JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts, material & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that, the marriage of appellant Labh Singh son of Jasmail Singh was solemnized with Amarjit Kaur in village Chakkar about 11/12 years prior to the present occurrence. After solemnization of their marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a son (aged 6 years) and a daughter (aged 4 years) were born out of their wedlock. Amarjit Kaur was stated to be under depression and used to leave and come to her matrimonial home of her own even without informing any member of the family. On 15.1.1998, she had left the matrimonial home without informing any body and did not return. Her husband and other relatives searched for her in the relations, but in vain. They have also informed her parents in this respect. 2. Faced with the grave situation, appellant Labh Singh had convened a panchayat headed by Mohinder Singh Sarpanch & other members of the panchayat and reported the matter to the police. The Police of Post Chowke recorded DDR entry (Rapat) No.4 dated 18.1.1998 (Ex.PH) in this relevant connection. 3. Sequelly, the prosecution claimed that on 22.1.1998 at about 5.30 P.M., the dead body of Amarjit Kaur was found floating in the village pond, in front of the house of the appellants. After receipt of the information, complainant Harnek Singh son of Buta Singh (PW2) (for brevity “the complainant”) reached village Ballo and made his statement (Ex.PE), inter-alia, alleging therein that the appellants and the acquitted accused used to taunt her on the ground that she was not so beautiful. They did not allow her to meet her parents. It was stated that on 13.1.1998, he had gone to the matrimonial home of his sister. The appellants were taking liquor. All the accused abused him and his sister. She lodged a protest, but he (PW2) pacified her saying that the accused were drunk. He came back to his village on 14.1.1998 and on the next day, he came to know about the fact of missing of his sister. The appellants were taking liquor. All the accused abused him and his sister. She lodged a protest, but he (PW2) pacified her saying that the accused were drunk. He came back to his village on 14.1.1998 and on the next day, he came to know about the fact of missing of his sister. Thereafter, his father Buta Singh (PW4), maternal uncle Ranjit Singh, Surender Singh son of Amar Singh from their brotherhood searched for his sister in their relations for many days, but in vain. However, neither they visited her matrimonial home nor lodged any report to the police. 4. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that after solemnization of marriage, the appellants started harassing and taunting his sister on the ground that she was not beautiful and they did not allow her to meet his parents. Thus, she committed suicide and the appellants have abetted the commission of crime. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PE) of complainant, the present case was registered against the appellants and their relative Nikka Singh (acquitted accused), by means of FIR No.6 dated 22.1.1998 (Ex.PE/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 5. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted against the appellants and the acquitted accused by the police to face the trial for the pointed offences. 6. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellants and acquitted accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC by the trial Court. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was listed for evidence of the prosecution. 7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the accused, examined PW1 Dr.Krishan Gopal Garg, who has stated that on police request (Ex.PC) and after perusing the inquest report (Ex.PB), he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur, vide PMR (Ex.PA). On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner on 2.4.1998 he, opined, vide his opinion (Ex.PD/1) that the cause of death was due to, asphyxia and entry of cold water in the larynx. On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner on 2.4.1998 he, opined, vide his opinion (Ex.PD/1) that the cause of death was due to, asphyxia and entry of cold water in the larynx. According to him, the probable time that elapsed between the death and post mortem was 2 to 8 days. In cross-examination, he admitted that there was no mark of injury on any part of the body of the deceased. A person suffering from depression and mental tension has a tendency to commit suicide. As per report of Chemical Examiner, no poison was detected. PW3 Gurjant Singh, photographer has proved the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P7) of dead body and negatives (Ex.P8 to Ex.P14). 8. Similarly, PW6 ASI Jeet Singh has proved the report dated 18.1.1998 (ExPH) lodged by appellant Labh Singh regarding missing of his wife Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter, he flashed the message to all the police stations of Punjab. On 22.1.1998, he went to village Ballo, where the complainant met him and he recorded his statement (Ex.PE). He signed the same in token of its correctness. He made endorsement (Ex.PE/1) on it and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, the formal FIR (Ex.PE/2) was recorded by ASI Sukhbir Singh. Thereafter, he reached the spot, got the dead body photographed and prepared the inquest report (Ex.PB). He prepared the site plan (Ex.PJ) of the place of occurrence and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On 23.1.1998, C.Harbhajan Singh produced one parcel containing cloth of the deceased, which were taken into possession by him, vide memo (Ex.PK) attested by the witnesses. The viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner, Patiala. On 26.1.1998, he arrested appellants Labh Singh and Sarabjit Singh. He has also testified his further investigation. 