JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants in Crl. A. [MD].No.581 of 2006 are the accused in S.C.No.32 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. The respondent in Crl. A. [MD].No.618 of 2007 is the third accused in the said case. They stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 176 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 13.12.2006, the Trial Court acquitted the third accused and convicted the accused 1, 2 and 4. For the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, the accused 1, 2, and 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were acquitted of the rest of the charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1, 2 and 4 have come up with Crl. A. [MD].No.581 of 2006. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the third accused, the State has come up with Crl. A. [MD].No.618 of 2007. That is how, these two Criminal Appeals are before this Court for disposal. 2. Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Judgment, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Sarmila Banu. PW-1 is her brother and PW-2 is her father. PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 are mother, sister and brother respectively of the deceased. They all belong to Alangudi Village. The marrigae between the deceased and the first accused was celebrated on 12.01.2003. The third accused is the brother of the first accused and the second accused is the wife of the third accused. The fourth accused is the yet another sister's husband of the first accused. They were residing in Nijam Colony in Pudukkottai. At the time of marriage, 163 sovereigns of gold jewels, movable properties, worth about Rs.5,00,000/-, besides a cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- for purchase of the car were all presented to the bride and bridegroom. The fourth accused is the yet another sister's husband of the first accused. They were residing in Nijam Colony in Pudukkottai. At the time of marriage, 163 sovereigns of gold jewels, movable properties, worth about Rs.5,00,000/-, besides a cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- for purchase of the car were all presented to the bride and bridegroom. The sisters of the first accused were also presented two sovereigns of gold jewels each and Rs.10,000/- each, as per the custom prevailing in their community. The accused 1 to 3 were residing as a joint family. It is alleged that when they were residing together, the first accused used to stay back in his business place for the whole day and come very late in the night. This was not to the liking of the deceased. While so, the accused 1 to 3, according to the case of the prosecution, for the purpose of expanding the business of the first accused, asked the deceased to get a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan from her father and brother. Accordingly, the deceased had secured loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and gave the same to the first accused. Thereafter, in the month of July 2003, the accused 1 to 4 told the deceased that for the purpose of purchasing a share in the Venkateshwara Polytechnic, the first accused was in a need of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The deceased told her father about the same. But, her father declined to pay the said amount. The above act of the accused 1 to 4 in asking the deceased to get a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, according to the case of the prosecution, would amount to an offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3.1. It is further alleged that on 26.06.2004, at about 09.30 AM, when the deceased had been alone at home, on account of the above mental torture, she committed suicide by hanging. This was intimated to the parents of the deceased. PW-1 and all his family members rushed to Pudukkottai. They had suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased. But, the third accused was not available, on the said day at Pudukkottai, since he had gone to Coutralam. They were waiting for his arrival. This was intimated to the parents of the deceased. PW-1 and all his family members rushed to Pudukkottai. They had suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased. But, the third accused was not available, on the said day at Pudukkottai, since he had gone to Coutralam. They were waiting for his arrival. In the meanwhile, on some information, PW-24, the Head Constable and PW-25, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Ganesh Nager Police Station, were asked by the Inspector of Police to go to the house of the deceased and to find out as to what had happened. When they went there, they found that there was some tense situation in the house. They found the dead body of the deceased lying on a bench. When PW-25 informed the Inspector of Police about the same, he directed the police officials to get a complaint from one of the relatives of the deceased. But, nobody came forward to make any complaint. Therefore, they returned to the Police Station. Thereafter, a Jamath Meeting was conducted by the local Jamathars, in which PW-7, PW-8 and PW-12 participated. During such meeting, according to the evidence available, the deceased party demanded return of the loan amount and also the articles, including the jewels. In the panchayat, they were all returned. Then, the body was ceremoniously buried. 3.2. Thereafter, on 08.09.2004, PW-2 made a complaint to the Inspector of Police, attached to the Ganesh Nager Police Station, against all these accused alleging that he had suspicion over the death of the deceased. In fact, in the complaint, he has made lot of allegations of dowry demand, harassment and abetment to commit suicide. PW-30, the then Inspector of Police, attached to Ganesh Nager Police Station, on receipt of such complaint, registered a case in Crime No.491 of 2004 for suspicious death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then, he forwarded the First Information Report and the complaint to the Court and made a request to the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold an enquiry as required under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.3. PW-29, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, took up the task of holding the inquest. On 26.06.2004, he exhumed the body in the presence of the family members of the deceased as well as the panchayatars and conducted inquest. EX-P12 is the inquest report. 