Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of the Court below whereby the Court below has convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity) and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The background is as follows: One Tayamma the daughter of Seenappa and Shivamma of Raichur, was working in an automobile showroom at Raichur. It is alleged that the appellant herein was also working in the same place and that the two were in love with each other and had married at Hampi in a temple. PW-11 to PW-13 were said to be the friends of the appellant and they had in their testimony stated that they attended the marriage of the appellant with Tayamma at Hampi, which is stated to have taken place about three years prior to the incident. It is further alleged that Tayamma was appointed as a Police Constable, about two years prior to the incident and she was posted to Manvi Police Station in Raichur District. It also transpires that she was allotted quarters at Manvi and she was residing therein. It was alleged that the appellant who continued to work at Raichur was visiting Tayamma on and off. It is claimed that on 06.02.2006 it was found that Tayamma had committed suicide and according to the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3, it was alleged that the appellant who was visiting Tayamma on and off, was constantly threatening her that, he wanted to marry for the second time and in that, she must permit it. This had lead to frequent quarrels between them. According to PW-3, on 05.12.2006 the appellant had visited Tayamma and stayed overnight at Tayamma's quarters in Manvi and that there was a heated exchange of words on the evening of 05.12.2006 and according to the prosecution it is this constant harassment, on the part of the appellant, that instigated Tayamma to commit suicide. According to PW-3, on 05.12.2006 the appellant had visited Tayamma and stayed overnight at Tayamma's quarters in Manvi and that there was a heated exchange of words on the evening of 05.12.2006 and according to the prosecution it is this constant harassment, on the part of the appellant, that instigated Tayamma to commit suicide. It is on the basis of these allegations that a case had been registered against the appellant for offences as aforesaid. The appellant having pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined PW-1 to PW-15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and also M.O.- 1 to M.O.-4 are produced by the prosecution, whereas the defence had marked Ex.D-1. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration: " 1. Whether the prosecution proves that accused being the husband of deceased subjected her to cruelty? 2. Does prosecution further prove that accused abetted the commission of suicide by deceased? 3. What order?" The Trial Court has answered the same in the affirmative. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that in order to bring the case within the scope of the provisions, under which the offence alleged against the appellant are punishable, it would be necessary to establish that Tayamma was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed on the evidence of PW-11 to PW-13. PW-11 to PW-13 no doubt were classmates of the appellant and have been fielded as the prosecution witnesses, in proof of the circumstance that Tayamma was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. The learned counsel would point out that the evidence of those witnesses cannot be relied upon, to establish that the circumstance that Tayamma was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, for the reason that the evidence of those witnesses is only to the effect that they had attended the wedding of Tayamma with the appellant about 3 years prior to the incident, at a temple in Hampi. There are no further particulars provided as to the date of the marriage, or of the other people who were present at the wedding. The ceremonies that were performed or other details of the said wedding are not forthcoming. There are no further particulars provided as to the date of the marriage, or of the other people who were present at the wedding. The ceremonies that were performed or other details of the said wedding are not forthcoming. Added to this, the said witnesses, had resiled from their statements in their cross-examination and have negated the assertion that there was a wedding between Tayamma and the appellant. More importantly, there is no material evidence by these witnesses to hold that the appellant and Tayamma resided together as husband and wife, for any duration at any place. In the absence of which, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, to declare that the appellant was visiting Tayamma at her quarters in Manvi, by itself would not indicate that they were legally wedded husband and wife. The prosecution seeking to combine the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-11 to PW-13 would not establish that a marriage between Tayamma and the appellant had taken place and that they resided together as husband and wife at Manvi or any other place. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the appellant was residing with Tayamma at Manvi and hence the mere statements of PW-1 to PW-3 to assert that the appellant was seeking Tayanmma's permission to marry for the second time and that there was serious differences between them on that account, is mere hear say, as it is not the case of the prosecution that any of these witnesses had witnessed or heard the appellant seeking such permission from Tayamma. It is on the other hand, the case of the prosecution that Tayamma through her lifetime had informed PW-1 to PW-3, who were her colleagues in the police department, as to the alleged constant harassment by the appellant. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the mere say of PW-3 as to there having been a quarrel on 05.12.2006 which instigated Tayamma to commit suicide during the night of 05/06.12.2006, is not sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Tayamma had admittedly joined the police department two years prior to the incident. If indeed, the appellant was the husband of Tayamma, the service record of Tayamma would have reflected that fact. