was not written. Moreover, Subhash Kejgir (PW 5), Head Constable, has stated in his deposition that he prepared Inquest Panchanama, Exhibit 16, and except marks around neck, no other marks or injuries were seen on the dead body of deceased Bhagyashri. 20. Moreover, Subhash Kejgir (PW 5), Head Constable, has stated in his deposition that he prepared Inquest Panchanama, Exhibit 16, and except marks around neck, no other marks or injuries were seen on the dead body of deceased Bhagyashri. 20. The testimony of Deepak Shinde (PW 6), API, pertains to the procedural compliances in the investigation and the same does not take the prosecution case furthermore in constructive manner to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Moreover, he has admitted in the cross examination, that he did not record statement of witnesses residing in the vicinity of spot of incident as they were not ready to give truth, as well as, he did not record statement of witnesses residing near the house of accused as they were not ready to cooperate. He has also stated in the cross examination, that he seized nylon rope from the spot but did not make inquiry about owner of the rope. He has also stated that he did not seize aluminum pot as referred in the panchanama. 21. That takes to the testimony of Siddheshwar Halge (PW 7), Medical Officer, who has stated that on 4-7-2009, he was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Sonpeth and he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Bhagyashri. The post mortem notes are produced at Exhibit 30. He has also stated that in column no.17 thereof, he had mentioned ligature marks around the neck extending from anterior to posterior up to back side of neck. It was ante mortem injury. He had also observed fracture of hyoid. He has further stated that deceased was pregnant of 16 weeks and he had observed uterus gravid in the column of organ of generation. According to him, death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to hanging. He preserved viscera for chemical analysis and prepared certificate as to cause of death which is marked as Exhibit 31. He has further stated that in column no.17, fracture of hyoid bone are possible due to hanging by such kind of rope and it must be resulted in death. 22. During cross examination, Siddheshwar Halge (PW 7) has stated that according to Modi hanging is usually suicidal. He has denied that usually the hyoid bone is fractured in case of strangulation. 22. During cross examination, Siddheshwar Halge (PW 7) has stated that according to Modi hanging is usually suicidal. He has denied that usually the hyoid bone is fractured in case of strangulation. As regards contents of stomach, he has stated that he observed fresh meal of Sabudana and Alu (Potato) which indicates that fresh meal was taken by deceased just prior to incident within 4 hours prior to death. He has further stated that hanging is possible by any kind of rope. 23. On the background of the afore said material evidence, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that PW1 Dinkar is the father of victim Bhagyashri and PW2 Shakuntala is the mother of said victim, and therefore, the said witnesses are the interested witnesses, and hence, their testimonies are tainted , and therefore, same cannot be believed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to substantiate the alleged charges leveled against the appellants. Even the prosecution witnesses have not given the dates and particulars of alleged demand of money from the victim and PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala admitted in their respective depositions that they are unable to given the specific dates of alleged demand of Rs.2,00,000/-made by the accused, nor they gave any information to other relatives about the harassment to the deceased at the hands of the accused. It is further submitted that it has come in evidence that accused no.1Kailash purchased Television for the entertainment of victim, which leads to the position that he was caring for victim Bhagyashri, and therefore, the allegations of alleged cruelty and abetment to suicide are not conceivable. Moreover, according to the leaned counsel for the appellants, PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala have admitted in their respective depositions that their entire family was invited by the accused 15 days prior to the incident and clothes were given to them and the said act on the part of the accused, that too, 15 days prior to the occurrence of the incident, speaks for itself. 24. Moreover, it is further submitted that PW4 Panch Ankush Parve has stated in his deposition that when signature was obtained on the seizure panchanama, it was not written, as well as Pw3 Rameshwar Shinde, Panch to inquest panchanama, stated that panchanama Exh. 24. Moreover, it is further submitted that PW4 Panch Ankush Parve has stated in his deposition that when signature was obtained on the seizure panchanama, it was not written, as well as Pw3 Rameshwar Shinde, Panch to inquest panchanama, stated that panchanama Exh. 16 was prepared inside the house and signatures of the panchas were taken outside the house and he had not seen any mark of beating or injury on the dead body of victim Bhagyashri. Moreover, it is also canvassed that although PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde stated in his deposition that he seized nylon rope from the spot, but he did not make inquiry about the owner thereof; whereas PW4 Ankush Parve, Panch to seizure panchanama stated in his deposition that the said nylon rope was seized from the house at Kumbhar Galli and he saw the rope in police station for the first time and it was not seized from the house. Moreover, it is further submitted that the incident of committal of suicide did not take place in the house of the accused, but it occurred in the house of maternal uncle of accused no.1, which is about 100 ft. away from the house of the accused. It is further canvassed that there is no cogent evidence in respect of abetment on the part of the accused persons to the committal of suicide by deceased Bhagyashri and the ingredients of Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are absent in the instant case. 25. In the said context, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Bhagwan Das vs Kartar Singh and Ors., reported at AIR 2007 SC 2045 , wherein it is observed that : “15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. 16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. 16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her death then Section 304B IPC may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. ” Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order, dated 19.1.2011 be quashed and set aside and the appellants be acquitted with which they have been charged and convicted. 