JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J: Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused in the following background: The complainant one Maddu Ramulu, a resident of Kolpur Village, Manganoor Mandal, Makthal Taluk of Andhra Pradesh, had alleged that the respondents herein are brothers and that the first respondent had married his daughter Tarangini about four years prior to the incident. It transpires that when Tarangini was studying in S.S.L.C., respondent 1 had developed a friendship with her and he had once eloped to Mumbai and had stayed in his brother's house at which point of time, the complainant had lodged a complaint of his missing daughter and it is six months later, that he learnt that his daughter and respondent 1 were living in Mumbai and therefore, with the intervention of the police, she was brought back to the village and in order to save the family's name, they were compelled to perlbrm the marriage of respondent 1 with Tarangini, since she had lived with him for quite some time. Respondent 1 was a driver by profession and he set up his matrimonial home at Devasugur along with the deceased Tarangini and were reasonably happy for four years and they had two children during the said period. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondents are Mohammedans and over time, respondents 2 and 3 who did not like the idea of their brother having married out of their community, that respondents 2 and 3 had instigated respondent 1 to drive away the deceased Tarangini and to take a second wife from their own community. According to the prosecution, it is this which prompted accused 1 to constantly harass and ill-treat the deceased. In the result, she had left her matrimonial home and was living with her parents for two months prior to the incident and it was only 10 days prior to the incident that she had returned to her matrimonial home and having regard to the continued cruelty meted out to her by accused 1, she had committed suicide by consuming poison and it is in that background that at the instance of the complainant, a case was registered and further steps were taken. The accused having pleaded not guilty, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: "1. The accused having pleaded not guilty, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration: "1. Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused 1 being the husband of deceased Tarangini and accused 2 and 3 being the brothers of accused 1, 4 years after the marriage of accused 1 with the deceased, with common intention subjected the deceased to cruelty both mentally and physically in order to have a second marriage and thereby they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? 2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Tarangini being fed up with the ill-treatment and harassment has committed suicide on 20-10-2006 at about 3.00 AM by consuming poison and that these accused in furtherance of said common intention have abetted her to commit suicide and thereby they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code? 3. What Order?" The Court below has held both the points in the negative and has acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1 to 4 were the neighbours of respondent 1 and P.Ws. 6 to 8 are the parents and younger sister of the deceased, and further the other witnesses are the official witnesses such as the Medical Practitioner who had conducted the Post-mortem, the police constable who had carried the dead body for post-mortem examination and P.W. 12 who had carried the FIR to the Court, P.W. 13 who took the sealed material objects for examination, P.W. 14 was the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest proceedings and P.W. 15 was the Police Sub-Inspector of the jurisdictional police station who was the Investigating Officer in the case apart from other panch witnesses. The learned Government Pleader would submit that there is no dispute that accused 1 belonged to a Muslim community and had married the daughter of the complainant who belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that there was constant instigation by respondents 2 and 3 who are brothers of the first respondent, to drive away the deceased and therefore, he had started to physically and mentally subject the deceased to cruelty, and he intended to take a second wife from his own community. There was further threat held out by the brothers of respondent 1 that they would not part with any share in the family property if he did not marry someone from his own community. Therefore, it was this which prompted the continued ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased. Though P.Ws. 1 to 4 were the neighbours, had not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8 would clinch the case as they have categorically stated about the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to the deceased and as they were fully in the know of the manner in which the ill-treatment was meted out to her, as the deceased had, during her lifetime, kept them informed of such acts on the part of accused 1 which was sufficient to prove the offences alleged against the accused. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that ill-treatment by the spouse or other close family members of the accused would be within the four corners of their own house and it would not be possible to tender evidence in all cases of eye-witnesses who had actually witnessed the physical and mental ill-treatment of the deceased but however, since P.Ws. 6 to 8 had intimate knowledge of the events that had transpired prior to the incident, there is no difficulty or impediment to accept the evidence of the said witnesses. The same having been negated by the Court below, is unfair and results in miscarriage of justice, especially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 to 8 had intimate knowledge of the events that had transpired prior to the incident, there is no difficulty or impediment to accept the evidence of the said witnesses. The same having been negated by the Court below, is unfair and results in miscarriage of justice, especially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Government Pleader would take this Court through the record at length to emphasise and re-emphasise the gruesome manner in which the deceased was driven to her death and therefore, would submit that there should be no difficulty on the basis of the evidence that has been placed on record to hold that there was abetment of suicide and cruelty, which has caused the death of the deceased and seeks that the judgment of the Court below be set aside and the accused be punished for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity). 