Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2103 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sardeep Kumar

2016-09-30

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Trial No. 20/2010 dated 06.05.2010, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that deceased Reeta Devi sister of complainant Shamsher Singh was married to accused Sardeep Kumar in the year 2003. Co-accused Jagtamba was the mother-in-law of the deceased. After two years of marriage, accused started torturing Reeta Devi. They used to tease her over day-to-day domestic work and whenever Reeta used to visit the complainant, she used to narrate the said conduct of the accused to him. As per the prosecution, the deceased was maltreated by the accused who used to give her beatings and she was also not provided proper food and clothes. In this regard, Shamsher had also made a complaint to Ex-Vice President Karam Chand. On 17.05.2009 complainant received phone call from Reeta to the effect that accused Sardeep had beaten her under the influence of liquor and she had been abused by both the accused. She further told the complainant that the accused were asking her to leave the matrimonial house. Before this, the complainant had lodged a complaint with Pradhan, Aberi Gram Panchayat, Pawan Kumar, who thereafter went alongwith the complainant to the house of the accused and asked them to behave properly. However, the accused did not mend their ways. On 19.05.2009 at 1.00 P.M. complainant received a phone call from his aunt, Judhiya Devi to the effect that Reeta had consumed poison and had become unconscious. Consequently , complainant alongwith his brother Amit and uncle Gopal Thakur went to the house of the accused and on the way they met Judhiya Devi and Karam Chand and found that Reeta was being taken to Palampur hospital in a van. First aid was given to Reeta at Palampur however, she died after sometime. Information was accordingly provided to the police and statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on thebasis of which FIR was registered. MLC of Reeta was obtained by the police and after her death, postmortem was conducted. Packet of one medicine was recovered from the house of Reeta. Information was accordingly provided to the police and statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on thebasis of which FIR was registered. MLC of Reeta was obtained by the police and after her death, postmortem was conducted. Packet of one medicine was recovered from the house of Reeta. Viscera and other case property were sent to FSL, Junga and Chemical Examiner’s report was obtained which revealed that the cause of death of Reeta was poisoning. Thereafter, Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared site map. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary, it was held by learned trial Court that prosecution had failed to prove the liability of the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. beyond the scope of all reasonable doubts. It was held by learned trial Court that the deceased was sensitive and she could not sustain the pressure of day to day married life and was unable to bear the pressure of routine married discord which otherwise occurred in routine n married life. It was further held by learned trial Court that rutine married life differences cannot be termed as cruelty and on these basis, it was concluded by learned trial Court that the deceased had committed suicide due to her sensitive nature and it had got nothing to do with the behaviour of accused towards her. It was also held by the learned trial Court that there was no cogent and convincing evidence against the accused to connect them with the offences in question. On these basis, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has strenuously argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court was perverse and not sustainable in law. On these basis, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has strenuously argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court was perverse and not sustainable in law. He argued that learned trial Court had discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of enmity and further no cogent reasons were assigned by learned trial Court for discarding the version of prosecution witnesses. It was further urged by him that learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that there was sufficient cogent and convincing material on record to establish the liability of the accused persons. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the testimony of PW-1 Shamsher Singh fully corroborated the case of the prosecution, however, statement of this witness alongwith witnesses PW-2 Gopal Thakur and PW-3 Pawan Kumar, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, was brushed aside by learned trial Court without properly evaluating them. Mr. Chauhan further argued that learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was neither cogent nor reliable or trustworthy so as to be made the basis for convicting the accused. It was further urged by him that a perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court would demonstrate that learned trial Court in detail had taken note of the entire evidence on record and after minute scrutiny of the same it had held, and rightly so, that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. Maniktala that there was no merit in the present appeal and the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court did not warrant any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by learned trial Court. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. 9. Complainant Shamsher Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and he stated that they were four brothers and sisters and his parents were dead. He further deposed that his sister Reeta was married to accused Sardeep in the year 2003 at Bhoura Tappa. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. 