Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 06.06.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2005, titled as State Versus Renuka Devi & others, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that deceased Hem Singh was working as a Junior Supervisor with the Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NJPC). In the year 2003, he was posted at a place known as Jhakri. Deceased solemnized love marriage with Renuka Devi (accused No.1), sometime in the year 1998. From the wedlock two children were born. Both the husband and wife would often quarrel with each other. Also accused Renuka Devi wanted to take control of all finances. In effect, accused Renuka Devi alongwith her brothers, co-accused, Sat Pal (accused No.2) and Yashpal (accused No.3) subjected the deceased to cruelty and abetted him to commit suicide on 29.09.2003. Prosecution also wants the Court to believe that on 27.09.2003, co-accused Sat Pal, who had come to stay with the deceased, demanded money and picked up a quarrel which incident was witnessed by the maid servant Premi Devi (PW.8). On the complaint of Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW.1), police registered an FIR No.124 of 2003 dated 30.09.2003 (Ex.PW.15/C) under the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC at Police Station, Jhakri, against the accused. Investigation was conducted by police officials SI Vidya Chand (PW.15) and Inspector Phool Chand (PW.18). The incident of deceased jumping into the river and committing suicide was witnessed by Narayan (PW.2), Rakesh Chandel (PW.3) and Rattan Lal (PW.4). With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which accused Renuka Devi took the following defence:- “Sh. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which accused Renuka Devi took the following defence:- “Sh. Hem Singh was having abnormal behavior and in the evening whenever we wanted to go to Rampur he used to comment that the people wanted to kill him and during nights he never switched off the lights which were normally switched off by me. He used to woke me up during nights and used to say that somebody was outside the window who wanted to kill me and I should sleep on side the bed, sit or draw curtains. I used to teach children of Smt. Bindu Chandel and she wanted to come close to my husband and I found that she wanted to be intimate with my husband which was not to my liking. Smt. Bindu Chandel did not pay tuition fee to me, despite request and got furious. My father in law used to demand money regularly from my husband and my husband even used to take my salary for sending to them on demand. My husband used to be under stress on telephonic call from my father in law as he used to say that his father may disinherit him.” Other co-accused took plea of false implication. Four witnesses were examined by the accused in their defence. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard M/s Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so as to constitute the charged offence. 8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: “(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in – ‘Sheo Swarup v. Emperor’, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: “Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.” 9. The fact that deceased committed suicide and was not murdered is not in dispute. 10. The apex Court in M. Mohan Versus State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 has held, “sui” to mean “self” and “cide” to mean “killing”, thus implying an act of self-killing. 11. It is also a settled proposition of law that to attract ingredients of offence of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. The act of abetment is thus sine-qua- non for invocation of provisions of Section 306 IPC. 12. Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW.1) and Uttam Singh (PW.9), parents of the deceased, have no where disclosed that accused wanted to take control of the finances of the deceased. On the contrary, officials of NJPC, who were colleagues of the deceased, have categorically deposed that salary was directly remitted into the bank account of the deceased, which only he would operate. We find through the testimonies of N.D. Negi (DW.4), Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Branch Jhakri, accused to have established that even her bank account was in fact being operated by the deceased himself. Thus, there is no evidence on record, establishing the fact that accused Renuka Devi attempted or desired of taking over the control of the assets or the salary of the deceased. On the other hand, we find, through the testimony of Smt. Seema Kumari (PW.14) that entire benefits, were released in favour of Smt. Nirmala Devi, mother of the deceased, on the basis of legal heirs certificate, so produced by her. Noticeably, complainant, who is the mother of the deceased, has not even reflected the children (minor) born out of the wedlock to be the legal heirs. 13. It is also alleged that on 27.09.2003, brothers of accused Renuka Devi, who are also the accused persons, came and stayed at Jhakri and demanded money for solemnizing a function in their house. Now except for the testimony of Premi Devi (PW.8), there is no other evidence (documentary or oral) on record to this effect. 14. 13. It is also alleged that on 27.09.2003, brothers of accused Renuka Devi, who are also the accused persons, came and stayed at Jhakri and demanded money for solemnizing a function in their house. Now except for the testimony of Premi Devi (PW.8), there is no other evidence (documentary or oral) on record to this effect. 14. We find testimony of Premi Devi not to be inspiring in confidence at all, apart from the fact that Investigating Officer Phool Chand (PW.18), himself admits to have introduced her as a witness during investigation. He states that “……..It is correct that Smt. Premi Devi was introduced by us and actually she was not female servant of the deceased Hem Singh. It is correct that from the statements of the witnesses Dr. Jagat Ram, Tameshwar, SI and Avtar Singh it can be said that Hem Singh at that time was mentally disturbed. I also received the treatment slip and reference letter of the doctor by which Hem Singh was referred to the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. I did not take the account statements of Sh. Hem Singh and Renuka from the banks at Jhakri. I cannot say that Sh. Hem Singh was mentally disturbed and due to this, he committed suicide. I have not filed any final report in this case.” 15. Premi Devi is supposed to have stayed in the house of deceased, as a maid servant only for a period of one month and twelve days prior to the incident. She states that on 27.09.2003 accused Sat Pal came to the house of the deceased and at about 3.00 AM in the night, she noticed accused Renuka Devi and deceased quarrelling with each other. A demand of 20,000/-, two Karas and some gold ornaments was raised. Who raised the demand, she does not state. She categorically does not ascribe any role to the co-accused. She further states that Hem Singh resisted the same on the ground that even in the past he had been giving enough money to her brothers and nothing was left with him. Now we do not find this version of hers to be anywhere recorded by the police. There is improvement / exaggeration / embellishment. Veracity of her statement, itself is in doubt, in view of the statement of the Investigating Officer. There is no other evidence proving employment of Premi Devi as a maid servant. Now we do not find this version of hers to be anywhere recorded by the police. There is improvement / exaggeration / embellishment. Veracity of her statement, itself is in doubt, in view of the statement of the Investigating Officer. There is no other evidence proving employment of Premi Devi as a maid servant. Noticeably Hem Singh never disclosed such fact to his mother or any other relative. 