JUDGMENT : Vimla Jain, J. The appellant/State preferred this appeal u/s 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.5.1996 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa, in Criminal Case No. 187/1994 whereby respondent/accused Narbada Prasad had been acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that respondent used to live at the house of Sukkhi along with his wife Kali. The deceased Kali was the first wife of respondent accused and deceased Sukkhi was the mother of Kali. He had kept another lady as his wife due to which he used to beat his first wife deceased Kali and mother-in-law Sukkhi. On 21.3.1993 at about 6 a.m. respondent accused had beaten deceased Kali and Sukkhi and on hearing the noise Madho Prasad and Baijnath reached on the spot. The respondent saw them and went to the field. On being tortured by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide by consuming sulphas. At 10 a.m. respondent Narbada returned home and found that Kali and Sukkhi had died. He went to police station and informed about their death. Police reached the spot and prepared the Panchanama and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The police seized the 'viscera' received from the Hospital. The police also collected the blood stained earth and plane earth from the spot. It was found that on account of torture by the respondent, Kali and Sukkhi committed suicide. Therefore, a crime was registered. The accused-respondent was arrested and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After appreciating the evidence, the Court below acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence u/s 306 of IPC. 2. The respondent/accused abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and the respondent/accused examined two witnesses in his defence. 4. The Court below did not find the respondent/accused guilty u/s 306 of IPC and acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 6. Mr. The Court below did not find the respondent/accused guilty u/s 306 of IPC and acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 6. Mr. Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution amply proved that the respondent/accused Narbada Prasad had tortured the deceased Kali and Sukkhi due to which they committed suicide. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He prayed that the respondent/accused should be punished. 7. On the contrary, Mr. G.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. Hence, no interference is called for. 8. The question for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Court below was justified in acquitting the respondent from the charge u/s 306 of IPC? 9. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of Gajadhar Singh Solanki, ASI, Police Chowki, Raghunathgunj, PW3, Ramwati, PW4, Ramdhari, Chowkidar, village Itha, PW7, and Baijnath, PW8, are relevant. It had not been disputed that the death of deceased Sukkhi and Kali occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Gajadhar Singh, PW3, the then A.S.I., Police Chowki Raghunathgunj, deposed that on 21.3.1993 getting information from Narbada Prasad that his (Narbada Prasad's) mother-in-law and wife had eaten sulphas and died, he went to the spot and prepared spot map, Ex. P/1, and he recorded the statements of Kalawati, Ramwati, Baijnath, Madhav Prasad, Ramdhari, Ramanuj and Ramsiya. He further stated that dead bodies of Kali, wife of Narbada Prasad and Sukkhi, mother-in-law of Narbada Prasad, were found. The inquest Panchanama, Ex. P/2 and P/3, were prepared. The dead bodies were sent to hospital for post-mortem examination with memo, Ex. P/12 and P/13. On perusal of memo, Ex. P/12 and P/13, it appears that Dr. He further stated that dead bodies of Kali, wife of Narbada Prasad and Sukkhi, mother-in-law of Narbada Prasad, were found. The inquest Panchanama, Ex. P/2 and P/3, were prepared. The dead bodies were sent to hospital for post-mortem examination with memo, Ex. P/12 and P/13. On perusal of memo, Ex. P/12 and P/13, it appears that Dr. V.N. Satnami, Medical Officer, Mangawan, Rewa, along with one another doctor conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of deceased Sukkhi and Kali and found that death of deceased Sukkhi and Kali were caused as a result of poisoning, therefore, it can be concluded that deceased Sukkhi and Kali committed suicide by taking poison at their home. 10. The next crucial question emerges for consideration is whether the respondent abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased? 11. The abetment and abettor are defined in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as under: Sec. 107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation I--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation II--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Section 108. Abettor--A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Section 108. Abettor--A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1--The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act Explanation 2--To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , SCC page 605, reiterated the legal position laid down in its earlier three Judges Bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , and held that where the accused by his acts or continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be inferred. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar (supra), summed up the legal position as under: In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 13. 