JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Both the Appeals arise out of the same judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 29.7.2011 recording the conviction and sentence as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 is filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentence on the grounds stated in the Appeal. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 is filed by the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5, challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 29.7.2011, recording conviction and sentence, on the ground stated in the Appeal. 4. Original Accused No. 1 has not filed the Appeal as he has served the sentence. Further, Appellant No. 3 - Kaviben, D/o Lakhmanbhai Daki Koli (Original Accused No. 4) has died and therefore the Appeal would stand abated qua her. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows. 5. The daughter of the complainant was married to Accused No. 1 and they were residing in a joint family with mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. It is the case of the prosecution that after the initial period, she was ill-treated and harassment was caused to her by the accused persons, including Accused No. 1 being that he does not like her and that she has not brought any dowry. Thus, all the accused persons are said to have caused harassment, which has induced her to commit suicide, for which the complaint came to be filed being I-CR No. 29 of 2010 with Sheel Police Station, Junagadh. 6. Heard learned Advocate Shri Sunil C. Patel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 for the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and appearing for Respondents/Original Accused in Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 and learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani for the Appellant - State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 and for the Respondent - State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011. 7. Learned Advocate Shri Patel referred to the testimony of Dr. Alpesh Vrajlal PW-1 at Exh. 13 and referred to the PM report at Exh. 14 and the certificate regarding the cause of death at Exh. 15. 7. Learned Advocate Shri Patel referred to the testimony of Dr. Alpesh Vrajlal PW-1 at Exh. 13 and referred to the PM report at Exh. 14 and the certificate regarding the cause of death at Exh. 15. He also referred to the FSL report at Exh. 63 and submitted that it is confirmed that the death is caused due to poison consumed by the deceased daughter of the complainant. 8. Learned Advocate Shri Patel submitted that though the deceased has committed suicide, it is required to be considered whether the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be attracted and the court below has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record. For that purpose, he has referred to the testimony of the complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 37 and submitted that a close look at the testimony would clearly suggest that he has admitted that initially for three months, the marriage life was happy. He submitted that the marriage life was hardly about a year and few months, she had returned to the parental house. He pointedly referred to this aspect and submitted that it is also admitted that after five months, when she was sent back after compromise, the deceased daughter of the complainant had come to the parental house with her husband and had stayed there. He therefore submitted that there is no evidence, by which, it could be said that there was any abetment for suicide or necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC can be said to have established. He submitted that before the conviction could be recorded for the offence under Section 306 IPC, there has to be mens rea and there has to be a direct act, by which, it can be shown that the deceased was put in a situation that she was left with no option but to commit suicide. Learned Advocate Shri Patel submitted that in the facts of the case, there is no such evidence, and admittedly, when she was visiting the parental house, she had sufficient scope for ventilating her grievance. Learned Advocate Shri Patel has referred to the testimony of the brother PW-7 at Exh. 40 and the mother PW-8 at Exh. 42. Learned Advocate Shri Patel submitted that in the facts of the case, there is no such evidence, and admittedly, when she was visiting the parental house, she had sufficient scope for ventilating her grievance. Learned Advocate Shri Patel has referred to the testimony of the brother PW-7 at Exh. 40 and the mother PW-8 at Exh. 42. He submitted that, without any specific details, they have stated about the harassment, and therefore, the allegations are vague in nature, for which the conviction could not have been recorded. Learned Advocate Shri Patel submitted that the allegations are vague and of a routine nature and the offence under Section 498A is not established, which has not been appreciated by the court below. He therefore submitted that if the testimony of the witnesses, who are the relatives of the deceased is considered, even then the harassment amounting to cruelty has not been established. He also referred to the testimony of I.O. PW-13 and PW-14 at Exh. 57 and Exh. 58 respectively and submitted that though it has been stated that in the investigation it was not revealed that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy, for which she was under treatment, the fact remains that she was suffering from such disease. Learned Advocate Shri Patel pointedly referred to the testimony of the Complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 37 and submitted that in the cross-examination, it has been admitted that the deceased was under the treatment of one Dr. Mavani. He has stated that she was taking treatment, but for what, he is not aware, but it has been admitted that even after her marriage, she was taking the medicines. Learned Advocate Shri Patel also referred to the cross-examination of this witness and submitted that though he has stated that before the incident, he had conversation with the deceased and where the deceased has only normal talk and no other complaint was made. This is further corroborated by the testimony of the brother PW-9 at Exh. 43 when the brother has also stated that the deceased has called up and he had given it to the father, but there were no