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that in order to prove the offences punishable under the above sections, the prosecution was required to establish that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased by subjecting her to cruelty and that the cruelty was of such a degree which may drive her to death and that the accused persons also intended the same. It is however pointed out that the prosecution having fielded P.Ws. 1 to 4 who were the immediate neighbourers of respondent 1 and who were possibly witnesses who could have spoken about the actual cruelty, mental or physical that was allegedly meted out to the deceased, none of those witnesses admittedly have supported the case of the prosecution, which leaves the evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 8 alone, on the basis of which it has to be held that the prosecution has proved its case. 6 to 8 alone, on the basis of which it has to be held that the prosecution has proved its case. Insofar as the evidence of P.W. 6 is concerned who was the complainant and father of the deceased, it is pointed out that the evidence of the said witnesses would indicate that after the marriage of his daughter with respondent 1 they were residing at Devasugur Village and that they had two children during the four years of their marriage and thereafter that respondent 1 was goaded by his brothers to marry a girl from their own community and that they would give him a share in the property only if he does so and it is in that background that respondent 1 started ill-treating his daughter and asking her to leave him and return to her parent's house. She had in fact come and stayed with the said witnesses in his house for about two months and thereafter, she had voluntarily gone back to her husband's 1 house about 10 days prior to her death and was residing with accused 1. He was telephonically informed that his daughter had committed suicide by consuming poison. Apart from this evidence, nothing much is elicited from P.W. 6 as regards the continued cruelty. He has not state that he had actually witnessed any such acts of cruelty being meted out to his daughter. His only statement as regards the ill-treatment meted out to her is information provided by the deceased to his wife and it is through his wife that he learnt of such ill-treatment. This has been elicited in cross-examination. It is also pointed out as recorded in the judgment of the Court below that P.W. 6 in his evidence has stated that respondent 1 never visited his daughter during her stay of two months in her parent's house and that he had no occasion to advise respondent 1 and by the time that he could take respondent 1 into confidence and advise him, the incident had taken place. But however, P.W. 7-the mother of the deceased had on the other hand, stated that respondent 1 had come to their house during the period that the deceased was staying for two months and had assaulted her daughter. But however, P.W. 7-the mother of the deceased had on the other hand, stated that respondent 1 had come to their house during the period that the deceased was staying for two months and had assaulted her daughter. P.W. 8 who is the younger sister of the deceased, has inconsistently stated that respondent 1 might have visited her sister at least five times during the two months' stay in their house and he had even stayed overnight in their house. This inconsistency in their statements would not indicate that the respondent 1 when visited the deceased during her stay in her parent's house, had treated her with cruelty and that P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 were witness to the same, except the say of P.W. 7 to the effect that he had come once to their house and assaulted the deceased. This she had never complained of to P.W. 6 nor has P.W. 6 stated so in his evidence. The Court below has therefore concluded that it is as an afterthought that such an allegation is made and even such allegations are inconsistent insofar as each of those witnesses are concerned about the relationship that existed between the deceased and respondent 1. Further, the learned Counsel would point out as reasoned by the Trial Court that the fact of the deceased having stayed in her parent's home for two months and the fact that she had voluntarily returned to the house of the respondent 1 and that no other family member having accompanied her, therefore, would not indicate the state of mind of a person who had been treated with extreme cruelty and being driven to suicide by such cruelty. Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence of ill-treatment and cruelty to hold that there has been abetment of suicide when there is no evidence in that regard and to hold that the provisions of Section 498-A would be attracted, is not forthcoming. Insofar as accused 2 and 3 are concerned, it is again pointed out from the record that respondents 2 and 3 were not residing along with respondent 1 and the possibility of continued cruelty by those two respondents cannot be presumed. There is no direct accusation against the said accused of having meted out such cruelty or having instigated the deceased to commit suicide at any point of time. There is no direct accusation against the said accused of having meted out such cruelty or having instigated the deceased to commit suicide at any point of time. Therefore, the Court below having held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be faulted and would seek that the same be affirmed. 5. Given the above rival contentions and the circumstances that are highlighted by the prosecution as well as the defence, there is no direct evidence of the accused having physically and mentally ill-treated the deceased except the stray statement of P.W. 7 that on one occasion, she had seen the accused-respondent 1 assault the deceased, but that she had ignored the same as it was a trivial incident between the husband and wife and by her own say, it was not a situation where cruelty was writ large on the incident even insofar as the stray incident narrated by her is concerned. Therefore, in order to bring home a charge under Section 498-A of the IPC, the ingredients as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, ought to be cruelty meted out to the deceased which ought to have been of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and the harassment should be with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for a property or valuable security. When that is the requirement in law, scanty evidence which is not indicative of the witnesses namely, P.Ws. 6 to 8 actually having seen or heard the manner in which respondent 1 is alleged to have treated the deceased with cruelty, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This can also be said in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306, which would require direct evidence to indicate that there was abetment of suicide. Therefore, the provision having been mechanically invoked, cannot be supported by the evidence that is on record. In that view of the matter, the reasoning of the Court below in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, does not warrant interference and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.