26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri B.V.Wagh, appearing for the respondent no.1 countered the said arguments vehemently and submitted that victim Bhagyashri committed suicide within the span of eight months from the marriage, and therefore, presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deserves to be raised against the appellants. 27. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the nears and dears only can know the harassment and cruelty sustained by the victim, and therefore, prosecution examined PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala, who are the parents of victim Bhagyashri and they have narrated the ill-treatment meted out to victim Bhagyashri categorically. It is further submitted that PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala have categorically stated that PW2 Shakuntala had made telephone call on 4.7.2009 to victim Bhagyashri, which was taken by accused no.1 and accused no.1 demanded amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW2 Shakuntala on telephone till evening on the said date and threatened that she what would happen if the said demand is not complied with and thereafter accused no.1 cut off the said telephone call and PW2 Shakuntala could not talk to victim Bhagyashri. Thereafter at about 2.30 p.m. information was received from maternal aunt of accused no.1 that deceased Bhagyashri hanged herself on the same day, which apparently is the culmination of threats given by accused no.1. 28. Moreover, it is further submitted that PW6 A.P.P. Dipak Shinde, investigating officer, stated in his deposition that he did not record the statements of witnesses residing near the house of accused, as they were not ready to cooperate. 28. Moreover, it is further submitted that PW6 A.P.P. Dipak Shinde, investigating officer, stated in his deposition that he did not record the statements of witnesses residing near the house of accused, as they were not ready to cooperate. Moreover, he also stated that he did not record the statements of witnesses residing in the vicinity, as they were not ready to tell truth. Hence, it is submitted that it was the reason for non-examination of the independent witnesses by the prosecution, but it is submitted that the testimonies of PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala are incriminating against the accused and the said testimonies connect the accused with the crime. 29. Moreover, learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the very fact that victim Bhagyashri was pregnant for about 16 weeks, but still she committed suicide by hanging herself by nylon rope, which is the culmination of the serious torture and cruelty, to which she was subjected and it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no lady would commit suicide when she is pregnant, unless she is meted out with serious nature of mental and physical torture. It is also canvassed that the telephonic talk, as referred to herein above between PW2 Shakuntala and accused no.1 on 4.7.2009, on which accused no.1 gave threats to PW2 Shakuntala, as mentioned herein above, amounted matrimonial cruelty towards the victim, which was the willful conduct, which drove victim Bhagyashri to commit suicide by hanging herself. In the said context, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the observations made by this court in the judgment in the case of Janardhan s/o Asaram Pere and anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 3031, which is as follows : “16. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record, it will have to be said that both the appellants subjected the deceased – Mangala to matrimonial cruelty during the period of her consortium with the husband. The willful conduct of the appellants was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit the suicide. The conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the I.P.Code is, therefore, legal and proper. 30. The willful conduct of the appellants was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit the suicide. The conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the I.P.Code is, therefore, legal and proper. 30. Shri Jagatkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 (original complainant) stated that the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Judge to the original complainant has been rightly awarded and no interference therein is called for in the present appeal. 31. I have perused the impugned judgment, dated 19.1.2011 and the oral, documentary and medical evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution, as well as considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties anxiously and also considered the judicial pronouncements cited by learned counsel for the parties carefully and I shall advert to the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code at the first instance. 32. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows : “306. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” 33. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. In the case of State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal ( AIR 1994 SC 1418 ), the Apex Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. 35. That takes me to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) her instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” liberally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ‘Abetted’ in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. 36. Applying the said parameters to the facts of the present case, the evidence of PW7 Dr. Siddheshwar Halge categorically makes it clear that the cause of death of victim Bhagyashri was cardio respiratory failure due to hanging and he further stated that according to Modi Jurisprudence, hanging is usually suicidal, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that victim Bhagyashri met with the suicidal death. Siddheshwar Halge categorically makes it clear that the cause of death of victim Bhagyashri was cardio respiratory failure due to hanging and he further stated that according to Modi Jurisprudence, hanging is usually suicidal, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that victim Bhagyashri met with the suicidal death. However, question arises whether the accused persons are instrumental for committal of suicide by victim Bhagyashri and in the said context, considering the testimonies of PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala, who are parents of victim Bhagyashri have made allegations of harassment against the accused persons, but such sweeping allegations would not amount to abetment of offence of commission of suicide, and something more is required under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, and harassment should be of such nature, which amounts to instigation to any person to commit suicide or conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission to commission of suicide, but the said ingredients are missing in the instant case, and therefore, offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be made out by the prosecution against the accused persons. 