JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Appellant Parkash Kaur has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 17.08.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which she has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under the aforesaid Section. However, co-accused Harpal Singh has been acquitted. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Harjit Singh in which he stated that his elder sister Daljit Kaur was married with Sarwan Singh about 7-8 years back and two sons (one about 4-5 years old and another about 2-3 years old), were born out of their wedlock. After sometime of marriage, Sarwan Singh alongwith Daljit Kaur, started living separately from his family. But Parkash Kaur and Harpal Singh, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Daljit Kaur respectively, started quarrelling with Daljit Kaur. They also gave beating to her about 2-3 times. Complainant also stated that whenever his sister Daljit Kaur came to his village, she informed about it but they (complainant family) advised her to settle it at her own level as it was her family dispute. Accused Parkash Kaur and Harpal Singh treated Daljit Kaur with cruelty and abused her. About 2-3 months prior to the occurrence, the complainant, his father Bawa Singh and one Harjit Singh, mediator of the marriage, went to the house of accused and advised them that they should not quarrel with Daljit Kaur. The accused told the complainant party that it is their family matter and they should not interfere in it. Thereafter, the complainant etc. came back to their village. On 28.05.1998, complainant came to know that his sister had consumed some poisonous substance and she was under medical treatment at Qadian. Then, the complainant, his father Bawa Singh and Harjit Singh reached Qadian. By that time, Daljit Kaur had expired. The respectable persons of village Harchowal i.e. the village of accused, tried to compromise the matter but in vain. On 28.05.1998, complainant came to know that his sister had consumed some poisonous substance and she was under medical treatment at Qadian. Then, the complainant, his father Bawa Singh and Harjit Singh reached Qadian. By that time, Daljit Kaur had expired. The respectable persons of village Harchowal i.e. the village of accused, tried to compromise the matter but in vain. The complainant party also came to know that in the morning of that day, Parkash Kaur and Harpal Singh, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Daljit Kaur (deceased), had quarrelled with Daljit Kaur due to which she had consumed some poisonous substance. On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was registered. ASI Paramjit Singh, Investigating Officer, visited the spot and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Daljit Kaur. Thereafter, postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Kaur was got conducted. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court. 3. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr. Romesh Kumar Sharma, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Kaur on 29.05.1998 at 1:15 p.m. As per the opinion of the doctor (PW1), the cause of death in this case was on account of consuming aluminum phosphate i.e. poisonous substance. PW2 Harjit Singh, complainant and brother of deceased Daljit Kaur, mainly deposed as per prosecution version. In chief-examination, he also made improvement that accused Parkash Kaur used to taunt Daljit Kaur for bringing torn clothes in dowry and she should die by consuming poison. PW3 Harjit Singh son of Bachan Singh deposed that he was related to Bawa Singh, father of complainant Harjit Singh. This witness deposed regarding the marriage of Daljit Kaur with Sarwan Singh. He (PW3) also deposed that there was dispute of Daljit Kaur with her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. This witness deposed that both the accused used to taunt Daljit Kaur by saying that she had brought torn clothes in dowry. This witness deposed regarding the marriage of Daljit Kaur with Sarwan Singh. He (PW3) also deposed that there was dispute of Daljit Kaur with her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. This witness deposed that both the accused used to taunt Daljit Kaur by saying that she had brought torn clothes in dowry. He also deposed that 2-3 months prior to the death of Daljit Kaur, she met her parents and told about the maltreatment given to her by accused. PW4 Harbhajan Singh, mediator of the marriage of Daljit Kaur with Sarwan Singh, also deposed as per prosecution version. This witness also deposed that accused had beaten Daljit Kaur (deceased) thrice and she herself had disclosed this fact to him. Then he alongwith 2-3 respectable persons of the village went to the village of accused for negotiation. This witness also deposed that 2- 3 months prior to the occurrence, accused had given beating to Daljit Kaur (deceased). PW5 L.C.Kuldip Singh deposed regarding getting conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Daljit Kaur. PW6 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PE. PW7 ASI Paramjit Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Parkash Kaur also pleaded that she never harassed Daljit Kaur nor any dispute regarding the demand of dowry ever occurred between them. 6. In defence, the accused examined DW1 Sarwan Singh, husband of Daljit Kaur (deceased), who stated that his relations with his other brother were very cordial. There was no dispute with regard to any dowry with his (DW1) in-laws. This witness also deposed that his wife went to her parental house on 26.06.1998 and she came back on 28.06.1998. She did not disclose anything to him and she consumed poison on 28.06.1998. DW2 Constable Kulwinder Singh mainly proved the copy of FIR Ex.DW2/A. 7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced appellant Parkash Kaur and acquitted Harpal Singh as stated above. 