Judgment Kuldip Singh, J This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15/18.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.22-7 of 2004/2003 convicting the appellant on 15.03.2005 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and sentencing the appellant on 18.03.2005 to undergo rigours imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, three years rigours imprisonment and fine Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC with further observation that sentence of imprisonment on both counts shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Manju was married to appellant on 04.12.1999, deceased was residing with appellant. On 13.04.2002, Manju had consumed poison, appellant took her from Aradhkawari to Thakur Nursing Home, Badsar, for treatment. The appellant while on his way to Badsar informed Smt. Asha Devi mother of Manju about consumption of poison by Manju. Smt. Asha Devi PW-5, Siri Ram PW-2, Smt. Bimla Devi and Bishan Dass PW-3 accompanied appellant in the same vehicle to Thakur Nursing Home, Badsar. 3. The prosecution further case is that at about 9.15 p.m., Manju made a statement Ex. PA to PW-1 Dr. Mohinder Singh of Thakur Nursing Home, Badsar, that appellant had been harassing her, therefore, she had consumed three tablets of poison. Manju while making statement became unconscious and died at about 9.30 p.m. PW-1 informed the police at about 10.20 p.m. on telephone that Manju was brought to his clinic as a poisoning case and she had died. 4. PW-12 Nidhi Singh along with lady constable Sarswati Devi and driver Manoj Kumar went to Thakur Nursing Home where PW-1 handed over statement Ex.PA to him. PW-12 appended his endorsement Ex.PW12/A on Ex.PA and then sent the same to Police Station, Talai, for registration of an FIR, thereupon FIR Ex.PW10/A came to be registered. 5. The post mortem on the dead body of Manju was got conducted and report Ex.PW7/B was obtained, Chemical Examiner report Ex.PW7/A was also obtained. PW-7 Dr. S.P.Bhangal opined that Manju had died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. After committal, the case was sent for trial. 6. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. PW-7 Dr. S.P.Bhangal opined that Manju had died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. After committal, the case was sent for trial. 6. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. The appellant took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in order to save the mother of the deceased. Manju was suffering from ulcer. She was not conceiving and, therefore, she was under mental tension. On 13.04.2002, Manju had gone to attend ‘Baishakhi’ fair at Bachhretu, she returned at 7.30 p.m. Manju alighted from the bus in front of the shop of the appellant at Aradhkawari. Manju told that she had a quarrel with her mother at Bhalath and, therefore, she had consumed poison. Manju asked the appellant to save her life. The appellant hired a taxi and rushed to Talai hospital, but the hospital was closed. The appellant took Manju to Badsar. On the way, appellant informed parents of Manju that Manju had consumed poison. Mother and grand-mother of Manju accompanied them up to Badsar in the same vehicle. Manju had already become unconscious on way to Badsar before reaching Thakur Nursing Home. On checking, doctor told that Manju had died. The appellant has denied the prosecution case. He examined one witness in defence. 7. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above, hence appeal by convict. 8. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted oral and documentary evidence. Ex.PA has been wrongly relied by learned Court below. Ex.PA is a highly suspicious document. Manju consumed poison on account of quarrel with her mother and not because of alleged cruelty of appellant. The suicide committed by Manju has been wrongly attributed to appellant. Manju was not conceiving, appellant got her treated at many places. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the material on record. Manju was not conceiving, appellant got her treated at many places. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the material on record. The appellant and deceased were married on 04.12.1999, in less than 2½ years after marriage, Manju ended her life. The submission has been made for rejection of the appeal. 9. PW-1 Dr. Mohinder Singh has stated that on 13.04.2002 accused had brought his wife Manju to his clinic for medical treatment. On his asking, Manju told that she had consumed tablets of poison as she was being harassed and tortured by her husband. Thereafter, Manju became unconscious and died at about 9.30 p.m. He informed the police on telephone. He said that his statement Ex.PA was recorded by the police, again said Ex.PA was written by him and handed over to police. Ex.PA is in his handwriting which is signed by him. He then stated that Ex.PA is statement of Manju recorded by him and was handed over to police. Manju was in her senses when he recorded her statement Ex.PA. He had recorded correctly this statement. 10. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had maintained the record of patient at his Nursing Home. The cross examination of the witness was deferred and he was again cross-examined. He has stated that he has not brought the record as the same had been destroyed. The husband of Manju and one other person were with Manju, who was told some driver. PW-1 stated that he checked her pulse and B.P. The B.P. was not recorded. The pulse was feeble. PW-1 said that if B.P. of a patient is not recordable and his pulse is feeble, in such condition, the cardiac system and nervous system of such patient is almost paralyzed. In such a situation, the patient is not in a fit mental condition/health. PW-1 further stated that Ex.PA was dictated by him to a staff member of his clinic. Ex.PA is not written in his handwriting. Ex.PA was written by Jeet Ram on his dictation. Police came to his clinic at about 12 or 12.30 a.m. PW-1 also stated that Manju used to come to his clinic for treatment of stomachache. PW-1 further stated that Ex.PA was dictated by him to a staff member of his clinic. Ex.PA is not written in his handwriting. Ex.PA was written by Jeet Ram on his dictation. Police came to his clinic at about 12 or 12.30 a.m. PW-1 also stated that Manju used to come to his clinic for treatment of stomachache. Manju was suffering from acute gastritis which locally is called ulcer. PW-1 denied that Manju was unconscious when he treated her. She was in a semi-conscious condition. The last line of Ex.PA was written when Manju became unconscious and died. 11. PW-2 Siri Ram Khanna is the grandfather of deceased Manju. He has stated that Manju was married to accused in the year 1999. Manju was daughter of son of brother of PW-2. He has stated that Manju told him that accused used to beat, torture and maltreat her. On 13.04.2002, accused along with Manju came in a vehicle and was on his way to hospital. The accused told that Manju had consumed poison. He along with his wife and Asha Devi mother of Manju, Bishan Dass went with accused to Thakur Nursing Home, Badsar. They reached Nursing Home at about 9.00 p.m. Dr. Mohinder Singh recorded statement of Manju in their presence. Manju had earlier also consumed poison once after her marriage and prior to the present occurrence, but said that she consumed poison as she was being harassed by accused. PW-2 also stated that on 13.04.2002, they went to hospital in the same vehicle which was brought by accused. The doctor immediately recorded statement of Manju and he at that time did not give any treatment. After recording statement of Manju, the doctor started her treatment. Manju died 15-20 minutes after giving statement at about 9.30 p.m. Manju had not talked to him in the vehicle. 12. PW-3 Bishan Dass has stated that after marriage Manju told him that she was being harassed by accused. About seven months prior to her death, Manju had come to her parents’ house and one day when he was going to his house in the morning, he heard noise and he went towards backside. He saw that accused was beating Manju with shoe. Asha mother of Manju was also there, who was trying to rescue Manju. 13. About seven months prior to her death, Manju had come to her parents’ house and one day when he was going to his house in the morning, he heard noise and he went towards backside. He saw that accused was beating Manju with shoe. Asha mother of Manju was also there, who was trying to rescue Manju. 13. PW-3 continued, on 13.04.2002, accused had brought Manju to the house of Bal Krishan at 8.00 p.m. He along with Asha Devi, Siri Ram went to the hospital in the same van. Dr. Mohinder Singh had recorded statement of Manju. Manju had consumed poison because she was being tortured by accused. PW-3 continued that he had no relation with the family of Bal Krishan. He had no relation with the accused. Manju was talking in the van on the way to the hospital. Manju on their asking told them in a sluggish and stammering voice that she was being harassed by accused. He denied that Manju was unconscious when brought in the van. 14. PW-4 is Tarsem Lal. He has stated that Manju was daughter of his cousin Bal Krishan. She used to tell them that accused was beating and harassing her. On 13.04.2002, he came from Hamirpur and reached Badsar at 8.45 p.m., where he came to know that Manju had consumed poison. He rushed to Thakur Nursing Home, Badsar. He saw that Dr. Mohinder Singh was recording statement of Manju. Thereafter, Manju became unconscious and died. He informed Bal Krishan in Delhi on telephone. 