37. That takes me to the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, with which accused persons have been charged and the ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are as follows : “498A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation :For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 38. 38. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 39. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has two limbs. The first limb of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. ‘Cruelty’ has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide. When there is unlawful demand of any property or valuable security, the case comes under clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 40. Keeping in mind the afore said position of law and coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly victim Bhagyashri married with accused no. 1 Kailash in December, 2008 and the instant case of suicide by victim Bhagyashri occurred on 4.7.2009 i.e. hardly within the span of 7 to 8 months from the date of marriage and there are specific instances of cruelty at the hands of accused no.1 to victim Bhagyashri stated by PW2 Dinkar and PW3 Shakuntala, such as demand of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing plot and giving threats by him to PW1 Dinkar and PW2 Shakuntala in that respect and due to non-fulfillment thereof, insistence by accused no.1 to victim Bhagyashri to make telephone call to them, which were categorically disclosed by victim before her parents. Moreover, accused no.1 used to consume liquor and used to drive victim Bhagyashri out of the house and also used to insult her that she was of dark complex. Moreover, victim was pregnant for about 16 weeks and on 4.7.2009 when PW2 Shakuntala made phone call to her daughter victim Bhagyashri, it was taken by accused no.1 and again made unlawful demand of Rs. Moreover, victim was pregnant for about 16 weeks and on 4.7.2009 when PW2 Shakuntala made phone call to her daughter victim Bhagyashri, it was taken by accused no.1 and again made unlawful demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-from PW2 Shakuntala and thereby she explained her inability to comply with the said demand, and hence, accused no.1 gave threats that if said demand is not complied with till evening of that day, they should face the consequences and cut off the phone call, and hence, PW2 Shakuntala could not talk with her daughter Bhagyashri and thereafter immediately at about 2.30 p.m. maternal aunt of accused no.1 informed that victim Bhagyashri had hanged herself, and accordingly, there appears to be nexus between the suicide committed by victim and harassment by accused no.1 to her, and hence, the evidence against accused no.1 comes under the purview of the cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 41. However, taking stock of the entire evidence, there appear to be sweeping and vague allegations against appellant nos. 2 and 3 and there is no direct, clinching and legal evidence against them in respect of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to victim Bhagyashri, as well as there is no convincing evidence against them that they committed any criminal act in furtherance of common intention, and hence, they deserve to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by giving benefit of doubt. 42. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record, the prosecution case inspires the confidence that appellant no.1 subjected victim Bhagyashri to cruelty during the period of her consortium with him leading to committal of suicide by her although she was pregnant for about 16 weeks. Hence, the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is legal and proper, and same is required to be maintained and confirmed. However, learned Sessions Judge committed patent error while awarding the conviction and sentence against accused nos. 2 and 3 under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which needs to be quashed and set aside. 43. In the circumstances, present appeal deserves to be allowed partly, and the conviction and sentence awarded against appellant nos. However, learned Sessions Judge committed patent error while awarding the conviction and sentence against accused nos. 2 and 3 under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which needs to be quashed and set aside. 43. In the circumstances, present appeal deserves to be allowed partly, and the conviction and sentence awarded against appellant nos. 1 to 3 to the extent of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed and set aside and they are entitled to be acquitted thereof and fine amount, if paid by them, is required to be refunded to them, as well as the conviction and sentence awarded against appellant nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code also deserves to be quashed and set aside and they are entitled to be acquitted thereof and fine amount, if paid by them, is required to be refunded to them. Moreover, direction in respect of award of compensation to respondent no.2 (original complainant) also deserves to be quashed and aside consequently. However, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon appellant no.1 (original accused no.1) Kailash for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is required to be maintained and confirmed. 44. In the result, present appeal succeeds partly, and the conviction and sentence inflicted upon appellant nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed and set aside and appellant nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted thereof and fine amount, if any paid by them in that respect, be refunded to them; as well as the conviction and sentence inflicted upon appellant nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code also stands quashed and set aside and appellant nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted thereof and fine amount, if any paid by them in that respect, be refunded to them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Moreover, direction in respect of the award of compensation to respondent no. 2 i.e. original complainant also stands quashed and set aside. However, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon appellant no.1, namely Kailash Baburao Pandit for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and confirmed and present appeal stands disposed of accordingly.