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Tayamma had admittedly joined the police department two years prior to the incident. If indeed, the appellant was the husband of Tayamma, the service record of Tayamma would have reflected that fact. There is no material placed before the Court to indicate that the official record reflected the marital status, of the appellant and Tayamma being husband and wife. In the absence of such crucial evidence, it would have clinched the case for the prosecution in so far as the relationship of husband and wife is concerned, being possible. It cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient for the Court below to proceed on the basic premise that there was husband and wife relationship between Tayamma and the appellant. They were at best lovers who were known to each other and were colleagues earlier and that by itself would not sustain the case of the prosecution. Therefore, without submitting anything more, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the primary ingredient that there was a marriage between the appellant and the deceased was necessary to bring the case within the mischief of Section 498 (A) and consequently Section 306 of the IPC. Hence he would submit that the Court below proceeding on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-11 to PW-13 is not tenable and therefore, the judgment of the Court below would have to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 4. While the learned Government Pleader would submit that, notwithstanding the fact that PW-11 to PW-13 have recoiled from their statement, in the examination-in-chief, to the effect that they attended the wedding of the appellant and Tayamma. The fact remains that they were classmates of the appellant, which is not denied and their categorical admission as to having attended the wedding of Tayamma and the appellant, is sufficient to establish the fact that they were legally married to each other. This coupled with the fact that Tayamma was appointed as a police constable one year, after the marriage with the appellant and she had to move to Manvi, where she was posted and she was residing alone in the quarters, as the appellant continued to work at Raichur and was unable to leave Raichur. It was this, which resulted in the appellant visiting Manvi on and off. It was this, which resulted in the appellant visiting Manvi on and off. This did not make them any less husband and wife and the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is categorical in this regard. PW-1 to PW-3 were closely associated with the deceased Tayamma as they were her colleagues and Tayamma had confided in those witnesses. They being police women have boldly stated the actual circumstance of the case that there was constant harassment by the appellant to Tayamma that he would marry for the second time, was indeed the instigation and the immediate altercation that had taken place in the evening of 05.12.2006 to the knowledge and hearing of PW-3 who has categorically stated that the appellant had visited the deceased on 05.12.2006 and stayed overnight in her quarters and PW-3 who was her immediate neighbour was in the best position to speak of the same and it is that incident which has lead the immediate provocation of the deceased committing suicide in being unable to bear the constant harassment and instigation by the appellant. Therefore, he would submit that it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to establish the legal status of the appellant and Tayamma and the further circumstance that there was constant harassment which drove the deceased to commit suicide and he would therefore seek to justify the reasoning of the Court below in holding that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Given these rival contentions, as there is vehement denial of the relationship of husband and wife, as between the appellant and Tayamma, the record is carefully perused and the only evidence of wedding between the appellant and Tayamma is that of PW-11 to PW-13. It is not in dispute that they were the classmates of the appellant and apparently have been procured by the prosecution to establish the fact that the appellant was married to Tayamma. They have not stated with any clarity, as to the manner in which the wedding was performed, the persons who had attended the wedding and the date of the wedding. According to the learned counsel for the appellant they had been compelled by the police to tender evidence of the wedding and it is for that reason that they have resiled from the earlier other statements, in the course of cross- examination. According to the learned counsel for the appellant they had been compelled by the police to tender evidence of the wedding and it is for that reason that they have resiled from the earlier other statements, in the course of cross- examination. It cannot be said that their testimony has stood the test of cross-examination. Therefore, to hold that the mere fact that there was a so called wedding ceremony which was witnessed by PW-11 to PW-1,3 even if their cross-examination is ignored, it would not establish that the appellant and Tayamma lived as husband and wife, as PW-11 to PW-13 have not stated that they did live as husband and wife over the years as the incident had occurred 3 years after the wedding. 6. Secondly, the fact that Tayamma was appointed as a Police Constable, two years prior to the incident and that her service record did not disclose that she was married to the appellant is further significant. In any event, no such record has been produced before the Court to either disclose that she was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, in the face of which, even if it could be established that there was a wedding between Tayamma and the appellant, whether they lived together as husband and wife was significant in respect of which there is no evidence. 7. In so far as the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 is concerned, their evidence as colleagues of the deceased is to the effect that the deceased was living alone in the police quarters at Manvi. Their evidence is to the further effect that the deceased had told them of the constant harassment meted out to her by the appellant. It is not their testimony that they had indeed seen the appellant seeking any such permission from Tayamma to marry for the second time. The further case of instigation, as sought to be made out by the testimony of PW-3, who was the immediate neighbour of the deceased, is that she had seen the appellant visiting the deceased who had stayed overnight in the police quarters on 05.12.2006 and that she could overhear a heated exchange between the appellant and the deceased Tayamma on the evening of 05.12.2006. This by itself, would not be evidence of the appellant and Tayamma living as husband and wife and that there was instigation of such a degree which drove Tayamma to commit suicide. The occasional visit by the appellant to Tayamma at her police quarters, by itself need not make them husband and wife, which could at best indicate that they were possibly lovers, but not necessarily husband and wife, as Tayamma had not officially declared the appellant as her husband in the police records. There could be no presumption on the say of PW-1 to PW-3, in that regard, especially if there were only occasional visits by the appellant to Tayamma's quarters. Hence the primary ingredient of the relationship of husband and wife not having been established, the Trial Court having found the case of the prosecution to hold that the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.