8. She did not disclose anything to him and she consumed poison on 28.06.1998. DW2 Constable Kulwinder Singh mainly proved the copy of FIR Ex.DW2/A. 7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced appellant Parkash Kaur and acquitted Harpal Singh as stated above. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant Parkash Kaur is mother-in-law of Daljit Kaur and as per evidence, she was living separately from Daljit Kaur and her husband Sarwan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there are general and vague allegations against the appellant. No specific incident has been given. Daljit Kaur (deceased) was married with Sarwan Singh about 8 years ago and as per FIR only 2-3 times, beating was given to her. There is nothing on the record to show as to what was the motive behind the quarrel. The prosecution witnesses have made improvement regarding the cause of dispute i.e. bringing of torn clothes in dowry, which is material improvement and otherwise also it looks unnatural that after eight years of the marriage, this can be the dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the allegations against appellant Parkash Kaur and co-accused Harpal Singh are the same and the case of appellant Parkash Kaur is at par with co-accused Harpal Singh, who has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellant and has not led any cogent evidence to show abetment to commit suicide especially soon before the occurrence. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal should be accepted and appellant Parkash Kaur should be acquitted accordingly. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by PW2 Harjit Singh, complainant and brother of deceased Daljit Kaur, PW3 Harjit Singh son of Bachan Singh and PW4 Harbhajan Singh. Their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. These prosecution witnesses have deposed consistently as per prosecution version. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, learned State counsel contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. 11. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, learned State counsel contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. 11. From the evidence on record, I find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. First of all, it is an admitted case that appellant Parkash Kaur, mother-in-law of deceased Daljit Kaur, was residing separately from the family of Daljit Kaur and Sarwan Singh. Daljit Kaur (deceased) was married with Sarwan Singh about eight years back and it is not the case of any demand of dowry or harassment or maltreatment on the ground of demand of dowry. Daljit Kaur (deceased) was having two children, aged about 5 years and 3 years. From the evidence on record, I find that there are no specific instances of any maltreatment, harassment or cruelty to Daljit Kaur (deceased). No date, month or years has been given regarding any incident of maltreatment etc. There are general and vague allegations in the FIR that there was a family dispute. There is nothing in the FIR as to what was the cause of dispute. There is general allegation that 2-3 times beatings were given to Daljit Kaur but no date, month or year has been given regarding such beatings. When PW2 Harjit Singh, complainant, appeared in the witness box, he tried to improve his case by stating that Daljit Kaur (deceased) was taunted for bringing torn clothes at the time of marriage. As already discussed, Daljit Kaur (deceased) was married about 7-8 years earlier to the occurrence, she had two children and she was residing separately with her husband, therefore, after 7-8 years of marriage, question of taunting on the pretext of bringing torn clothes does not arise. There is no evidence on record to show any abetment to commit suicide much less abetment soon before the occurrence. The version regarding torn clothes is an improved version and PW2 Harjit Singh, complainant has been duly confronted with his statement given before the police and this amounts to material improvements in his statement. Even, the other prosecution witnesses have also not given any specific instance of cruelty or maltreatment. The version regarding torn clothes is an improved version and PW2 Harjit Singh, complainant has been duly confronted with his statement given before the police and this amounts to material improvements in his statement. Even, the other prosecution witnesses have also not given any specific instance of cruelty or maltreatment. None of the prosecution witness has deposed regarding any demand of dowry from Daljit Kaur (deceased). Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the abetment to Daljit Kaur to commit suicide by appellant Parkash Kaur. The case of appellant Parkash Kaur is at par with co-accused Harpal Singh who has been acquitted by the trial Court. There is no motive for appellant Parkash Kaur to treat Daljit Kaur with cruelty, harassment or maltreatment especially when appellant Parkash Kaur was residing separately from Daljit Kaur (deceased). Therefore, reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt is to go to the accused. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to appellant Parkash Kaur, she is acquitted of the charges as framed against her. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial Court are set aside. Bail bond/surety bond, furnished by appellant Parkash Kaur, stand discharged. ---------0.B.S.0------------