complaints. Learned Advocate Shri Patel therefore submitted that considering this aspect, even the harassment or the treatment of cruelty is not established. This is further corroborated by the testimony of the brother PW-9 at Exh. 43 when the brother has also stated that the deceased has called up and he had given it to the father, but there were no complaints. Learned Advocate Shri Patel therefore submitted that considering this aspect, even the harassment or the treatment of cruelty is not established. He submitted that, in fact, as the deceased was having Epilepsy, was tired, and therefore, due to emotions, she may have committed suicide. He also submitted that the conduct of the accused persons is required to be seen that they had immediately removed her to Kesar Hospital and thereafter to Junagadh Hospital and also informed the parents. Learned Advocate Shri Patel therefore submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat may be dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 filed by the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5 may be allowed, as the court below has not appreciated the material and evidence on record. 9. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani submitted that the testimony of the complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 37 clearly refers to the ill-treatment, as a result of which the victim had returned to the parental house. Further, the father has stated that after some compromise, he sent back the victim, which would imply that she was not happy and harassment was caused to her. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani therefore submitted that as the span of marriage life is very short, the presumption could be drawn. Further, the testimony of the complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 37 is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses like brother PW-7 at Exh. 40 and the mother PW-8 at Exh. 42 etc. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani also submitted that merely because they are relatives, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses. She also referred to the background of the facts and submitted that though the span of marriage life is about a year, the victim had returned to the parental house, and thereafter, on compromise, she was sent back. Moreover, as the things had not improved even after the compromise, it could be said that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Learned APP Ms. Moreover, as the things had not improved even after the compromise, it could be said that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Learned APP Ms. Punani therefore submitted that it was a direct and proximate cause for suicide, and as observed in the judgment, the conviction for the offence under Section 306 is just and proper. 10. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani further submitted that there is a specific averment with regard to the harassment, including the demand for dowry and also the fact that Accused No. 1 - husband is said to have stated that he does not like her. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani therefore submitted that considering the totality of the facts, the cruelty as required under Section 498A is established. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani therefore submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentence may be allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 filed by the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5 may be dismissed. 11. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 filed by the Appellants/Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5 deserve consideration and whether Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2011 filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement could be considered. 12. As it transpires, Accused No. 1 has served the sentence and therefore the focus would be on the aspect of the conviction and sentence recorded qua other Appellants i.e. Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5. 13. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and order, it does not refer to any specific allegations with regard to the harassment. It is required to be stated that the complainant father PW-6 in his testimony at Exh. 37 as stated that initially the matrimonial life was smooth for about two - three months. It is required to be stated that the span of marriage life is hardly one year and few months, and out of that, initial period was smooth, and about five months, she had returned to the parental house, and therefore, the aspect of harassment amounting to cruelty deserve close scrutiny. 14. As could be seen from the testimony of the complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 14. As could be seen from the testimony of the complainant father PW-6 at Exh. 37, though he has referred to the harassment and the ill-treatment, there are no specific allegations with regard to the manner in which the harassment was caused except stating that the harassment was caused. Therefore, though the testimony of other witnesses like brother and mother can be considered and merely because they are relatives, their evidence cannot be discarded as interested witnesses. However, taking the testimony of the other witnesses like brother PW-7 at Exh. 40, mother PW-8 at Exh. 42 and the brother PW-9 at Exh. 43, they have also stated about the harassment, but there are no specific allegations either with regard to the nature of harassment nor there are any charges with regard to the demand for dowry and as to how and on what occasion any such demand is made. Further, before the incident, the deceased had called up and had talked with her father. However, both the complainant father and the brother have stated that it was a general and cordial talk, meaning thereby there were no complaints. Thus, there is no evidence with regard to the abetment and the proximity between the abetment and the act of suicide. Thus, on one hand, when there are no specific details except the details regarding the harassment, and particularly when, out of about one year, she has stayed at the parental house for five months, there cannot be any constant harassment amounting to cruelty, which would drive a woman to commit suicide leaving no option to her. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 in case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh. "The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself." The provision of abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients are required to be established. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment has observed that "This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Govt. The ingredients are required to be established. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment has observed that "This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and 'goading'. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down nay straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances." Further, the tolerance capacity varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand the circumstances. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the cruelty was established or not. A useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 3270 - Mohd. Hoshan and another v. State of A.P. 15. Therefore, before the offence under Section 306 IPC could be attracted, mens rea or active role for abetment is required to be established. As stated herein above, taking the testimony of the complainant father and other relatives, the role or the participation for abetment by the Appellants has not been considered in the impugned judgment. A useful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 in case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the word 'suicide'. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing' thus require active act or indirect act with an intention to push the deceased to commit suicide. It is also required to be considered that the deceased is said to have suffering from Epilepsy and was under the treatment of Dr. Mavani. The complainant father PW-6 in his testimony at Exh. 37 has also admitted on this aspect. It is also required to be considered that the deceased is said to have suffering from Epilepsy and was under the treatment of Dr. Mavani. The complainant father PW-6 in his testimony at Exh. 37 has also admitted on this aspect. It lends support to the further statement of Accused No. 1 that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and as his family is poor, the treatment was undertaken at the instance of the father. Moreover, the mother PW-8 in her testimony at Exh. 42 has also stated on this aspect that they were in better position than the family of the accused. Thus, when there are no specific allegations with regard to the harassment or the ill-treatment coupled with the fact that there is no nexus between the abetment and the suicide, it gives support to the theory of the defence about the deceased suffering from Epilepsy. It is required to be stated that when the person is having such mental state of mind, there may be a more emotional disturbance and sensitivity, which would give rise to the reaction, which may not be normally accepted. 16. Therefore, it is well accepted that for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Further, if the active act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and such an act intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide, is required to be established. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 in case of M. Mohan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 17. Further, the level of tolerance and understanding may differ from person to person. Therefore, unless it could be shown by evidence and material on record that the accused persons had created such a situation by their conduct, which had left no option for the deceased but to commit suicide, and her predicament was such that, she was driven to commit suicide, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 are not fulfilled. 18. Therefore, unless it could be shown by evidence and material on record that the accused persons had created such a situation by their conduct, which had left no option for the deceased but to commit suicide, and her predicament was such that, she was driven to commit suicide, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 are not fulfilled. 18. In the same way for the offence under Section 498A, when the allegations are vague and general in nature without any specific reference to the details or the manner in which the harassment or ill-treatment was caused, it requires a closure scrutiny as to whether necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 498A are fulfilled. It is well accepted that the harassment must be of such a nature that it would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A. The Explanation to Section 498A provide: "Cruelty" means - the willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or the harassment with a view to meet any unlawful demand for the property or valuable security." In the facts of the case, the evidence on record fall short of fulfillment of this criteria. Therefore, on overall appreciation of material and evidence, the impugned judgment and order recoding conviction cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is well settled that there is no embargo on the appellate court to review the evidence or rather it is an obligation to scan and scrutinize the evidence. 19. Therefore the impugned judgment and order recording conviction and sentence of the Appellants (Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5) in Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2011 filed by the Appellants (Original Accused No. 2 to 5) deserve to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 29.7.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (Original Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5), are on bail, and hence, their bail bond shall stand cancelled. The impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dated 29.7.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (Original Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5), are on bail, and hence, their bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appellant No. 3 - Kaviben, D/o Lakhmanbhai Daki Koli (Original Accused No. 4) has expired pending the Appeal, and therefore, the Appeal stands abated qua Appellant No. 3 - Kaviben, D/o Lakhmanbhai Daki Koli (Original Accused No. 4). 20. As a necessary corollary, Criminal Appeal No. 1291 of 2011 filed by the Appellant - State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentence, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.