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. In the present context Ramwati, PW4, stated that the respondent is her brother-in-law, deceased Kali was her sister-in-law and deceased Sukkhi was her husband's parental aunt. Deceased Kali was the first wife of the respondent. On the day of incident the respondent brought second wife. In the present context Ramwati, PW4, stated that the respondent is her brother-in-law, deceased Kali was her sister-in-law and deceased Sukkhi was her husband's parental aunt. Deceased Kali was the first wife of the respondent. On the day of incident the respondent brought second wife. This was a ground of quarrel between the respondent and Kali. She heard quarrel but she did not go there. Next day she went to the respondent's home. She further stated that when she went for bringing water Sukkhibai was crying that her daughter had been beaten. She also stated that she went near the home of respondent who asked her not to enter his home. At that time the respondent was beating Kali by kicks and fists. Second wife was standing there. Sukkhi was crying. When the quarrel stopped she returned back to her home. After sometime she came to know that Sukkhibai and Kali had died. She admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see any injury on the dead bodies. She also admitted that when the respondent brought second wife at that evening there were altercation between the respondent and his first wife. 14. Baijnath, PW8, stated that deceased Sukkhibai was his aunt and Kali his sister. In the morning of Chaitra month there was quarrel between Narbada, Sukkhi and Kali. Respondent had performed second marriage and brought second wife to her village Itha. Sukkhibai and Kali had asked the respondent that he should not bring his second wife to village Itha because there would be quarrel. He further stated that the respondent was beating his first wife and Sukkhi interfered. He saw quarrel and went to village Mangawan. When he returned he saw the dead bodies of Sukkhi and Kali. He also admitted in his examination-in-chief that her aunt Sukkhi did not have son. She has only one daughter Kali who was married with Narbada Prasad. Sukkhi owned land measuring about 5-6 acres. The respondent used to live in the home of her mother-in-law Sukkhi in village Itha. He also stated that due to quarrel Sukkhi and Kali took sulphas but he did not see them taking sulphas. He proved his report, Ex. P/19. He also stated that first wife of the respondent did not have any child, therefore, the respondent kept the second wife. He also stated that due to quarrel Sukkhi and Kali took sulphas but he did not see them taking sulphas. He proved his report, Ex. P/19. He also stated that first wife of the respondent did not have any child, therefore, the respondent kept the second wife. In his cross examination he stated that he lodged the report after 10-11 days of the incident. He denied that he made false report because he wanted to take land of the respondent and the accused did not give land to him. 15. Ramdhari, Chowkidar, PW7, stated that when he came to home of the respondent, wife of Baijnath was making hue and cry and asked him to stop Narbada who was beating his wife. But wife of Baijnath, Ramwati, PW4, did not support the said statement of Chowkidar. He also stated that he did not see any 'mar-peet'. 16. Bhaiyalal, DW1, stated that Sukkhibai and Kali died after taking poisonous tablets. He went to the spot. Madhav, his wife, Chhotelal and other ladies were present there. Baijnath returned to village Itha and came on the spot with his wife. He also stated that he and Baijnath performed funeral after postmortem. He further stated that Narbada Prasad performed second marriage with the consent of his first wife 10 years before. They were living together. He further stated that there was a dispute between Baijnath, Sukkhi and Kali about land, Baijnath also filed a civil suit against the respondent in Tahsil Maugunj which was still going on. Thus, it appears that there was a land dispute between Baijnath and the respondent. 17. Surendra Kumar Patel, DW2, stated that the respondent Narbada Prasad lodged the report in Police Station about the incident. The Incharge Police Station had come and enquired about the incident from the persons present there. All the persons told that both the ladies died after taking poisonous tablet like sulphas. 18. On perusal of statement of both the defence witnesses it is found that nobody stated to police about the beating of Kali and cruelty inflicted on them. Therefore, it appears that the statement relating to 'mar-peet' and cruelty are after thought. 19. There is no reliable evidence to show any 'mar-feet' or quarrel by the respondent. It must be noted that every quarrel between the husband and wife and family member cannot be taken as abetment. Therefore, it appears that the statement relating to 'mar-peet' and cruelty are after thought. 19. There is no reliable evidence to show any 'mar-feet' or quarrel by the respondent. It must be noted that every quarrel between the husband and wife and family member cannot be taken as abetment. Considering the evidence against the respondent as it is, I find that the charge of abetment of suicide/mar-peet' and cruel behaviour is not made out against the respondent. 20. The Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence. Keeping in view the entire evidence and vague allegations and in the absence of direct and clinching evidence against the respondent in respect of 'mar-peet' and cruel behaviour for abetment, it is found that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent. Considering the evidence on record in the light of the Apex Court judgments (supra), I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the respondent by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that Court below has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, therefore, no interference is called for. This appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.