Judgment 1. The sole accused who stood charged and tried for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, vide impugned judgment dated 17.05.2007 made in S.C.No.153/2006 on the file of the Sessions Court Division, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, is the appellant. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated are as follows:- 2.1. PW1 is the father of the deceased namely, Sutha and father-in-law of the appellant/accused. According to him, the marriage between his daughter and the appellant/accused was solemnized in the year 2002 and at the time of marriage, he has given 12 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.10,000/- by way of dowry. About four months prior to 20.09.2004, there were frequent quarrels between the appellant/accused and her daughter and she used to repeatedly tell PW1 that her husband/appellant/accused used to ill- treat her by subjecting to physical abuse and she has also told that her husband told her that since the marriage was against the consent of his parents and when the appellant/accused demanded his share on the property, his parents told him to leave out of the matrimonial wedlock, so that the property can be settled in his favour. On 20.09.2004 at about 01.00 A.M, PW1 received a telephonic call from Karaisuthupudhur, wherein his daughter was living with her husband/appellant/accused and the person told PW1 that his daughter is in serious condition and asked him to come immediately. Immediately, PW1 along with his wife Pachaikili(PW3), Kasimani(PW9) went to Karaisuthupudhur and they saw her daughter Sutha in unconscious state of mind. PW1 was advised to take her to a Siddha Doctor and she was taken in a "trucker vehicle" and the Doctor told him that he cannot do any thing and asked him to take her to Christopher Hospital and accordingly, they took her to the said hospital. PW2 Doctor Christopher has examined her and declared her as dead on arrival. Immediately PW1 and relatives took the body of the daughter to her matrimonial home at Karaisuthupudhur and they found that the house was locked and thereafter they took the body to their home. PW2 Doctor Christopher has examined her and declared her as dead on arrival. Immediately PW1 and relatives took the body of the daughter to her matrimonial home at Karaisuthupudhur and they found that the house was locked and thereafter they took the body to their home. PW1 in this regard has lodged a complaint on the file of Uvari Police Station and PW13 on receipt of Ex.P1-Complaint registered the FIR at about 19.30 hours on 20.09.2004 for the commission of offence under Section 174 CR.P.C in Crime No.182/2000. 2.2. PW15 was the Jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer and on receipt of FIR, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 20.09.2004 and recorded the statement of her parents and relatives and submitted his report marked as Ex.P8 and since it was not available, a copy of the same was marked as Ex.P9, subject to objections, wherein he opined that the deceased Sutha would have died on account of the physical abuse inflicted by the appellant/accused and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyur, to proceed further. 2.3. PW17 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on receipt of the wireless information, proceeded to Uvari Police Station and got the FIR and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 09.00 P.M on 20.09.2004 and in the presence of PW11 and another, prepared the Observation Mahazar and also Sketch marked as Exs.P10 & P11 respectively. PW17 recovered the article found in the scene of occurrence under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P12. The Saree worn by the deceased was marked as MO1 and the metal vessel was marked as MO2. PW17 also informed the Jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of conducting inquest, as the death occurred within two years from the date of marriage. PW17 examined PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW2 and other witnesses and recorded the statements under Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he was also present at the time of conducting inquest on 21.09.2004 by PW15. On receipt of the report of PW15 marked as Ex.P9, he arrived at a preliminary conclusion that on account of the torture inflicted by the appellant/accused, Sutha has committed suicide and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.4. On receipt of the report of PW15 marked as Ex.P9, he arrived at a preliminary conclusion that on account of the torture inflicted by the appellant/accused, Sutha has committed suicide and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.4. PW16 has effected the arrest of the appellant/accused on 29.09.2004 and after collecting materials and on completion of investigation, has filed the final report charging the accused for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, in PRC.No.3 of 2006. The Committal Court on filing of the charge sheet, issued summons to the appellant/accused and on his appearance, furnished with him copies of documents under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code and having found that the case has to be exclusively tried by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli and the said Court in turn, made over the case to Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. 2.5. The Trial Court issued summons and on appearance of the appellant/accused, it has framed a charge under Section 306 IPC and questioned him and he pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. 2.6. The prosecution in order to sustain their case has examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and also marked MOs 1 and 2. 2.7. The appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false. 2.8. The appellant/accused did not examine any witnesses and also not marked any exhibits. 2.9. The Trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials has convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced as state above against the accused. 3. Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:- (i) The testimonies of material witnesses namely, PWs 1, 3, 5 and 9 did not corroborate with other material particulars and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was a demand of jewels and cash on the part of the appellant/accused and the witnesses have also made very many improvements from that of their statements recorded during investigation. (ii) The suicide has not taken place in the matrimonial home and it actually took place only in the parental home and it is also evidenced by the fact that the postmortem was conducted nearly two days after the date of occurrence on 20.09.2004. (iii) Even for the sake of argument that the daughter of PWs 1 and 3 has committed suicide on account of the alleged physical abuse on the part of the appellant/accused, the evidence in that regard is absolutely lacking. (iv) Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not at all been made out and in any event, the Trial Court ought to have ordered benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant/accused and hence prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and prays for acquittal. 4. Per contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has invited attention of this Court to PWs 1 to 3 and 5 and would vehemently contend that within a span of two years from the date of marriage, the daughter of PWs 1 and 3, Sutha has committed suicide by hanging and at the time of tragic demise, she left a girl child aged about 7 months and unable to bear the physical torture and abuse on the part of the appellant/accused, she has resorted to such an extreme step and would further contend that on account of the said act, the appellant/accused has driven her to commit suicide. The sum and substance of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is that the prosecution through the testimonies of witnesses and exhibits had amply proved the guilt on the part of the appellant/accused beyond any pale of doubt and this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may not interfere with the well considered finding rendered by the trial court and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the oral and documentary evidence and other materials and also the original records. 6. It is an admitted fact that marriage between the appellant/accused and the daughter of PWs 1 and 3 namely, Sutha was solemnized during the year 2002 and out of wedlock, they have also begotten a female child. 6. It is an admitted fact that marriage between the appellant/accused and the daughter of PWs 1 and 3 namely, Sutha was solemnized during the year 2002 and out of wedlock, they have also begotten a female child. PW1 father of the deceased and father-in-law of the appellant/accused in his chief examination has deposed that both of them were living happily for about one year from the date of the marriage and thereafter, the appellant/accused under the influence of Alcohol started harassing her daughter and asking her to get money and jewels from the parental home. It is further deposed by PW1 that the appellant/accused met his parents and demanded his share of property and they told him that unless he leave out of the matrimonial home, they will not settle the property and as a result, the torture and ill-treatment of his daughter got further aggravated and she came to his house on 19.09.2004, just one day prior to suicide, stating that her husband is abusing her and she was taken back to the matrimonial home by the appellant/accused and at that time, the appellant/accused told PW1 that next time, she can see the body of the daughter. 7. In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he is an illiterate and reiterated what was said in the chief examination. It was further deposed by PW1 in his cross-examination that though the appellant/accused had tortured his daughter, he has no grievance against him consciously and if he has really got the grievance, he would have finished of his son-in- law/appellant/accused on the date of death of his daughter and would further add that prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused was living away from his daughter for about one month. PW1 was also cross-examined with regard to the lodging of FIR and he would depose that since he is an illiterate and did not know to read and write, his brother-in-law Mookkan told the Sub Inspector of Police and it was reduced into writing by PW13 and on account of his inability to read and write, he was not aware all the contents of the complaint and the police personnel had also got his thumb impression in two or three papers. 8. PW3 is the wife of PW1, mother-in-law of the appellant/accused and her chief examination is in consonance with the testimony of her husband namely, PW1. 8. PW3 is the wife of PW1, mother-in-law of the appellant/accused and her chief examination is in consonance with the testimony of her husband namely, PW1. In the cross-examination, she would state that she was not directly aware of the fact of torture inflicted on her daughter by her son- in-law under the influence of Alcohol and would further state that on the date of demise of her daughter, police came and examined her and she has also subscribed his signature. Subsequently also, she was examined and she has also deposed about the torture and ill-treatment undergone by her daughter in the hands of her husband. PW4 who informed about the condition of her daughter turned hostile. PW5 is a neighbour of PWs 1 and 3 and in the chief examination, she would depose that the appellant/accused under the influence of Alcohol used to ill-treat his wife namely, Sutha and on a particular day, he was armed with weapon and there was altercation which resulted in injury to the elder brother of Sutha. In the cross-examination, PW5 would depose that the deceased Sutha was competent and also beautiful and she was a strong-willed person and used to give advice. She would further state that Sutha was staying in her parental home to take treatment on account of the physical abuse leaded out to her by her husband namely, the appellant/accused and she has further deposed about the happenings that took place after the marriage with the appellant/accused. PW8 is the Doctor who conducted Autopsy on the body of the deceased and on receipt of the body of the deceased on 22.09.2004 has noted the following features:- "A ligature mark 16x3 cm seen on the front of neck, with a gap of 23 cm on the sides and back of neck. The ligature mark is 5 cm below the symphysis menti, 5 cm below and front of right mastioid, 4 cm below and front of the left mastoid. On bloodless dissection of neck: The base of the ligature mark is white and hard. No extravasations of blood seen in the superficial or deeper planes of the neck. Peritoneal and pleural cavities: Empty. Heart: Flabby. Decomposing. Lungs: Decomposing. Hyoid bone: Intact. Stomach: Contains 10 ml of decomposing fluid Mucosa. Decomposing. Small intestine: Contains 10 ml of decomposing fluid. Mucosa: Decomposing. Liver, spleen and kidneys: decomposing. Bladder: Empty. Uterus: Decomposing. Cut Section: Empty. No extravasations of blood seen in the superficial or deeper planes of the neck. Peritoneal and pleural cavities: Empty. Heart: Flabby. Decomposing. Lungs: Decomposing. Hyoid bone: Intact. Stomach: Contains 10 ml of decomposing fluid Mucosa. Decomposing. Small intestine: Contains 10 ml of decomposing fluid. Mucosa: Decomposing. Liver, spleen and kidneys: decomposing. Bladder: Empty. Uterus: Decomposing. Cut Section: Empty. Brain: Pulpy." 