JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 06.01.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 10.01.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Bokaro whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant nos.1 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years whereas appellant nos.2 and 4 have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. 3. The brief facts of the case as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant Basant Kumar Manjhi is that his daughter namely Hridmani Devi @ Bina Devi married the appellant no.4-Rati Kant Manjhi five years prior to the institution of the case as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the in-laws of the deceased daughter of the informant were regularly demanding Rs.15,000/- towards dowry.The informant spent Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage of the deceased. The informant was incapable of paying another Rs.15,000/-. The deceased used to send message regularly to immediately send Rs.15,000/- as she was treated with cruelty by her in-laws because of non-fulfilment of the said dowry demand. On 22.07.2002 at 11:30 a.m., Nipen Kumar Manjhi (P.W.5) came to the house of the informant and informed him that the appellant-accused persons and other in-laws of the informant have administered poison to the said daughter of the informant, because of which the daughter of the informant was writhing in pain. The informant after getting this information along with his villagers went to the matrimonial house of his said deceased daughter situated at Kumhardih and saw that his daughter was dead and all the inmates of the house have absconded. The informant moved around the village and collected information that because of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, the in-laws have murdered the daughter of the informant by administering poison. 4. On the basis of the information of the informant, police registered Chandankiyari (Barmasia) P.S. Case No.84 of 2002 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted police report. 4. On the basis of the information of the informant, police registered Chandankiyari (Barmasia) P.S. Case No.84 of 2002 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police submitted police report. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges for the offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant-accused persons and on their pleading not guilty, they were put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined fourteen witnesses besides proving the documents. One witness was examined on behalf of the appellant-accused persons in their defence. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.4-Basant Kumar Manjhi is the informant himself. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 22.07.2002 at 11:00 a.m. Nipen Manjhi (P.W.5 ) who is the resident of Kumhardih came and informed the P.W.4 in his house that the daughter of the P.W.4 has been killed by her in-laws by administering poison. P.W.5 further informed the P.W.4 that the appellant-accused persons and others have administered poison to the daughter of the P.W.4. On getting the information, the P.W.4 went to the Barmasia outpost and informed the police officer about the occurrence and from the police station he proceeded towards the matrimonial house of his daughter situated at Kumhardih. On reaching there, he saw the dead body of his deceased daughter lying at the Verandah of the appellant no.4. On seeing the P.W.4, all the appellant-accused persons fled away. The dead body was kept on a cot on the Verandah. Her fist was half clenched. The froth was coming out from her mouth. The P.W.4 collected information from the villagers and the villagers informed him that the daughter of the P.W.4 has been killed by administering poison to her but he cannot say the name of the persons who disclosed this fact to the P.W.4. All the accused persons of the case demanded Rs.15,000/- from the P.W.4 and also told that since the P.W.4 is not having any son hence, who will take the property of P.W.4. They started demanding dowry one year after the marriage but the P.W.4 used to tell them that he is a poor person hence he cannot meet the demand of dowry. The appellant-accused persons used to assault the daughter of the P.W.4. They started demanding dowry one year after the marriage but the P.W.4 used to tell them that he is a poor person hence he cannot meet the demand of dowry. The appellant-accused persons used to assault the daughter of the P.W.4. They were troubling the deceased in the matter of food and cloth. In paragraph no.19, he has stated that the marriage of the deceased took place 10-12 years prior to the occurrence. The deceased was having a son who was aged about three and half years. Police arrived at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the P.W.4. On being identified by him, his signature on the fardbeyan was marked Ext. 1. Police prepared the inquest report of the dead body. He also identified the signature of Nimia Manjhi (P.W.3) who signed as a witness in the fardbeyan also and his signature has been marked as Ext.1/1. He identified all the appellant-accused persons present in the court. He has further deposed that as the informant could not meet the dowry demand, the appellant-accused persons have killed the daughter of the P.W.4 by administering poison to her. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Nipen Manjhi (P.W.5) is his Nephew. P.W.5 resides in Kumhardih. In paragraph no.28, the P.W.4 has stated that after hearing the information, he first went to Kumhardih and thereafter went to the police station. P.W.4 halted for ten minutes at Kumhardih. Kumhardih is at a distance of five kilometers from the village of P.W.4. They went walking to Kumahdih but again said that Vijay and Fatik went by cycle and P.W.4 went by the scooter of P.W.3. In paragraph no.32 of his cross-examination, the P.W.4 admitted that he stated before the police that when he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter in Kumhardih none of the appellant-accused persons were present there. In paragraph no.34, the P.W.4 has stated that he did not state before the police that froth was coming from the mouth of the deceased. P.W.4 stated that he does not remember the day or date of marriage of his daughter. In paragraph no.38 he has stated that five years after the marriage of his daughter she was blessed with a male child who was aged about three and half months at the time of her death. P.W.4 stated that he does not remember the day or date of marriage of his daughter. In paragraph no.38 he has stated that five years after the marriage of his daughter she was blessed with a male child who was aged about three and half months at the time of her death. After the marriage of his daughter, the P.W.4 went to her matrimonial house 3-4 times but in paragraph no.42 he has stated that he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter before she was blessed with a male child. In paragraph no.49 he has stated that he has signed some paper in the police station but he does not remember how many papers he has signed. 7. P.W.1-Bijay Kumar Manjhi has stated that the occurrence took place on 22.07.2002. The deceased is the cousin sister of the P.W.1. She married the appellant no.4, 4-5 years prior of the P.W.1 deposing in court. She was ill-treated by her in-laws. She was not provided proper food or clothes. The dowry demand of Rs.15,000/- was made by the in-laws of the deceased. The P.W.4 could not meet the said dowry demand. For that reason, the in-laws of the deceased killed her by administering poison. The appellant-accused persons have administered poison to the deceased. On 22.07.2002 at 10:00 a.m. he saw the deceased lying dead in her matrimonial house. Froth was coming out from her mouth. P.W.5 informed to the P.W.1 about the occurrence. In his cross-examination P.W.1 has stated that they met the police on the date of occurrence at 1.00 p.m. in village Kumhardih. Police recorded the statement of P.W.1 there and also obtained his signature. The village of the appellant-accused persons is at a distance of 3 kilometers from the village of P.W.1. When the P.W.1 reached the matrimonial house of the deceased, he could not meet any of the members of the matrimonial house of the deceased as no male or female members were present in the house. In paragraph no.11, the P.W.1 has stated that he does not remember when he last met the deceased prior to the occurrence. He cannot say the day or date of the demand of dowry of Rs.15,000/-. He heard about dowry demand but he cannot say who told him about the dowry demand. He halted for about half an hour in the house of the appellant-accused persons. He cannot say the day or date of the demand of dowry of Rs.15,000/-. He heard about dowry demand but he cannot say who told him about the dowry demand. He halted for about half an hour in the house of the appellant-accused persons. Thereafter, the dead body was taken for postmortem. They went to Barmasia police station then they went for postmortem. 8. P.W.2-Sunil Kumar Manjhi has stated that the occurrence took place on 22.07.2002. P.W.5 informed that the appellant-accused persons have killed Hridmani Devi by administering poison to her. Hridmani Devi is the niece of P.W.2. She married the appellant no.4, 5-6 years prior to the P.W.2 deposing in court. On getting information the P.W.2 along with others went to the matrimonial village of the deceased at Kumhardih and found her dead there. Froth was coming out from her mouth. No one was present in her matrimonial house. The in-laws have killed the deceased for dowry. They used to demand Rs.15,000/- towards dowry and used to ill-treat the deceased because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he stated before the police that he got information from P.W.5 that appellant-accused persons have killed Hridmani Devi by administering poison to her. P.W.5 informed him about the demand of dowry of Rs.15,000/- and for non-fulfillment of which the deceased was ill-treated. P.W.2 never visited the matrimonial house of the deceased prior to the date of occurrence. Hence, he has no knowledge about any quarrel between Hridmani Devi and her in-laws. He has heard about the quarrel between the Hridmani Devi and her in-laws but he cannot say any day or date of quarrel. 9. P.W.3-Nimai Manjhi has stated that the occurrence took place on 22.07.2002 between 11:00-11:30 a.m. P.W.5 informed that Hridmani Devi was writhing in pain. P.W.5 informed P.W.4 about this. P.W.5 also told that Hridmani Devi has been administered poison. P.W.3 along with P.W.4 and others went to the house of Hridmani Devi at village Kumhardih and found Hridmani dead there. The members of his family were not present in the house. He saw the dead body of Hridmani Devi which was kept on a cot. Hridmani Devi used to tell P.W.4 prior to the occurrence that the in-laws of Hridmani were demanding Rs.15,000/- towards dowry. Hridmani Devi also told this to the P.W.3. The members of his family were not present in the house. He saw the dead body of Hridmani Devi which was kept on a cot. Hridmani Devi used to tell P.W.4 prior to the occurrence that the in-laws of Hridmani were demanding Rs.15,000/- towards dowry. Hridmani Devi also told this to the P.W.3. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he was present when the P.W.5 was telling about the occurrence to the P.W.4. Police reached the matrimonial house of Hridmani after the P.W.3 reached there. He cannot say the color of sari worn by Hridmani on that day but her body was not covered with any cloth. P.W.3 had never gone to the matrimonial house of Hridmani and on the date of occurrence for the first time he went there. Hridmani told her about the demand of dowry also. 10. P.W.5-Nipen Manjhi has stated that the informant is his uncle. The occurrence took place 10-11 months prior to his deposing in court. P.W.5 was examined on 06.06.2003. P.W.5 cannot say how Hridmani died. P.W.5 was in the field. After returning from the field he heard in the village that Hridmani had died by taking poison. Neither the P.W.5 nor any of the members of his family went to see the deceased. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that he went to his field situated at Adana village at 5:00 a.m. and he returned at 7.00 p.m. After returning he came to know that Hridmani has died. On the date of occurrence P.W.5 did not meet the P.W.4, Bijay Manjhior Sunil Manjhi. He also did not see the dead body of Hridmani. In paragraph no.6, P.W.5 has stated that at times he used to meet Hridmani in her matrimonial house. She never complained about her in-laws of ill-treating her in connection with demand of dowry. The deceased never complained about her in-laws. P.W.5 met the deceased 2-3 days prior to the occurrence in the village road while the P.W.5 was returning with his bullocks. In paragraph no.8, P.W.5 denied that he ever told Sunil Kumar Manjhi that in-laws of Hridmani Devi were demanding Rs.15,000/- and were ill-treating her for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. He also denied of ever intimating Sunil Kumar Manjhi that the appellant-accused persons killed the deceased by administering poison. He never informed P.W.4 about the occurrence. In paragraph no.8, P.W.5 denied that he ever told Sunil Kumar Manjhi that in-laws of Hridmani Devi were demanding Rs.15,000/- and were ill-treating her for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. He also denied of ever intimating Sunil Kumar Manjhi that the appellant-accused persons killed the deceased by administering poison. He never informed P.W.4 about the occurrence. He never informed the P.W.3 that Hridmani was writhing in pain. P.W.5 never told the P.W.4 that poison was administered to Hridmani Devi. P.W.5 never told the P.W.3 that the appellant-accused persons have killed Hridmani Devi by administering poison. P.W.5 did not have any knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased. 11. P.W.6-Padlal Manjhi is the resident of village Kumhardih. He has been declared hostile consequent upon his not supporting the case of the prosecution. Before being declared hostile, he stated that Hridmani Devi died 11 months prior to his examination in court. He went to the house of the appellant no.1. He enquired there from the son of the appellant no.4 namely Vyas and Vyas told him that his mother died by taking poison. At that time no male member was present in the house. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that Hridmani married appellant no.4, 12-13 years prior to the date of occurrence. 12. P.W.7-Sushant Manjhi is also the resident of Kumardih. He was tendered for examination only. 13. P.W.8-Nepal Manjhi is also the resident of Kumhardih. He has stated that Hridmani was the daughter-in-law of the appellant no.1 and wife of appellant no.4. She died by taking medicine. At the time of the death of Hridmani all of them were in their field. The son of Hridmani came running to the field and informed that his mother has died after taking medicine. P.W.8 and others came running and found Hridmani dead. P.W.4 wanted to keep the appellant no.4 as ghardamad (house husband) and for that reason there used to be hot exchange of words between the husband and wife. Their marriage took place 10-12 years before the P.W.8 deposing in court. At the time of marriage, no gift was given. In his cross-examination, he has stated that 3-4 years prior to the death of Hridmani P.W.4 approached the appellant no.4 to be his house husband and Hridmani also wanted that but the appellant no.4 was not ready to leave his parents and stay in the house of P.W.4. At the time of marriage, no gift was given. In his cross-examination, he has stated that 3-4 years prior to the death of Hridmani P.W.4 approached the appellant no.4 to be his house husband and Hridmani also wanted that but the appellant no.4 was not ready to leave his parents and stay in the house of P.W.4. At the time of marriage, there was no condition of the appellant no. 4 to become a house husband. 