16. The question, which needs to be further considered, is as to whether prosecution has been able to establish, through the testimonies of Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW.1), Rakesh Chandel (PW.3), Bindu Chandel (PW.5), Surjeet Singh (PW.6) and Jyoti Prakash (PW.12) that the accused abetted the crime or not. 17. At this juncture, we take notice of the testimonies of defence witnesses on the question of mental state of the deceased. Dr. J.R. Thakur (DW.1) has categorically deposed that on 19.05.2003, at about 6.00 AM, he saw a person whom he identified to be the deceased, throwing pieces of glass and stones. Deceased also climbed the roof of his house. Since the behaviour was abnormal, police was called for help. Such version is corroborated by Attar Singh (DW.3). 18. That deceased was suffering from acute schizophrenia stands witnessed by prosecution witness Dr. R.L. Gupta (PW.7), according to whom, he had referred the deceased, through the Chief Medical Officer, for treatment to the IGMC Hospital at Shimla. 19. Dr. Hardayal Chauhan (PW.11) does state that he did examine the deceased but found him to be normal. But the fact of the matter is that all was not well with the mental state of the deceased. He had to undergo medical treatment at two places. He may have become normal when so examined by this person. According to the mother, accused wanted the deceased to be declared insane for getting the monetary benefits and as such, on one occasion, noticed the deceased tied with a rope by the accused. We do not find such version to be believable. Had it been so, deceased would have not come from Kullu/Jhakri to Shimla for showing himself at the State level Hospital. In fact the defence taken by the accused to some extent stands probablized. 20. Prosecution also wants the Court to believe that accused Renuka Devi used to constantly quarrel with the deceased, which prompted him to take away his life. In fact the defence taken by the accused to some extent stands probablized. 20. Prosecution also wants the Court to believe that accused Renuka Devi used to constantly quarrel with the deceased, which prompted him to take away his life. We find the testimony of Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW.1), Rakesh Chandel (PW.3), Bindu Chandel (PW.5), Surjeet Singh (PW.6) and Jyoti Prakash (PW.12) to be vague on the issue. One cannot forget that marriage was solemnized in the year 1998. No complaint whatsoever, of any nature, was ever lodged by the deceased with any person with regard to any acts of cruelties/maltreatment. In fact, mother of the deceased admits that on most of the occasions she used to reside with the parties at Jhakri. In any event her version of such quarrels is vague and unspecific with respect to time, nature, duration and place. Also mother admits that 4-5 days prior to the incident, she had left for her native place. 21. What was that immediate cause, which prompted the deceased to have committed suicide has not come on record. In fact it has come on record, as also is the prosecution case, that on the fateful day, in his car, deceased himself took his wife and children for visiting the temple. However, after driving for some distance, he suddenly stopped the vehicle on the side and went towards the river and jumped from the boulder. None of the witnesses have deposed that on the fateful day, deceased and the accused had quarrelled. Though it has come in the testimony of Bindu Chandel that the previous night, accused and the deceased quarrelled and she had also noticed scratch marks on his face. But the question is whether version of this witness is believable or not. In our considered view, no. This we say so for the reason that she never ever informed anyone about the same. Accused Renuka Devi was employed as a teacher at DPS School, Jhakri. Children of Bindu Chandel were also studying in the same school, yet no grievance was made with any person. In fact, witness admits that she had no knowledge of any quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which took place the night preceding the fateful day. Thus, she contradicts herself. 22. Uttam Singh (PW.9), father of the deceased, states that even Bhupinder Singh, father of accused Renuka had threatened of murdering the deceased. In fact, witness admits that she had no knowledge of any quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which took place the night preceding the fateful day. Thus, she contradicts herself. 22. Uttam Singh (PW.9), father of the deceased, states that even Bhupinder Singh, father of accused Renuka had threatened of murdering the deceased. But then such version has emerged for the first time, only in Court. Bhupinder Singh is not an accused. This witness produced a letter (Ex.PW.9/A), allegedly written by the deceased, so found by him two years prior to his deposition in Court. But this document is absolutely inadmissible in evidence. Mere exhibiting of a document would not prove contents thereof. Father does state that letter was written by his son, but then prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the author of the same and the letter is not despatched in the normal course of business/routine. After all deceased was employed with a Public Sector undertaking and his hand writing could have been matched with the material, contemporaneous in nature, which was easily available. Father does not even remember the date when he handed over this letter to the prosecution. In any event contents of the letter do not reveal any act of abetment. 23. None of the witnesses, in our considered view, have been able to establish the essential ingredients, required for constituting an offence of abetment. Mere daily quarrels and discords cannot be termed as abetment, forcing the deceased to commit suicide. 24. On the contrary, we find that accused Renuka Devi, who loved her husband, despite his mental state, not only continued to reside with him, but also gave birth and brought up his children. 25. To our mind, prosecution has not been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that suicide was abetted by the accused. 26. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 27. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 27. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.