9. Complainant Shamsher Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and he stated that they were four brothers and sisters and his parents were dead. He further deposed that his sister Reeta was married to accused Sardeep in the year 2003 at Bhoura Tappa. He further stated that for two years of marriage behaviour of the accused persons with his sister remained good. However, thereafter the accused started beating his sister as they used to say that she did not work in the house. This witness further deposed that his sister had told him about the torture being meted out to her by the accused persons when she visited his house. He further deposed that he and his younger brother Amit had gone to the house of the accused to make them understand many times. He further stated that he asked the accused not to beat his sister and whenever there is any problem, they could talk to him. He further deposed that the accused did not mend their ways and Reeta Devi had told the occurrence of beating to her uncle father-in-law who was Ex-Vice-President of the Panchayat, who tried to make the accused understand, however, the accused did not change their behaviour. This witness further stated that on 17.05.2009 his sister telephoned him and told him that both the accused were quarrelling with her and accused Sardeep was under the influence of liquor and saying why was’nt she dead. He further deposed that he narrated said occurrence to his younger brother Amit and then he telephonically told his sister that they would come within one or two days. He further deposed that he had told the aforesaid occurrence of beating to the President of his Gram Panchayat Pawan Kumar Pappa. He also deposed that he alongwith President Pawan Kumar Pappa and his brother Amit had gone to the house of accused and had tried to make the accused understand but they did not agree with them. He further deposed that on 19.05.2009 his aunt Judhiya Devi telephonically informed him that his sister had consumed poison. This witness further stated that at that time he was on duty at Holta. He telephoned his uncle Gopal as well as his brother Amit and came to Banuri from olta where his uncle and brother met him. He further deposed that on 19.05.2009 his aunt Judhiya Devi telephonically informed him that his sister had consumed poison. This witness further stated that at that time he was on duty at Holta. He telephoned his uncle Gopal as well as his brother Amit and came to Banuri from olta where his uncle and brother met him. He further stated that from there they went in their car to the house of accused. This witness further deposed that they met his aunt Judhiya and her husband Prabhat. Karam Chand was also with hem and they had brought Reeta from the house to road. A cording to him, Reeta was put in one van by said persons An they told them that Reeta was being taken to Palampur hospital. He further stated that Reeta was brought to Palampur hospital, however, she died there after sometime. He also stated that on that very date he had made a phone call to his sister but she had not picked up his phone. He also deposed that in his view his sister had consumed poison as a result of illtreatment meted out to her by the accused persons. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted it to be correct that on 19.05.2009 Sardeeep was out of the house in connection with his duty. He also admitted it to be correct that Jagtamba was residing separately with her younger son Sunil. He also admitted it to be correct that they had not lodged any written complaint before the Panchayat against the accused and self stated that an oral complaint was made. He also stated in his cross-examination that they had not lodged any complaint against the accused before the police. He admitted it to be correct that after the alleged beating given to his sister by the accused they did not carry out any medical examination of his sister. He further admitted it to be correct that last rites of Reeta were performed by her in-laws. 10. Gopal Thakur entered the witness box as PW-2 and this witness deposed that he knew Reeta Devi and her brothers. He also stated that Shamsher brother of Reeta had told him that accused persons used to beat Reeta and they also used to say that Reeta did not know any household work. 10. Gopal Thakur entered the witness box as PW-2 and this witness deposed that he knew Reeta Devi and her brothers. He also stated that Shamsher brother of Reeta had told him that accused persons used to beat Reeta and they also used to say that Reeta did not know any household work. He also deposed that Shamsher had also told him that accused persons were not providing food and clothes to her. He further stated that once he had gone to the house of accused alongwith Shamsher, Amit and Pawan, Pradhan. He also stated that he remained outside the house and he had gone to the house of his aunt. This witness further deposed that on 19.05.2009 Shamsher telephonically informed him that Reeta had consumed something and he had asked him to come to Banuri with a vehicle alongwith his brother Amit. He further stated that thereafter they went to the house of the accused and saw that Reeta Devi was being put inside one vehicle. He further deposed that his aunt, her husband and uncle of accused Karam Chand were there and then all of them brought Reeta to Palampur hospital where she died after 10 minutes. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that Reeta had told him once when she had come to attend the marriage of her sister that the accused persons used to beat. He further stated that he had not mentioned these facts in his statement recorded by the police. He also admitted in his cross-examination that father of Reeta was his cousin. 11. Pawan Kumar entered the witness box as PW-3 and this witness deposed that he was President of Gram Panchayat, Aberi and he knew Shamsher as well as Amit. He further deposed that he knew that Reeta was married to Sardeep and Shamsher had come to his house and had made an oral complaint that Reeta was being tortured by her husband and mother-in-law. He further stated that on this he, Shamsher, Amit and Gopal Thakur had gone to the house of the accused and had tried to make the accused understand. He further deposed that Reeta had told him that her husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor and her mother-in-law used to abuse her. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not received any written complaint in this regard. He further deposed that Reeta had told him that her husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor and her mother-in-law used to abuse her. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had not received any written complaint in this regard. He also admitted that Shamsher etc. were his voters. 12. Dr. R.K. Aluwalia entered the witness box as PW-4 and this witness deposed that since November, 1999 he was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Palampur and on 19.05.2009 at around 2.05 P.M. Reeta Devi wife of Sardeep was brought to him with the alleged history of suspected case of poison. He further stated that patient was gasping and her pulse could not be felt. He further stated that patient died at around 2.15 P.M. In his cross-examination he admitted it to be correct that when he examined Reeta Devi, no injury was found on her person. MLC issued by the said witness is on record as Ext.PW4/C. 13. Dr. Ajay Sood entered the witness box as PW-5 and this witness deposed that in May, 2009, he was posted as Medical Officer in Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur and on 20.05.2009 at the request of police he had conducted postmortem of Reeta Devi wife of Sardeep. He further stated that there was slight frothing from the mouth and there was no ligature mark seen on the neck. He also stated that there were no external injuries. This witness further deposed that in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia. This witness was re-examined on 07.01.2010 and after going through the report of State FSL, H.P. Junga, he gave his final opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to poisoning. 14. PW-6 Constable Darshan Singh, PW-7 Shanti Sawrup, PW-8 HC Jogidner Singh, PW-9 HC Vijay Kumar, PW-10 Constable Daljit Singh and PW-11 SI Jagdish, are formal witnesses. 15. Judhiya Devi entered the witness box as PW-12 and she stated that the deceased was her niece and was married to accused Sardeep about 5-6 years ago. She further stated that on the date of the death of Reeta her mother-inlaw and other accused had told her that Reeta had closed the door and therefore they had asked her to come. This witness further deposed that thereafter, one lady came and asked them to hurry up as Reeta had consumed something. She further stated that on the date of the death of Reeta her mother-inlaw and other accused had told her that Reeta had closed the door and therefore they had asked her to come. This witness further deposed that thereafter, one lady came and asked them to hurry up as Reeta had consumed something. She further stated that thereafter she went to the house of Reeta and saw her lying on the cot and was in agony. She further stated that she telephonically called to her nephew and uncle of Reeta Gopal Thakur, who reached in between 01.30/2.00 P.M. She further stated that Reeta was removed to hospital in a vehicle, however, there she expired. She also stated that whenever she used to ask Reeta, deceased used to tell her that her brothers were alone and she would be killed. She further stated that she could not say whether her niece was happy with her husband and mother-in-law. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that marriage of her niece with accused Sardeep was arranged marriage and at that time accused was working as a driver. She further stated that when Reeta died at that time also accused Sardeep was working as a driver. She admitted it to be correct that Reeta never told her that accused persons had been torturing her. 16. ASI Yogidner Paul entered the witness box as PW-13 and he deposed that on 19.05.2009 at 2.30 P.M. MHC, Police Station Palampur, HC Jogidner, telephonically informed that one lady who had consumed poison had been admitted in Palampur hospital for treatment. This witness further stated that thereafter he lodged rapat No. 10 Ext. PW10/A in the Police Post and came to Palampur hospital alongwith other police officials. He further stated that he reached the hospital at around 3.00 P.M. and came to know that Reeta had expired and her dead body was kept in the dead house. He further deposed that thereafter he went to dead house and took the photographs of dead body and also moved an application for conducing postmortem of the deceased. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Shamsher and sent Rukka through Constable Sanjiv to Police Station, Palampur. He further deposed that on the same evening he went to the spot and prepared spot map. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Shamsher and sent Rukka through Constable Sanjiv to Police Station, Palampur. He further deposed that on the same evening he went to the spot and prepared spot map. He further stated that in the presence of both the accused he searched the room and kitchen of the house and one empty packet of Sulphas was recovered from kitchen which was taken into possession. He further stated that he recorded the statements of other witnesses and also obtained the postmortem report of the deceased on the next day. In his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that it had come in the course of investigation that the marriage between deceased and accused Sardeep was arranged marriage. He also admitted it to be correct that the accused was working as a driver in a private school. He denied it to be incorrect that due to meager salary of accused, the deceased used to remain under depression. He further stated that the witnesses had told him that the deceased was unhappy as the accused used to beat her. He admitted it to be correct that Shamsher was the brother of the deceased, Gopal was the uncle and Ajudhiya Devi was the aunt of the deceased. He further stated that he had not associated any other person as a witness. He further stated that before the present FIR, no complaint was lodged with the police by the deceased. He also admitted it to be correct that when Reeta had consumed poison accused Sardeep was not present in the house. He also admitted it to be correct that when accused Sardeep came to know that Reeta had consumed poison he immediately came to the house. He also admitted it to be correct that Jagtamba was living separately with her younger son. He also admitted it to be correct that during life time of the deceased all her expenses were borne by her husband. 