9. Likewise, PW2 complainant Harnek Singh has maintained, on oath, that on 13.1.1998 he had gone to village Baloo, where the appellants were taking liquor. All the four accused have abused him and his sister. She protested, but he pacified her on the ground that they were drunk. He has also stated that they started harassing his sister on the ground that she was not good looking. All the four accused have abused him and his sister. She protested, but he pacified her on the ground that they were drunk. He has also stated that they started harassing his sister on the ground that she was not good looking. He has also deposed that he had gone to see his sister two years prior to the present occurrence and appellants quarreled with him and refused to send Amarjit Kaur as she wanted to meet them. Similarly, his father Buta Singh (PW4) has stated that the marriage of his daughter Amarjit Kaur was solemnized with Labh Singh 12 years prior to the present occurrence. They started harassing her. Instead of reproducing the entire statements of PW2 and PW4 and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that they have attempted to corroborate the initial version contained in the statement (Ex.PE). 10. The last to note is the testimony of PW5 Randhir Singh alias Dhir Singh son of Tara Singh, who has only deposed that the marriage of Amarjit Kaur was solemnized with appellant Labh Singh. The appellants used to taunt that she was not beautiful. When her brother Harnek Singh went to bring her, the appellants misbehaved with her. This fact was disclosed to him by Harnek Singh. (His evidence is inadmissible being hearsay). The prosecution has also placed reliance on application of police (Ex.PD), recovery memos (Ex.PG & Ex.PK), fards jamatalashi (Ex.PL & Ex.PO), arrest memos (Ex.PM & Ex.PN) and report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PQ) in documentary evidence. 11. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants and acquitted accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, appellant Labh Singh has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:- “Yes, we are innocent. I was married with Amarjit Kaur about 12/13 years before her death and we were living happily and she was never maltreated, taunted or harass by any members of my family or by Nikka Singh accused. My wife was suffering from mental ailment and earlier to this occasion she was left the house without telling us and was brought back us after tracing her. My wife was suffering from mental ailment and earlier to this occasion she was left the house without telling us and was brought back us after tracing her. That on 15.1.98 my wife left the house at about 6 a.m. early in the morning without telling us and thereafter we searched her at many place and also informed her parents on 15.1.98 and they also joined us in her search and when she was got found or traced I along with whole village Panchayat of village Ballo went to PP Chowke and lodged DDR no.4 which is Ext.PH and we wee directed by the police to continue search for my wife. That on 21.1.98 in the evening dead body was found floating on the pond of our village and thereafter I informed the police alongwith the panchayat. Her parents were summoned by us. And on 22.1.98 this false report was lodged against us. We are vegetarian and Amritdhari and do not take drink or meat etc.” 12. Sequelly, the other accused have also adopted the same line of defence. The appellants, in order to prove their defence, have examined DW1 Mohinder Singh, who has maintained that on 15.1.1998, he was the Sarpanch of the village. Appellants came and informed him that his wife Amarjit Kaur was missing from the house since morning. He directed him to inform the village panchayat and call her parents. The accused as well as village panchayat searched for the girl, but she was not found. On 18.1.1998, he along with the members of the panchayat went to the police post and reported the matter, vide report (Ex.PH), which was attested by them. The village panchayat had not heard anything regarding harassment to Amarjit Kaur by the appellants. He has also testified that one or two times, she had left her matrimonial home without telling her in laws due to mental depression. The statement of DW2 Hakam Singh is also to that effect. The appellants have also relied upon the contradictory statement of Buta Singh as Ex.DA in documentary evidence. This is all the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. 13. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, accused Nikka Singh was acquitted. The statement of DW2 Hakam Singh is also to that effect. The appellants have also relied upon the contradictory statement of Buta Singh as Ex.DA in documentary evidence. This is all the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties. 13. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, accused Nikka Singh was acquitted. At the same time, appellants Labh Singh (husband) and Sarabjit Singh brother-in-law (Devar) were convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short “RI”) for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of two months each and appellant Jasmail Singh (father-in-law) were convicted & sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of two months for the commission of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, by way of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 3.10.2001 by the trial Judge. 14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be accepted in this context. 16. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that all the cogent cardinal fundamental principles and basic rules of criminal law/jurisprudence, have to be kept in focus while deciding such criminal cases. Some of these are that the absolute onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused cannot possibly be convicted without any substantive evidence as the evidence is essential element in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against him. The criminal proceedings require strict proof of guilt. It is the legal evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the legal requirement of criminal justice. Otherwise, in the absence of cogent substantive evidence, the Courts have no option, but to record an order of acquittal howsoever painful the same may be. 17. It is the legal evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the legal requirement of criminal justice. Otherwise, in the absence of cogent substantive evidence, the Courts have no option, but to record an order of acquittal howsoever painful the same may be. 17. As indicated here-in-above, in the instant case, the prosecution claimed that Amarjit Kaur had committed suicide and the appellants have abetted the commission of crime punishable u/s 306 IPC, which postulates that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished therein.” The abetment of a thing has been defined u/s 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 18. Similarly, Section 108 IPC posits that 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. The criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120-A IPC. 19. A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that in order to attract the penal provisions of section 306 IPC, there should be a positive evidence on record that appellants have intentionally hatched a conspiracy or actually/actively aided and abetted in such a manner, leaving no option for Amarjit Kaur to commit suicide. It cannot possibly be disputed here is that each person’s sensitivity and suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self-respect. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, there cannot be any conviction. 20. It cannot possibly be disputed here is that each person’s sensitivity and suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self-respect. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, there cannot be any conviction. 20. Meaning thereby, there has to be a clear mens rea, active participation or direct act and intention to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a grave position that he committed suicide. The knowledge, intention, mens rea, positive active participation leaving no option and compelling a person to commit suicide, inter-alia, are the essential ingredients to convict a person u/s 306 IPC. 21. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the core controversy, though important, that arises for determination in the present appeal is, as to whether the prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to bring guilt home to the appellants or not? 22. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charge u/s 306 IPC against the appellants as well. 23. As is evident from the record that the marriage of appellant Labh Singh was solemnized with Amarjit Kaur in village Chakkar about 11/12 years prior to the present occurrence. After solemnization of their marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a son and a daughter were born out of their wedlock. Amarjit Kaur was under depression and used to leave and come to her matrimonial home of her own without informing any member of the family. On 15.1.1998, she had left the matrimonial home without informing any body and did not return, as claimed by the appellants. Her husband and other relatives searched for her in the relations, but in vain. They have also informed her parents in this respect. She committed suicide between 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998. The exact time and date of suicide are not known to the prosecution. Neither any injury was noticed nor any poison was detected. Her husband and other relatives searched for her in the relations, but in vain. They have also informed her parents in this respect. She committed suicide between 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998. The exact time and date of suicide are not known to the prosecution. Neither any injury was noticed nor any poison was detected. No doubt, PW2 complainant and star witness of the prosecution has mentioned in his initial statement (Ex.PE), which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PE/2) that the appellants had started harassing on the ground that she was not beautiful, but he has not so stated in his statement while appearing as PW2 in Court. He has only deposed that on 13.1.1998, he had gone to village Baloo. The appellants were under the influence of liquor. They abused him and asked his sister that she should kill herself by jumping in a well, so that they may be free. Her sister lodged the protest and he pacified her on the ground that they were drunk. 24. Therefore, to my mind, if this statement of PW2 is believed to be true as such, even then, no offence, as contemplated u/s 306 IPC is made out against the appellants. Moreover, no implicit reliance can otherwise be placed on his statement because he has admitted in his cross-examination that appellant Jasmail Singh (father-in-law) is aged about 80 years. He (PW2) had gone to the matrimonial home of his sister only 2/4 times during 12 years of her long stay there. He had gone to the house of the appellants about 2 years prior to 13.1.1998. According to PW2 that he took the panchayat to village Ballo, but his statement is as vague as anything because he has not stated, who were the members of panchayat, how, when, where, in what manner, the panchayat was convened, what had happened there and what was its outcome. In this manner, since he had never visited the matrimonial home of his sister two years prior to the present occurrence, so, he was not at all aware of any incident if happened in her matrimonial home during these two years. His (PW2) story of visiting her matrimonial home on 13.1.1998 appears to be a made up story, cooked up version and cannot possibly be believed in the absence of any cogent evidence on record in this respect. 25. The matter does not end there. His (PW2) story of visiting her matrimonial home on 13.1.1998 appears to be a made up story, cooked up version and cannot possibly be believed in the absence of any cogent evidence on record in this respect. 