JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant calls in question the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.06.2015 and 24.06.2015 passed by the Judge, Special Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in connection with S.T. No. 12 of 2007 mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the learned Trial Court had taken care of all the material aspects and has passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant any interference. 3. In the interest of effective adjudication factual scenario is required to be revisited. The prosecution case, as unfurled herewith, is such that the marriage of the victim was held with the appellant on 08.05.1997 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Some ornaments and valuables including scooter were gifted at the time of said marriage. Initially the victim was quite happy in her matrimonial home but after one year she began to realise that her husband had illicit affairs with his sister-in-law (Boudi). It is also alleged that after the marriage the victim was tortured on demand of dowry. The victim disclosed her agonies to her parents. Her parents intervened and took steps for amicable settlement, yet the torture continued. On 07.11.2002 the accused allegedly declared that if the victim dies he would marry four women. When the de-facto complainant was coming back from the matrimonial house of the victim, he suddenly heard ‘save me’ ‘save me’ and he found her daughter was in burnt condition. He doused the flame but in the meantime the victim breathed her last. Disclosing this fact, the de-facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion. 4. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated. On perusal of the charge-sheet the learned Trial Court had framed the charges under Section 498A/304B of I.P.C. To come to a finding we should now listen to the prosecution witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is the father of the victim. In his examination-in-chief he made some embellishment by saying that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from him but that was not reflected in the F.I.R. nor any other witnesses espoused the said statement. 5. P.W. 1 is the father of the victim. In his examination-in-chief he made some embellishment by saying that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from him but that was not reflected in the F.I.R. nor any other witnesses espoused the said statement. In his examination-in-chief he has disclosed some stereo-typed allegations and thereafter stated that the victim disclosed to him that the accused appellant had illicit relationship with his Boudi. In course of his cross-examination, he admitted by saying “My son-in-law used to come to my house and similarly we used to visit their home as usual after marriage”. It indicates that there was cordial relationship between the two families even after one year, when the victim told P.W. 1 about the illicit affairs of her husband. He also clarified the position by saying that before marriage the accused appellant and his brother were in joint mess but after the marriage there was an amicable partition of the business and immovable properties by and between them and the couple (victim and appellant) started living separately. Not only that he also candidly admitted that the parents-in-law of the victim used to reside with the accused appellant. In course of his cross examination he confirmed that the complainant, the victim and the accused were the disciples of ‘Radhashyam Ashram’ whose Head Office is at Dayalbag Ashram, Agra. On 25.10.2002 the complainant, son-in-law and the victim came back from Agra. This also indicates that soon before the death of the victim there was a very good relationship between the parties, otherwise the accused, victim and the de-facto complainant would not have visited Agra jointly. He also admitted that before lodging the F.I.R. he wrote a complaint before Dayalbag Ashram that Ramesh hit the victim with a Danda and the victim lost her sense. He also admitted that in the said complaint he mentioned that Ramesh (the appellant) sat on her chest and gagged her mouth, pressed her throat and thereafter the victim died due to strangulation. After that he said that the accused appellant poured kerosene oil and set the victim ablaze. Such fact was reported before Dayalbag Ashram, but has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. He rather admitted in unequivocal terms that death was due to strangulation and thereafter she was set ablaze. The autopsy surgeon did not say so, after examining the body. After that he said that the accused appellant poured kerosene oil and set the victim ablaze. Such fact was reported before Dayalbag Ashram, but has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. He rather admitted in unequivocal terms that death was due to strangulation and thereafter she was set ablaze. The autopsy surgeon did not say so, after examining the body. Rather he concluded that the death was due to burn injuries. In the F.I.R. as well as in examination in chief he stated that he heard the shouting of the victim ‘save me’ and after opening the door he found the victim was caught with fire. But his first complaint before Dayalbag Ashram is quite different. In course of cross-examination he had admitted “I did not see all these things physically”. If it is so how he could say that story that the accused appellant sat on her chest and to kill the victim by way of strangulation and thereafter the accused set fire on her person. On being asked by the defence counsel he stated that he had no idea about the conjugal relationship between his daughter and the accused. On perusal of his entire evidence it seems to me that he is not a trustworthy witness. 