14. P.W.11-Subhash Manjhi is also the resident of Kumhardih. He has stated that the occurrence took place 14-15 months prior of his deposing in court. At 9:00 am he was in his house. He heard the noise that the wife of appellant no.4 has died by taking poison. He went to the house of the appellant no.4 and saw the wife of appellant no.4 lying dead. On being enquired by P.W.11 from the villagers who were present there near the dead body, they disclosed that Hridmani herself took poison. P.W.11 heard that P.W.4 wanted to keep the appellant no.4 as house husband which was not acceptable to the appellant no.4. For this reason, there used to be quarrel between the appellant no.4 and his wife Hridmani Devi. Hridmani was pressurizing her husband to agree to be the house husband and used to threaten that she will take poison unless the appellant no.4agree to be the house husband of the P.W.4. In his cross-examination, P.W.11 has stated that two days prior to the occurrence, P.W.4 came to the matrimonial house of his daughter. P.W.4 did not have any son and for that reason he wanted to keep one house husband. The appellant no.4 was not agreeing to leave his parents and to stay in his in-law’s house. The P.W.4 approached to the appellant no.4 to be his house husband, in presence of the P.W.11. 15. P.W.13-Fatik Manjhi has stated that the occurrence took place two and half years prior to his deposing in court. At 12.00 noon he was in the field. P.W.5 and Dasrath Manjhi of Kumhardih informed that the appellant-accused persons have administered poison to Hridmani. Hearing this, the P.W.13 went to Kumhardih and saw Hridmani writhing in pain. Hridmani died. No one of his matrimonial family was present there. Hridmani married the appellant no.4, 3-4 years prior to the occurrence. Appellant no.4 used to improperly treat Hridmani. P.W.5 and Dasrath Manjhi of Kumhardih informed that the appellant-accused persons have administered poison to Hridmani. Hearing this, the P.W.13 went to Kumhardih and saw Hridmani writhing in pain. Hridmani died. No one of his matrimonial family was present there. Hridmani married the appellant no.4, 3-4 years prior to the occurrence. Appellant no.4 used to improperly treat Hridmani. He was not providing clothes to Hridmani. In his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.4 is his cousin brother. P.W.5 and Dasrath has informed him at 10:00 am. At that time, he was in his house and not in the field and after getting information, he along with P.Ws.4, 3 and others went to Kumhardih. The son of Hridmani was also not present in the house but he does not know the name of the son of Hridmani. On the next day of the marriage when the P.W.13 went to the house of Hridmani she was happy and did not complain against anybody. 16. P.W.9- Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Hridmani Devi on 22.07.2002 and found the following injuries :- On external examination- he found rigor mortis present in all the four limbs, eyes partially opened, conjunctiva-congested, pupil dilated. Mouth-closed, lips-open shining teeth, tongue in the oral cavity. Serums discharged from the mouth. Frothy secretion present at the nostrils, hands open, nails cyanosed, dried leafy dusts found over face and abdomen. Muds adhere at both feet. No mark of injury or violence seen on the person of deceased. Visceros were congested, Mucus membrane of larynx and trachea were congested. Frothy mucus over mensal surface. Lungs congested, Exude frothy blood on section. Heart-left side empty and right side contemplate. Stomach-Mucus membrane congested and contained milky like fluid materials and gas with pungent odour. On being proved by him, the postmortem report which was written by him and under his signature was marked Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, he stated that if a person is forcibly administered anything, there will be marks of violence in the body of that person and in this case, he did not find any mark of violence over the body of the deceased. 17. P.W.10-Gopalji Jha is the Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. 2. In his cross-examination, he stated that if a person is forcibly administered anything, there will be marks of violence in the body of that person and in this case, he did not find any mark of violence over the body of the deceased. 17. P.W.10-Gopalji Jha is the Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. He has proved the report of the examination of Viscera of the deceased Hridmani and has stated that after examination of the same Aluminium Phosphite which is also known as ‘Sulphas’ was found there. ‘Sulphas’ is used as a pesticide and is poisonous. On being proved by him, the examination report of the viscera has been marked Ext.3. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not himself prepare the examination report. 18. P.W.12-Madan Paswan is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that on 22.07.2002 he was posted as In-charge of Barmasia outpost. He recorded the fardbeyan of the P.W.4 and sent the same for institution of the case. As per the orders of the Officer in-charge of the Police station, he took up investigation of the case. He described the place of occurrence with its boundaries. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the Hridmani Devi. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant-accused persons. In his cross-examination, he has stated that prior to recording of the fardbeyan there was anonymous information about the occurrence. On the basis of anonymous information, he went to the place of occurrence. He also stated that in the diary he has mentioned that on the day of occurrence, the appellant-accused persons were in their field. The son of the deceased stated before the P.W.12 that his mother died after taking water from glass. 19. P.W.14-Hemant Kumar Pathak is a formal witness. He is an Advocate’s clerk. On being proved by him, the formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 4 and the endorsement on the fardbeyan has been marked as Ext. 5. 