9. Ex.P8 is the postmortem report and in Ex.P3-Forensic Science Report, final opinion has been given that the deceased would appear to have died of hanging. The examination of viscera for poison is negative. In the cross- examination, PW8 would depose that the death would have occurred about three days prior to the autopsy. PW15 is the Revenue Divisional Officer who conducted the inquest and in the cross-examination, he has deposed that PW1 as well as PW3 during the enquiry has spoken about the abusive words used by the appellant/accused. PW17 who conducted the initial investigation, in his cross-examination would state that PWs 1 and 3 and other witnesses made very many improvements with regard to the demand of cash and jewels on the part of the appellant/accused from that of their statements recorded during investigation. It is further deposed that the said witnesses did not state any thing about the torture and physical ill-treatment to Sutha just prior to her demise. 10. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the charge framed by the trial court that about four months prior to the occurrence, Sutha has told his father/PW1 about the ill-treatment at the hands of her husband who also told her that when he wanted partition/share of his property, his parents told him to leave out of the matrimonial wedlock and that is why she has been subjected to physical abuse. 11. It is the primordial submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that material witnesses namely, PWs 1, 3 and 5 had made very many improvements from that of their statements recorded during investigation and also invited the attention of this Court to cross-examination of PW17. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW17 would disclose that the said witnesses made improvements from that of their statements recorded during investigation, especially with regard to the physical abuse on the part of the appellant/accused to Sutha. 12. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW17 would disclose that the said witnesses made improvements from that of their statements recorded during investigation, especially with regard to the physical abuse on the part of the appellant/accused to Sutha. 12. No doubt, the witnesses were examined nearly after two years from the date of occurrence, but the fact remains PWs 1 and 3 being the parents of the deceased, ought to have remembered the torture and ill-treatment given by the appellant/accused to their daughter namely, Sutha. A perusal of cross- examination of PW17 from pages 67 to 69 of the typed set of documents would disclose that there was no demand of cash and jewels on the part of the appellant/accused and with regard to the physical abuse and ill-treatment, the deceased did not tell her parents about it one day prior to her suicide on 20.09.2004. 13. In the light of the said improvements during their testimonies, this Court is unable to believe their version about the commission of the offence on the part of the appellant/accused. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P1 itself is doubtful and that the place of occurrence has been shifted. However, this Court is unable to agree with the said submission, for the reason that admittedly PW1 is an illiterate person and his immediate concern would be to save the life of his daughter and that is why, on advice, he has taken her daughter initially to Siddha Doctor and thereafter to PW2 who declared her dead on arrival. The FIR is also registered by PW15 without any loss of time and therefore Ex.P1 as well as Ex.P7 cannot be doubtful. 14. As regards the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the shifting of the place of occurrence, it is the categorical testimony of PW1 that immediately after PW2 declared her as dead, she was taken to her matrimonial home and having found that the house was locked, she was taken to her parental home and therefore, it cannot be said that the place of occurrence is shifted. 15. 15. The scope of Section 306 IPC came up for consideration in the judgments in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in 2001 (9) SCC 618 and Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750 = 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 917. In the said judgments, Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and Section 107 IPC were also considered and also the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73 , State of W.B vs. Orilal Jaiswal, wherein, it has been held, "If it appears to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 16. As already pointed out, a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of PWs 1, 3 and 5 do not establish that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been made out against the appellant/accused. No doubt, the death of the daughter of PWs 1 and 3 had occurred within two years from the date of marriage and at the time of tragic demise, she had a girl child aged 7 months. However, the prosecution through the testimonies of witnesses and exhibits have failed to establish the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC on the part of the appellant/accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions, made a fair submission that the appellant/accused made attempts to get the custody of the child and since it did not fructify in spite of his best efforts, he has married for the second time and the appellant/accused is also ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the minor child Amutha in interest bearing recurring deposit in a Nationalised Bank and maintain the same till the girl child attains majority, so that the matured amount can be paid to her. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused on instructions, is placed on record and this Court hopes and trusts that the appellant/accused will adhere to the said undertaking made before this Court. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 17.05.2007 in S.C.No.153/2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Court Division, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The bail bond stands terminated and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.