6. P.W. 2, is the another son-in-law of the de-facto complainant, who stated that the victim was subjected to physical torture and she was also not given food properly and that he came to know from the accused about the cause of such torture. The accused appellant allegedly told him that adequate dowry was not given and so she was subjected to physical assault. Regarding the victim’s death he stated that on that day from the elder son of the victim, he came to know that the accused slapped the victim and thereafter sat on her chest and throttled her. Thereafter the accused poured kerosene oil on her person. In his cross-examination, he failed to recollect if he stated before the police that the accused appellant had charged the victim as to why the victim called them to be present in their house. A suggestion was given to him that the accused had pledged 10 bhoris of gold ornaments and took a loan of Rs.25,000/-. He, also in his cross-examination stated that at the time of marriage, a Lagnapatra was prepared which contained list of articles given or to be given. A suggestion was given to him that the accused had pledged 10 bhoris of gold ornaments and took a loan of Rs.25,000/-. He, also in his cross-examination stated that at the time of marriage, a Lagnapatra was prepared which contained list of articles given or to be given. But story of such Lagnapatra has not been stated by any other witnesses nor he handed over the said Lagnapatra to the police. 7. P.W. 3, is the nephew of the de-facto complainant. He only stated that after two years of marriage the victim told him over phone that she has been subjected to torture and physical assault. In his examination in chief he categorically stated that the relation of the victim with the elder brother and sister-in-law of the accused appellant was not good but he never said that the dispute cropped up due to alleged illicit affairs of the accused appellant with his Boudi. In cross-examination P.W. 3, candidly stated that there was no Lagnapatra prepared in his presence. He did not make any statement that the victim did not have good relation with the elder brother and sister-in-law of her husband. 8. P.W. 4, is the mother of the victim. In her evidence she stated that the victim was tortured and was abused filthily. She also stated that the victim expressed her anguish that the accused appellant had illicit relation with his Boudi. 9. P.W. 5, is the brother of the victim. He stated that there was family disputes over the alleged illicit affairs of the accused with his Boudi. In course of cross-examination, he failed to say that when he came to know first about the illicit relationship of the accused with his Boudi. He could not even say the year when he came to know about such relationship. 10. P.W. 6, has proved the formal F.I.R. P.W. 7, is the autopsy surgeon, who opined that the death was due to effect of burnt injuries. P.W. 8, is the Investigating Officer. In his examination in chief he narrated everything regarding investigation. In course of cross-examination he candidly stated that no witness told him about the torture inflicted upon the victim for dowry prior to 7.11.2002 and he also stated that during course of investigation he did not receive any allegation about abetment to commit. P.W. 8, is the Investigating Officer. In his examination in chief he narrated everything regarding investigation. In course of cross-examination he candidly stated that no witness told him about the torture inflicted upon the victim for dowry prior to 7.11.2002 and he also stated that during course of investigation he did not receive any allegation about abetment to commit. He also added that Mahendra Burnwal did not make any allegation about torture for dowry. He categorically stated that Mahendra did not tell him that the victim’s son i.e. Sachin told him that there was quarrel between his parents. 11. These are the sum and substance of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. After going through the evidence led by the prosecution, I find there is no ingredient of Section 498A of I.P.C. To constitute the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. the prosecution is to prove … “Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means – (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 12. On perusal of the evidence there is nothing on record that there was any wilful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive woman to commit suicide and to cause grave injury to danger to life, or any harassment of the woman to meet any unlawful demand for any property. It is unfortunate that the wife is no more in the world. She committed suicide and why she committed suicide has not been established from the evidence. To prove the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. also. There is no evidence of abetment, instigation or goad. The prosecution wanted to establish that suicide was the outcome of illicit relationship between the parties. To prove the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C., the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. also. There is no evidence of abetment, instigation or goad. The prosecution wanted to establish that suicide was the outcome of illicit relationship between the parties. But it is in evidence that before the marriage of the victim, she herself and her husband had been residing there in joint mess with his elder brother and boudi. But after one year of the marriage there was complete separation and partition of the properties also. As a result the victim, the accused appellant and parents-in-law had been residing jointly in a portion of their property and the elder brother and boudi of the accused appellant had been residing in other portion of their property separately. Common mess was broken into two messes and this happened within one year from the alleged marriage. But the prosecution case is such after two years the troubled cropped up. Therefore, it can be safely stated that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged illicit relationship. No neighbour of that locality came forward to say that there was ever any illicit relationship. Not only that victim’s parents-in-law had been residing with the victim and accused in a joint mess. Even before her death there was cordial relationship between the appellant and victim’s parents. They have visited their respective houses on reciprocity basis. This apart, they visited Radhashyam Ashram at Agra just one month before the death of the victim. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence as led by the prosecution, I am of the view that the prosecution hopelessly failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellant to the best judicial satisfaction of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the accused appellant is hereby acquitted. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Judge Special Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty at once. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court with a direction to inform the Correctional Authority to release the appellant forthwith. 16. Let a copy of this order and LCR be sent to the learned Court below at once for information and taking necessary action.