25. The matter does not end there. The conduct of PW2 and PW4 is otherwise unnatural. They have deposed that having received the information regarding the fact of missing of Amarjit Kaur on 15.1.1998, they searched for her till 22.1.1998 in their relations, but they did not visit her matrimonial home during the intervening period from 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998. It was expected from their natural human conduct that after receipt of missing information, they would have and ought to have immediately rushed to her matrimonial home to ascertain the information from her in-laws or any neighbourer or panchayat that how, when and in what manner, she had disappeared. This unnatural conduct of PW2 & PW4 suggests that they have concealed the origin of the occurrence and are not telling the truth. Thus, their evidence is not convincing and cannot be accepted, as regards the allegation of cruelty are concerned. PW2 has not stated that after the marriage, the accused had started taunting his sister and he only informed his father with regard to the incident of 13.1.1998. The statements of PW2 & PW5 in this respect are inadmissible in evidence being hearsay. 26. This is not the end of the matter. The story of the prosecution is highly improbable. According to PW4, the appellants have started harassing his daughter after her marriage. No cogent evidence is forth coming on record that either PW2 or PW4, have ever lodged a protest in this regard or reported the matter to the panchayat of village Ballo or any government authority during the long period of her stay of 11 years in her matrimonial home. She gave birth to a son and a daughter. They did not raise any accusing finger against the accused. So much so, they have not disclosed the incident of 13.1.1998 to any body. Their non-visit to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur during the missing period w.e.f. 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998 is indicative of the fact that the complainant has cooked up a false version/story against the appellants on 22.1.1998 itself in order to wreak vengeance. Thus, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 does not inspire confidence and is unreliable. 27. Their non-visit to the matrimonial home of Amarjit Kaur during the missing period w.e.f. 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998 is indicative of the fact that the complainant has cooked up a false version/story against the appellants on 22.1.1998 itself in order to wreak vengeance. Thus, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 does not inspire confidence and is unreliable. 27. Not only that, it has come in the evidence on record that on 18.1.1998, appellant Labh Singh has informed the incident to the panchayat and the parents of Amarjit Kaur (deceased). The panchayat reported the matter and the police of Police Post Chowke recorded DDR No.4 (Ex.PH) on the same day. PW2 & PW4 neither visited her matrimonial home nor lodged any report raising accusing finger towards the appellants between 15.1.1998 to 22.1.1998. This bona fide conduct of the appellants would suggest their innocence in the entire episode. 28. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The epitome of the cause of suicide oozing out from the statements of PW2 and PW4 is that Amarjit Kaur committed suicide as the appellants started taunting her immediately after her marriage on the ground that she was not beautiful and on 13.1.1998, they abused her and PW2 under the influence of liquor. The story further proceeds that Amarjit Kaur lodged a protest on the same day, but PW2 has pacified her saying that the accused were drunk at that time. There is not an iota of evidence on record even to suggest remotely and it remained unfolded mystery that how, when and in what manner, they (accused) had the knowledge intention/mens rea or they have actually abetted to drive her to commit suicide. The self serving statements and interested evidence of PW2 and PW4 is not at all sufficient in this regard. In the absence of such cogent evidence on record, to me, the trial Court slipped into a deep legal error in convicting the appellants for the pointed offence. Assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted) if the vague evidence of PW2 and PW4 is believed to be true as such in regard to the allegations of harassment, to my mind, even then, no offence as envisaged u/s 306 IPC is made out against the appellants because all the indicated essential ingredients are totally lacking in this case. Hence, the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in case M. Mohan v. State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1174] : 2011 (3) SCC 626 “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 29. Thus, preceding on these premises, the contentions of learned counsel that the story of the prosecution is highly improbable, no implicit reliance can be placed on the vague statements of PW2 & PW4 and their unnatural conduct entitles the appellants benefit of doubt, have considerable force. To me, the trial Judge has ignored these inherent improbabilities, vital aspects of the matter with impunity and slipped into a deep legal error to convict the appellants. 30. Therefore, if the fact of improbability in prosecution version, absence of cogent evidence of essential ingredients of offence in question, unnatural conduct of PW2 & PW4, innocence of the appellants and totality of facts & circumstances, emitting from the evidence on record, as discussed here-in-above, are put together and scrutinized, in the right perspective, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that the evidence produced on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove the criminal charge under Section 306 IPC, which entails the benefit of doubt and acquittal to them in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 31. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 32. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant appeal is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence are set aside. Having extended the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them as well. Needless to mention that the necessary compliance and procedural consequences would naturally follow. ---------0.B.S.0------------