15. PW-5 Smt. Asha Devi, she is the mother of Manju. She has stated that after marriage the accused started quarreling with Manju. This was disclosed by Manju to her. About six months prior to her death, the accused visited her house and gave beatings to Manju on the road. Bishan Dass was also present at that time. On 13.04.2002, accused had brought Manju in a vehicle to their village in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. and told that Manju had consumed poison. She, Bishan Dass, Bimla and Siri Ram went to a private clinic in the same van. Manju was in a critical condition at that time. Dr. Mohinder Singh recorded the statement of Manju. Thereafter, Manju became unconscious and died. 16. In cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that Manju had not conceived. She was suffering from some infection (ulcer type). She, Bishan Dass, Bimla and Siri Ram went to a private clinic in the same van. Manju was in a critical condition at that time. Dr. Mohinder Singh recorded the statement of Manju. Thereafter, Manju became unconscious and died. 16. In cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that Manju had not conceived. She was suffering from some infection (ulcer type). The accused took her to Nangal, Hamirpur and Badsar etc. places for treatment. She used to have severe pain due to ulcer. Manju was under tension due to ulcer and due to her not conceiving. She had not made report to any authority about the beatings of Manju by the accused. They had not lodged report to police about her harassment by the accused. She does not remember the date, month and year when Manju complained to them. Manju made such complaint to them about one month prior to her death for the last time. The accused had told her that Manju had consumed poison. PW-5 further stated that doctor firstly, recorded statement of Manju and then started her treatment. The doctor took one hour in recording her statement. She denied that Manju was unconscious when brought to the hospital. Manju at that time was talking sluggishly and was stammering as her tongue and lips were swollen. 17. PW-6 Bal Krishan is the father of deceased Manju. He has stated that after 3-4 months of her marriage, Manju used to complain to her mother and him that accused treated her with cruelty and also beat her. On 13.04.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., he received telephonic message that Manju had consumed poison and was taken to Mohindra Hospital, Badsar. After 10-15 minutes, he received another call from Tarsem Lal that Manju had expired in the hospital. Manju died due to her maltreatment at the hands of accused. 18. PW-7 Dr. S.P.Bhangal conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Manju. He has proved post mortem report Ex.PW7/B and F.S.L. Report Ex.PW7/A. He opined that deceased died due to phosphide poison. PW-8 constable Ravi Kumar has proved rapat Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 H.C.Vipin Kumar has received sealed packets and deposited the same through HHC Joginder Singh at F.S.L., Shimla. PW-10 S.I. Shamsher Singh has stated that on receiving Ex.PA, he recorded FIR Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 H.C. Joginder Singh handed over sealed parcels at F.S.L., Junga. 19. PW-12 S.I. Nidhi Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW-8 constable Ravi Kumar has proved rapat Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 H.C.Vipin Kumar has received sealed packets and deposited the same through HHC Joginder Singh at F.S.L., Shimla. PW-10 S.I. Shamsher Singh has stated that on receiving Ex.PA, he recorded FIR Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 H.C. Joginder Singh handed over sealed parcels at F.S.L., Junga. 19. PW-12 S.I. Nidhi Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on receiving information from Dr. Mohinder Singh, rapat Ex.PW8/A was recorded. On reaching the clinic, the doctor handed over statement Ex.PA of Manju. On Ex.PA, he appended his endorsement Ex.PW12/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that he reached the hospital at 11.00 p.m. He had not enquired in which vehicle deceased Manju was taken to Thakur Nursing Home. He had not recorded the statement of driver of said vehicle. He could not find from where Manju had procured poison. He recorded statement of Dr. Mohinder only and not of other staff. 20. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that police had made a false case just to save the mother of deceased Manju, who was suffering from ulcer and not conceiving a child, due to this reason, she was under mental tension. Manju became unconscious on the way. When doctor checked her pulse, he told that she was not alive. He got treated Manju at various places such as Badsar, Hamirpur, Jalandhar, Bilaspur for ulcer and not conceiving a child. 