17. As this Court has held earlier also, it is settled law that because a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage of her marriage, presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. 17. As this Court has held earlier also, it is settled law that because a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage of her marriage, presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The mandate of the law is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty, then the presumption as defined under Section 498-A I.P.C. may attract having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. This presumption according to us is discretionary. As far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was any dowry demand. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Madivallappa V. Marabad and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 448 , that in a case where no evidence is adduced to prove any particular act of cruelty or harassment to which the deceased was subjected to and where no complaint was made to the police about any such assault or harassment before the death of the deceased, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the prosecution story was not established beyond reasonable doubt was the correct view. 19. In order to substantiate the charge framed against the accused under Selection 498-A I.P.C. it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have had adduced evidence on record to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. 20. In order to prove its case, prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Shamsher Singh, PW-2 Gopal Thakur, PW-3 Pawan Kumar and PW-12 Devi. All these witnesses except PW-3 are closely related to the deceased. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that they are interested witnesses, their testimony require to be scrutinized with lot of care and caution. 21. As per the records of this case, deceased committed suicide on 19.05.2009 during day time. FIR was lodged on 19.05.2009 on the complaint of PW-1 Shamsher Singh. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that they are interested witnesses, their testimony require to be scrutinized with lot of care and caution. 21. As per the records of this case, deceased committed suicide on 19.05.2009 during day time. FIR was lodged on 19.05.2009 on the complaint of PW-1 Shamsher Singh. It was mentioned in the said FIR that the deceased was married with accused Sardeep in the year 2003 and though the deceased was treated properly for a period of two years after her marriage but thereafter, the accused started telling the deceased that she did not know household work properly and both the accused used to physically assault the deceased and also used to harass her mentally and also used to verbally abuse her. It was further mentioned in the FIR that the deceased was not even given proper food and clothes and she disclosed these facts on various occasions to the complainant as well as his younger brother Amit Kumar. It was further mentioned in the FIR that Reeta in fact had brought this fact verbally in the notice of her husband’s uncle (Chacha) Karam Chand, Ex. Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who had taken up the matter with the accused and had made them understand but the accused did not heed to his advice also. It was further mentioned in the FIR that on 17.05.2009 Reeta telephonically informed the complainant that her husband was under the influence of liquor and both the accused had physically assaulted her as well as were verbally abusing her. It also finds mention in the FIR that the complainant had brought this fact in the notice of Pawan Kumar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Aberi, who alongwith him and his younger brother had accompanied them to the house of the accused on 2-3 occasions to make the accused understand. 22. A perusal of the testimony of PW-1 demonstrates that he has admitted in his cross-examination that accused Jagtamba, mother-in-law of the deceased, was residing separately with her younger son Sunil. This witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that they had not lodged any written complaint before the Panchayat etc. against the accused. He further admitted that they had never lodged any complaint against the accused before the police. This witness has also admitted in his cross-examination that they had not lodged any written complaint before the Panchayat etc. against the accused. He further admitted that they had never lodged any complaint against the accused before the police. It was also admitted by him that no medical examination of his sister was got conducted by them on account of her being allegedly beaten up by the accused. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the expenses of the house were borne by Sardeep and Sardeep had come back to his house at once when he came to know that Reeta had consumed poison. He also admitted it to be correct that last rites of Reeta were performed by her in-laws. 23. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the fact that both PW-4 Dr. R.K. Aluwalia, who attended upon Reeta when she was brought to the hospital at Palampur as well as PW-5 Dr. Ajay Sood, who conducted the postmortem of Reeta have in unison stated that there were no external injury found on the body of the deceased. 24. Gopal Thakur, who entered the witness box as PW-2 is a hearsay witness because it is apparent from his statement that whatsoever has been deposed by him in the Court was on the basis of knowledge gathered by him from Shamsher Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that deceased had once told him when she had come to attend the marriage of her sister that the accused persons used to beat her. However, he mentioned in his cross-examination that he had not stated these facts in his statement which was recorded by the police. It has also come on record that the father of deceased Reeta was his cousin. 25. PW-3 Pawan Kumar, President, Gram Panchayat Aberi, has stated that he knew Reeta and that Shamsher had come to his house and made an oral complaint to the effect that Reeta was tortured by the accused and on this he alongwith Shamsher, Amit and Gopal Thakur, had gone to the house of the accused. He further stated that Reeta told him that her husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor and her mother-in-law also used to abuse her. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he had not received any written complaint in this regard. He also admitted that Shamsher etc. He further stated that Reeta told him that her husband used to beat her under the influence of liquor and her mother-in-law also used to abuse her. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he had not received any written complaint in this regard. He also admitted that Shamsher etc. were his voters. 26. Judhiya Devi, who entered the witness box as PW-12, had admitted in her cross-examination that Reeta never told her that accused persons were torturing her. 27. It has come in the testimony of PW-13 ASI Yoginder Paul that when Reeta consumed poison, accused Sardeeep was not at home and he immediately came to the house when he came to know about this fact. He also admitted it to be correct that Jagtamba was living separately with her younger son. He admitted that during her life time all the expenses of Reeta were borne by Sardeep. It has also come in his cross-examination that earlier to the registration of the FIR pursuant to the suicide committed by Reeta, no complaint was lodged before the police by the deceased against the accused. 28. Karam Chand, uncle of the accused Sardeep, was not examined by the prosecution. 29. In our considered view, it stands established on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-13 that accused Jagtamba Devi was not residing with accused Sardeep but was residing separately with her younger son Sunil. Another fact which stands proved on record is that before the unfortunate commission of suicide by the deceased neither any complaint was lodged with the Panchayat nor any complaint was lodged with the police either by the deceased or by family members of the deceased to the effect that the deceased was being tortured and harassed both mentally and physically by the accused. This is apparent from the testimony of PW-1 Shamsher Singh as well as from the testimony of PW-13 Investigating Officer Yoginder Paul. 30. Therefore, save and except the bald assertions of prosecution witnesses who otherwise are interested witnesses being close relative of the deceased, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to substantiate or prove that the deceased in fact was mentally and physically harassed by the accused and accused Sardeep used to beat the deceased under the influence of liquor. It has come in the testimony of Doctors who examined Reeta that there was no external injury found on the body of Reeta Devi. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution that Reeta committed suicide as a result of her being both mentally as well as physically harassed by the accused, cannot be said to have been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence produced on record by the prosecution though casts a suspicion on the accused, however, in our considered view, howsoever strong suspicion may be the same cannot be a substitute for proof and according to us, there is no substantive evidence placed on record by the prosecution from which it can be inferred that the deceased was harassed and tortured by the accused as a result of which she committed suicide. There is no material produced on record by the prosecution from which it can be inferred that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 31. Accordingly, in our considered view, it cannot be said on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution that the case stood proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is for the reason that the allegation to the effect that deceased was maltreated and subjected to cruelty by the accused on account of demand of dowry has not at all been substantiated by the prosecution. 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sangara Bonia Sreen Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (5) SCC 348 , has held that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 306 are (a) suicidal death and (b) abetment thereof. In order to attract the ingredients of abetment the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. In order to substantiate the charge under Section 306 I.P.C., it has to be established that the death by commission of suicide was desired object of the abettors and with that in view they must have instigated, goaded, urged or encouraged the victim in commission of suicide. The instigation may be by provoking or inciting the person to commit suicide and this instigation may be gathered by positives acts done by the abettors or by omission in the doing of a thing. Thus, the acts or omission committed by the abettors immediately before the commission of suicide are vital. The instigation may be by provoking or inciting the person to commit suicide and this instigation may be gathered by positives acts done by the abettors or by omission in the doing of a thing. Thus, the acts or omission committed by the abettors immediately before the commission of suicide are vital. In the present case, the prosecution was not able to substantiate any of the above ingredients. The prosecution could not prove any act of provocation or incitement or omission or commission on the part of the accused, vide which they had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has not been able to establish any intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by learned Trial Court whereby the accused have been acquitted is either perverse or the acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court has amounted to travesty of justice. 33. Therefore, we conclude by holding that prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of the offences alleged against them. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court at length. Learned trial Court after due deliberation and due application of mind has come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. We find no reason to disagree with the said conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court. According to us also, accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.