3.3. PW-29, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, took up the task of holding the inquest. On 26.06.2004, he exhumed the body in the presence of the family members of the deceased as well as the panchayatars and conducted inquest. EX-P12 is the inquest report. During such inquest, PW-1 and his family members had alleged that there was dowry demand, harassment and on account of the same, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. PW-26, Dr. A. Karthikeyan, was present at the time when the body was exhumed. He was the Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at Trichy. He conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries. “Hyoid bone - fracture and dislocation on both sides of the body, at the junction with the greater cornu -Ante-mortem in nature”. 3.4. Shortly, thereafter, the investigation was transferred to PW-31, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up the case for investigation, as per the orders of the Director General of Police. On 24.12.2004, she went to the place of occurrence and verified the correctness of the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch prepared by PW-30. She examined the prosecution witnesses on various dates. She collected the postmortem certificate and the final opinion from PW-29. Since the said opinion was not as clear as it could be, she forwarded all the relevant medical records, including the postmortem certificate to PW-19 for second opinion. 3.5. PW-19, Dr. P. Ravishankar, the then Professor of the Head of the Department of the Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, gave final opinion. According to him, Dr. A. Karthikeyan, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, had not conducted any chemical analysis in respect of the hyoid bone. Apart from the above, since the body was highly decomposed and since there was subluxation, the opinion regarding the cause of death cannot be given. In other words, according to him, whether the death was due to suicide by hanging or not cannot be stated. Thereafter, PW-31 filed the final report against the accused. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and 13 documents were exhibited, besides five Material Objects. 3.6. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and 13 documents were exhibited, besides five Material Objects. 3.6. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, who are the family members of the deceased, have spoken about the performance of the marriage, presentation of the articles, the loan secured from the father of the deceased, which was given to the first accused and the displeasure with which the deceased was residing. PW-5 and PW-6, who are the friends of the deceased, have stated that on one occasion, the deceased told them that she was not happily living at the house of her husband, because her husband used to stay back in his business place for the whole day and come very late in the night. She has further stated that the inmates of the house used to extract more work from her. PW-3, Dr. D. Indira Mathiyalagan, is running a private clinic in Pudukkottai. On 26.06.2004, when she was requested to come to the house of the deceased to examine her, she did not come. PW-4, Dr. K. Shanmugasundaram, examined the deceased and declared her dead. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-12 are the family members, who have spoken about the panchayat held and the settlement of the dispute regarding the articles and cash and the death of the deceased. PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. During the course of investigation, since the dead body was highly decomposed and almost skeletenized, the skull was sent for superimposition test. PW-17, Mrs.Alarmel Mangai, the Scientific Assistant, Anthropology Department of the Forensic Lab, Chennai, gave opinion that the skull tallied with the photograph of the deceased. Thus, according to her, the prosecution has stated that the dead body, which was exhumed by the Revenue Divisonal officer, was that of the deceased. The others are the official witnesses. PW-23 is the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, according to her, the prosecution has stated that the dead body, which was exhumed by the Revenue Divisonal officer, was that of the deceased. The others are the official witnesses. PW-23 is the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW-31 has spoken about the investigation done by her and PW-30 has spoken about the registration of the case and the preliminary investigation done by him. 3.7. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. On their side, two witnesses were examined, who have stated that the deceased was living happily and there was no misunderstanding. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the third accused and convicted the appellants 1 2 and 4, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. [MD].No.581 of 2006 and the respondent in Crl. A. [MD].No.618 of 2007, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that absolutely, there is no evidence to attract either the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code or the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He would take me through the evidences of the family members of the deceased, who have all, in one voice, stated that at the time of marriage, 163 sovereigns of gold jewels, movable properties, worth about Rs. 5,00,000/-, besides a cash of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of the car were all presented to the bride and bridegroom. The sisters of the first accused were also presented two sovereigns of gold jewels each and Rs.10,000/- each, as per the customs prevailing in their community. 6. Assuming that these presentations were made, there is nothing to indicate that they were mean to be dowry and that they were presented out of the demand made by the appellants. It is in evidence that after the marriage, the deceased was living in a joint family. 6. Assuming that these presentations were made, there is nothing to indicate that they were mean to be dowry and that they were presented out of the demand made by the appellants. It is in evidence that after the marriage, the deceased was living in a joint family. The first accused was running a business. According to the evidences, after the marriage, the accused 1 to 3 were urging the deceased to secure loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from her father for the purpose of business of the first accused, which was, accordingly, secured from her father and given to the first accused. There is no denial on this aspect. But, securing loan from the father-in-law would not amount to dowry and the same has got nothing to do with the marriage. As defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, dowry means, any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at the time of marriage or in connection with the marriage. In this case, the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- would not amount to dowry and virtually, there is no evidence regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and on account of the same, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. In fact, the above said loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was repaid, after the death of the deceased, that too, in the presence of the panchayatars. It is in evidence that subsequently, for the purpose of purchasing the shares in Venkateshwara Polytechnic, the first accused was in a need of Rs.30,00,000/-. The deceased told her father about the same. But, her father declined to pay the same. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence that this amount was asked in connection with the marriage. Thus, there is no evidence to convict the accused under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Apart from the above, immediately, after the occurrence, when the family members of the deceased had arrived, they did not choose to make any complaint to the police, though two police officers visited the scene of occurrence and wanted them to give any complaint, if they had suspicion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. This itself would go to show that as an afterthought, after a period of three and half months, PW-1 made the complaint to the police. This itself would go to show that as an afterthought, after a period of three and half months, PW-1 made the complaint to the police. The panchayatars, who have been examined, have also stated that on the date of death of the deceased, the family members of the deceased wanted only the refund of the loan amount and return of the marriage presentations and there were no allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment or suspicion regarding the death of the deceased. This would go to show that the prosecution has not come forward with true version. 8. Now, turning to the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the cause of death plays a vital role in this case. In order to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is absolutely necessary that the prosecution should prove that the deceased died by hanging. In this case, two doctors have been examined. PW-26, Dr. A. Karthikeyan, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, has given opinion stating that the deceased would have died by hanging by committing suicide. This opinion is based on the fact that there was a fracture in the hyoid bone. According to him, the said fracture is antemortem. Admittedly, the body was highly decomposed and the same could not even be identified, as the same became skeletenized. PW-31 was not satisfied with the said opinion. That is the reason why, she forwarded all the medical records to PW-19 for further opinion. PW-19, Dr. P. Ravishankar, the then Professor and the Head of the Department of the Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, has given opinion that the cause of death of the deceased cannot be stated. The reason given is that only from the fracture of hyoid bone, it cannot be stated that the death was due to strangulation or hanging. According to him, by means of scientific analysis, it should be further proved that such fracture was antemortem. But, no such chemical analysis was done in respect of the fracture on the hyoid bone. Thus, according to him, the so-called fracture noticed by PW-26, Dr. A. Karthikeyan, may even be subluxation, which is due to natural cause. Thus, according to him, the cause of death cannot be stated. However, the prosecution still wants to rely on the evidences of these two doctors. Thus, according to him, the so-called fracture noticed by PW-26, Dr. A. Karthikeyan, may even be subluxation, which is due to natural cause. Thus, according to him, the cause of death cannot be stated. However, the prosecution still wants to rely on the evidences of these two doctors. When PW-19 has given one opinion, whereas PW-26 contradicts the same, the benefit arising out of the same should be given to the accused. As a result, it is to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. 9. Assuming that the deceased committed suicide by hanging, the cause for the suicide, in this case, should be proved to be on account of abetment on the part of these accused. Abetment is of three types. The first one is instigation; the second one is conspiracy and the third one is intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide. In this case, it is not the case that there was conspiracy. It is not the case that the accused aided the deceased to commit suicide. At the most, the prosecution can plead that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. But, to prove such kind of instigation, absolutely, there is no evidence available. 10. From the evidences of PW-5 and PW-6, it could only be inferred that the deceased was not happy in her life. They are the friends of the deceased. On few occasions, after the morning, they had met the deceased at the house of the accused. On all these occasions, she had told them that she was not happy with the matrimonial life, as her husband [A-1] used to spend the entire day time in his business place and to return home only during midnight. Thus, the first accused was not devoting much time to spend at home in her company. She did not even whisper to them that she was harassed in any manner by any of the accused. Probably, dissatisfied with the marital life, she would have committed suicide. No witness has stated that the deceased was harassed and on account of the same, she would have committed suicide. In a case of this nature, it is absolutely necessary that the prosecution should prove mensrea on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Probably, dissatisfied with the marital life, she would have committed suicide. No witness has stated that the deceased was harassed and on account of the same, she would have committed suicide. In a case of this nature, it is absolutely necessary that the prosecution should prove mensrea on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Of course, the culpable mental state of the accused is a matter of inference. Such inference can be made not from vaccum, but from the evidence available on record. In this case, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the accused had any mensrea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. Thus, all the accused are entitled for acquittal. 11. In the result, Crl. A. [MD].No.581 of 2006 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by Judgment dated 13.12.2006, made in S.C.No.32/2006, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court], Pudukkottai, is set aside. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Crl. A. [MD].No.618 of 2007 filed by the State is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent in the said Criminal Appeal is confirmed.