21. DW-1 Kishore Kumar has stated that he was driver in Maruti Van HP-23-3587. On 13.04.2002, on signal, he stopped the van. Raghubir told him that the lady had consumed something and asked him to take her to hospital at Talai. On the way to Talai, the lady was saying that she had a quarrel with her mother and she had consumed poison. At Talai, hospital was found closed. Raghubir asked him to take his wife to Badsar, but by that time she had become unconscious. On the way, they stopped at the house of in-laws of the accused. The lady was taken to a private clinic. Doctor on checking told that she was no more. In cross examination, he denied that Ram Krishan Khanna, Bimla and Asha traveled to Badsar. 22. The appellant has not disputed that Manju had consumed poison and died. On the way, they stopped at the house of in-laws of the accused. The lady was taken to a private clinic. Doctor on checking told that she was no more. In cross examination, he denied that Ram Krishan Khanna, Bimla and Asha traveled to Badsar. 22. The appellant has not disputed that Manju had consumed poison and died. He, however, projected the case that Manju was suffering from stomach ailment and she was also not conceiving, even though their marriage had solemnized in December, 1999. According to appellant, the treatment of mother of the deceased, ailment of deceased, her not conceiving were contributing factors for deceased to end her life. On the other hand, as per prosecution, appellant ill-treated Manju which was the cause of her suicide. In these circumstances, the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-12 and DW-1 are relevant. The statements of PW-8 Ravi Kumar, PW-9 Vipin Kumar, PW-10 Shamsher Singh and PW-11 Joginder Singh are formal. PW-7 Dr.S.P.Bhangal conducted post mortem on the dead body of Manju and has proved post mortem report Ex.PW7/B. He gave cause of death phosphide poisoning. 23. DW-1 Kishore Kumar claimed that on 13.04.2002 he drove van HP-23-3587 in which accused and Manju were taken to Badsar. He denied that Ram Krishan Khanna, Bimla and Asha traveled to Badsar. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he took mother and grandmother of the deceased in the van. PW-5 Smt. Asha Devi is the mother of deceased Manju. She has stated that she, Bimla, Bishan Dass, Siri Ram went in the same vehicle to hospital. The denial of DW-1 that Bimla and Asha traveled in the van to Badsar creates suspicion that DW-1 drove the vehicle on 13.04.2002 in which Manju was taken to hospital. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not stated that Kishore Kumar drove the vehicle in which Manju was taken to hospital on 13.04.2002. Thus, statement of DW-1 Kishore Kumar is not reliable on the point that he drove the vehicle on 13.04.2002 in which Manju was taken to Badsar after she consumed poison. 24. It has come on record that marriage between accused and deceased was solemnized in December, 1999. Prior to 13.04.2002, no specific date has been given by any prosecution witness regarding beatings and torture of deceased by accused. 24. It has come on record that marriage between accused and deceased was solemnized in December, 1999. Prior to 13.04.2002, no specific date has been given by any prosecution witness regarding beatings and torture of deceased by accused. PW-3 Bishan Dass has stated that about seven months prior to her death, Manju had come to her parents’ house where he saw accused beating Manju with shoe in presence of Smt. Asha mother of Manju. PW-5 Smt. Asha Devi has stated that about six months prior to death of Manju, accused visited her house and gave beatings to Manju in presence of Bishan Dass. It has not been stated what was the cause for which accused gave beatings to Manju as stated by PW-3 and PW-5. PW-3 has given the incident seven months prior to the death of Manju, whereas, PW-5 has stated that incident took place six months prior to the death of Manju. PW-3 and PW-5 are contradicting each other when incident took place. There is no explanation why such beating of Manju by accused was not reported to some lawful authority. The statements of PW-3 and PW-5 that Manju was given beatings by accused six or seven months prior to her death do not inspire confidence. 25. The trial Court believed Ex.PA to be the statement made to PW-1 by Manju immediately before her death. PW-1 Dr.Mohinder Singh has stated that his statement Ex.PA was recorded by police, again said Ex.PA was written by him and handed over to the police. He has also stated that Ex.PA is in his handwriting which is signed by him. He then stated that Ex.PA is statement of Manju recorded by him and was handed over to the police. Manju was in her senses when he recorded her statement Ex.PA. In cross-examination, he has stated that Ex.PA was dictated by him to a staff member of his clinic. Ex.PA is not written in his handwriting. Ex.PA was written by Jeet Ram on his dictation. The last line of Ex.PA was written when Manju became unconscious and died. PW-1 has also stated that he checked her pulse and B.P. which were not recorded. The pulse was feeble, if B.P. of a patient is not recordable and his pulse is feeble, in such condition, the cardiac system and nervous system of such patient is almost paralyzed. The last line of Ex.PA was written when Manju became unconscious and died. PW-1 has also stated that he checked her pulse and B.P. which were not recorded. The pulse was feeble, if B.P. of a patient is not recordable and his pulse is feeble, in such condition, the cardiac system and nervous system of such patient is almost paralyzed. In such a situation, the patient is not in a fit mental condition/health. 