JUDGMENT : T.K. Kaushal, J. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed in ST No. 147/1995 by Sessions Judge, Sidhi convicting the appellant/accused-Gulabia u/s 306, Indian Penal Code for abatement of her daughter-in-law Sonvati (deceased), to commit suicide, by hanging herself to end her life and sentenced the appellant for 3 years R.I. The facts of the case in short, are that about 8-9 years prior to incident Sonvati (deceased) married to Rajmani Patel, son of accused/appellant. "Gauna" was performed 3 years back. In-laws of the deceased used to demand "mohar" and other items saying that they did not receive any thing in dowry. On 9.7.1995 at about 11.00 a.m. Sonvati (deceased) hang herself with the help of rope on bamboo stick clamped in the house. On the same day at about 3.30 p.m., PW-2 Chitrasen, Brother-in-law (Dewar) informed the Police, Amiliya of about suicide, thereon a marg (Ex. P-1) was registered by Police, Amiliya. On 10.7.1995, Post-mortem (Ex. P-5) was conducted by Dr. Motilal (PW-7) along with Dr. B.L. Depankar, gave PM report is Ex. P-3, having mention of ligature mark on the neck of Sonvati (deceased) and cause of death was asphyxia. On 21.7.1995, Police Amiliya registered a case u/s 306, Indian Penal Code against appellant. During investigation statements of parents of the deceased and other witnesses were recorded. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 306/304, Indian Penal Code citing 15 witnesses in it. 2. Learned Trial Court framed charges u/s 306, Indian Penal Code. Appellant/accused has abjured his guilt. Trial Court proceeded with trial and recorded the statements of Chourasiya mother of deceased (PW-1), Chitrasen (PW-2), Ramdayal brother of deceased (PW-3), Manghir, cousin sister of the deceased, (PW-4) Shambhu Prasad, father of deceased (PW-5), Besani, younger sister of deceased (PW-6), Dr. Motilal (PW-7), Bejnath Prasad, Head Constable (PW-8), Anil Kumar Station House Office, Police Station Amiliya (PW-9). 3. Trial Court relied upon the testimony of witnesses and evidence, convicted the appellant/accused u/s 306, Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant- Gulabia for 3 years imprisonment. 4. This appeal has been preferred mainly, amongst others, on ground that the marriage was solemnized about more than 7-8 years back of incident. All family members of the Sonvati (deceased) did not say anything about abatement of suicide against the appellant Gulabia. 4. This appeal has been preferred mainly, amongst others, on ground that the marriage was solemnized about more than 7-8 years back of incident. All family members of the Sonvati (deceased) did not say anything about abatement of suicide against the appellant Gulabia. The fact of the demand of dowry was added subsequently in the charge-sheet, this allegation is totally false and baseless. 5. Learned Government Advocate submitted that there is sufficient evidence in support of the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. For ascertaining of fact of abetment, evidence should come on following points mentioned in Sec. 107, IPC: 1. Instigation to commit suicide; 2. Conspiracy for the suicide; 3. Intentional aid for suicide by willful misrepresentation or willful concealment of material fact. 7. Family members' of the deceased, Chourasiya (PW-1) mother of the deceased, Ramdayal (PW-3) brother of deceased, Manghir (PW-4) cousin of the deceased, Shambhu Prasad (PW-5) father of the deceased and Besani (PW-6) younger sister of the deceased narrated general statements regarding demand of items and her ill-treatment by the accused. There is no specific such instance is mentioned soon before the incident. They stated about general complaints made by the deceased regarding ill-treatment given to her by accused. 8. Learned Trial Court has appreciated evidence in such manner as if it is a case of Section 304B, IPC and has applied criteria of Section 113A of Evidence Act. It is mentioned in para 19 of its judgment that because of the less dowry received, accused/appellant consistently harassed Sonvati (deceased), whereas in the matter of Section 306, IPC, evidence should be indicative of the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aided or omission. 9. Taking the evidence on record and circumstances of the case in consideration in totality there is no evidence against the accused that either by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, the suicide was committed by the deceased Sonvati. At the time of incident, the deceased was 25 years old whereas accused is more than 60 years old. Deceased went to her parents house two months back and she met other witnesses even prior to that. No recent incident of demand has come on record. Marriage was solemnized about 7-8 years back of the incident. There is no charge of Section 304B, IPC or Section 498A, IPC. Deceased went to her parents house two months back and she met other witnesses even prior to that. No recent incident of demand has come on record. Marriage was solemnized about 7-8 years back of the incident. There is no charge of Section 304B, IPC or Section 498A, IPC. For the offence u/s 306, IPC, general complaints/ incidents of ill-treatment and demand of items from parents of daughter-in-law cannot be deemed to be proof of abetment of suicide in this case. 10. The Apex Court in, 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 664, Bhagwandas v. Kartar Singh, has held that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in laws due to disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which suicide is committed will not attract Section 306, IPC. In view of aforesaid discussion no case u/s 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. She is on bail, however, his bail bonds shall be stand discharged.