26. Ex.PB is the O.P.D. Chart dated 13.04.2002 of Manju proved by PW-1. In Ex.PB in the beginning, it has been observed pulse feeble, B.P. not recorded. In Ex.PB at 9.30 p.m., it has been stated pulse absent, B.P. not recorded. Pupils B/L dilated & fixed. Patient could not survive and declared dead at 9.30 p.m. on 13.04.2002. The statement of Manju in Ex.PA is as follows:- “Mariz Manju ne 9.15 baje shaam 13/4/2002 ko mere samne bayan kiya hai ki mere ko mera gharwala tang karta hai. Esliye maine ghenhun main dalne wali teen goliyan kha lee hai. Aur bolte bolte behosh ho gai. Aur samay karib 9.30 baje raat Manju ki maut ho gai. Sd/- 13/4/2k2 Dr.MOHINDER SINGH M B B S, Ex. H.P.H.S. Thakur Nursing Home, Barsar, HAMIRPUR (H.P.), Reg.No.14027.” 27. The version of PW-1 about the statement made by Manju is not firm, it is shaky. PW-1 has stated that his statement Ex.PA was recorded by the police, again said Ex.PA was written by him. PW-1 has further stated that Ex.PA was dictated by him. Ex.PA was not written in his handwriting. Ex.PA was written by Jeet Ram on his dictation. PW-1 has given different versions, who had written Ex.PA. Jeet Ram has not been examined by the prosecution nor any explanation has been given for not examining Jeet Ram. In Ex.PB O.P.D. Chart, it has been stated pulse feeble, B.P. not recorded. In Ex.PB, there is no observation regarding consciousness of Manju. In Ex.PA, there is no separate and specific observation or certificate of the doctor that before making statement Manju was in a fit state of mind or was in a position to make statement. On the contrary, PW-1 has stated that when B.P. of a patient is not recordable and his pulse is feeble, in such condition, the cardiac system and nervous system of a patient is almost paralyzed. On the contrary, PW-1 has stated that when B.P. of a patient is not recordable and his pulse is feeble, in such condition, the cardiac system and nervous system of a patient is almost paralyzed. In such a situation, the patient is not in a fit mental condition. 28. PW-2 Siri Ram Khanna has stated that Manju had not talked to him in the vehicle. The case of the accused is that Manju was already unconscious when she reached the clinic of PW-1. PW-5 has stated that Manju was talking sluggishly and was stammering as her tongue and lips were swollen. PW-1 has also stated that last line of Ex.PA was written when Manju became unconscious and died. In the opening, the statement Ex.PA was started at 9.15 p.m. on 13.04.2002. In the sixth line, it has been stated that while making statement Manju became unconscious. PW-5 has also stated that doctor took one hour in recording the statement of Manju. 29. PW-1 examined Manju and in the process checked her B.P. and pulse. This appears to be the normal response of a doctor attending a patient in critical condition. The doctor attending a serious patient will concentrate on treatment instead of engaging himself in recording statement of such patient. PW-1 has stated that he treated Manju for about 15-20 minutes, thereafter she died. In Ex.PB, time 9.15 p.m. has been written and it has also been stated that Manju died at 9.30 p.m. In Ex.PA also, time of death of Manju has been recorded 9.30 p.m. In case PW-1 treated Manju for 15-20 minutes, then it becomes very suspicious how during that process PW-1 managed the recording of statement Ex.PA. 30. In the Court, PW-1 has stated that Manju was in her senses when he recorded her statement Ex.PA. PW-1 has not elaborated in the statement whether Manju at the time of recording statement Ex.PA was in a fit state of mind for making her statement. This is relevant in the present case as Manju died within 15-20 minutes, her B.P. was not recordable, her pulse was feeble and PW-1 himself has stated that in that condition the cardiac system and nervous system of such patient is almost paralyzed. This is relevant in the present case as Manju died within 15-20 minutes, her B.P. was not recordable, her pulse was feeble and PW-1 himself has stated that in that condition the cardiac system and nervous system of such patient is almost paralyzed. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ex.PA is a suspicious document and it cannot be said that Ex.PA is the statement of Manju made by her in fit state of mind. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid discussed factors while relying Ex.PA. 31. The Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 750 has held as follows:- “16. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2009) 11 Scale 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 32. In Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the suicide note noticed in paragraph 7 of the report is as follows:- “I am going to commit suicide due to his functioning style. In Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628 , the suicide note noticed in paragraph 7 of the report is as follows:- “I am going to commit suicide due to his functioning style. Alone M.M. Singh, DET Microwave Project is responsible for my death. I pray humbly to the officers of the Department that you should not cooperate as human being to defend M.M. Singh. M.M. Singh has acted in breach of discipline disregarding the norms of discipline. I humbly request the enquiry officer that my wife and son may not be harassed. My life has been ruined by M.M.Singh.” The Supreme Court has held as follows:- “11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. 12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. The Supreme Court has further held that the suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note. The Supreme Court has further held that the suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide.” 33. The Supreme Court in Durga Prasad and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 9 SCC 73 where the accused was convicted under Section 498-A and under Section 304-B IPC has held as follows:- “Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to allow the benefit of doubt to the appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by PWs 1 and 3 alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B IPC.” 34. In S.S.Chheena Versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190 , the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act much have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.” 35. The allegation against the accused is of ill-treatment of Manju, as a result of which, she committed suicide. The prosecution on the point of ill-treatment has not led specific evidence. The statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 of ill-treatment of Manju by accused are general. The statements of PW-3 and PW-5 regarding beatings given by accused to Manju about 6-7 months prior to the death of Manju are vague and have already been noticed above. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to show that prior to 13.04.2002 any report was made to lawful authority by Manju or on her behalf by anybody regarding ill-treatment of accused to Manju. 36. It has come in evidence that Manju was suffering from ulcer and stomachache. She had not conceived. PW-5 Asha Devi mother of deceased has stated that Manju was under tension due to ulcer and due to her not conceiving. It has come in the evidence that accused took Manju for treatment at various places. In the light of helping attitude of accused showing concern to the ailment of Manju, it does not sound to reasoning that accused was ill-treating the deceased Manju. It has come in the evidence that accused took Manju for treatment at various places. In the light of helping attitude of accused showing concern to the ailment of Manju, it does not sound to reasoning that accused was ill-treating the deceased Manju. The prosecution has not proved positive act of appellant to instigate or aid in committing suicide by Manju. PW-5 has stated that Manju made last complaint about the conduct of appellant one month prior to her death. Thus what happened immediately on or before 13.04.2002 which prompted Manju to end her life is not clear. Manju was in 10th Class and good in studies when she was married. The appellant has education up to 7th Class. The appellant was doing odd jobs. In S.S.Chheena (supra) it has been held that human suicidability of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. Manju was under tension on account of her ailment and not conceiving. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Manju of her own without any act or omission on the part of appellant unfortunately decided to end her life by committing suicide. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record in convicting and sentencing the appellant, who in the facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to benefit of doubt. 37. In view of above, appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 15/18.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.22-7 of 2004/2003 convicting the appellant on 15.03.2005 under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and sentencing the appellant on 18.03.2005 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge, fine amount, if any, deposited by appellant be refunded to him, his bail bonds are discharged.