20. From the side of the defence D.W.1-Vyas Kumar Manjhi aged about 8 years, at the time of examining in court, studying in class-II, has stated that his mother has died. His mother died by taking poison. He saw his mother taking poison. After taking poison his mother writhed in pain for sometime. 5. 20. From the side of the defence D.W.1-Vyas Kumar Manjhi aged about 8 years, at the time of examining in court, studying in class-II, has stated that his mother has died. His mother died by taking poison. He saw his mother taking poison. After taking poison his mother writhed in pain for sometime. At that time, nobody of his family was present in the house. Everybody had gone to the field for planting paddy. D.W.1 informed his father and others about his mother. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his father, grandfather and grandmother had gone to the field at 6:00 am. His mother took poison from the glass. There was no dispute between his mother and father. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused persons as already indicated above. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted by Mr. Sahani that most of the material witnesses of the prosecution who are related to the P.W.4, have stated that they came to know about the occurrence from P.W.5 but P.W.5 himself has denied having stated anything to them. It is further submitted by Mr. Sahani that there is no cogent evidence in the record regarding demand of dowry and there is only bald allegation of demand of dowry. It is then submitted that there is material contradiction between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time of marriage of the deceased with the appellant No.4 prior to the occurrence. It is submitted by Mr. Sahani that there is no cogent evidence in the record regarding demand of dowry and there is only bald allegation of demand of dowry. It is then submitted that there is material contradiction between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time of marriage of the deceased with the appellant No.4 prior to the occurrence. It is submitted by Mr. Sahani that in order to ensure a conviction, the prosecution witnesses who are related to the P.W.4 have tried to make out a case that the marriage of the deceased took place with the appellant No.4 within seven years of the death of the deceased but the said falsehood of the witnesses of the prosecution who were related to the P.W.4 stood exposed and demolished in their cross-examinations as the P.W.4 himself has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was blessed with a son five years after her marriage and at the time of the death of the deceased, the son was three and half years old besides admitting that the marriage of the deceased took place 10-12 years prior to her death and this shows their interestedness in ensuring conviction of the appellants by hook or crook thus raises a question mark on the veracity of their testimonies. It is further submitted that even the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused persons regarding demand of dowry and the deceased never complained against the appellant-accused persons. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses related to the P.W.4 also tried to make out a case that the deceased was forcibly administered poison which evidence has got nothing to do with the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code but there is no evidence at all put forth by the prosecution regarding any overt or covert act on the part of any of the accused-appellants abetting the alleged suicide of the deceased. It is next submitted that there is no specific time period of demand of dowry and as stated by the P.W.4, the demand of dowry started one year after the marriage of the deceased and assuming for the sake of arguments that the demand of dowry is true, still the deceased having learned to live with such demand for a period of over more than seven years that could not be a reason for her to commit suicide. More so, because none other than her son has categorically stated that there was never any quarrel between the deceased and the appellant No.4. It is then submitted that the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated the reason for committing the alleged suicide by the deceased being that the P.W.4 wanted the appellant No.4 to be a house husband which was not accepted by the appellant No.4 and obviously he did not agree for that. Hence, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the appellants be acquitted of the charge at least by giving them the benefit of doubt. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submitted that there is specific evidence in the record that the deceased committed suicide and the evidence put forth by the prosecution witnesses that there was demand of dowry of Rs.15,000/- which demand the P.W.4 could not meet and thus because of the said acts the appellants abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused persons and the sentence imposed is also proper. Hence, it is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that this appeal being without any merit, be dismissed. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in a case where there is sufficient evidence to show ill-treatment meted out by the husband and/or in-laws of the wife, it warrants a conviction under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be an automatic conclusion that the husband and others abetted the commission of suicide in the event the wife finally commits suicide. In case of alleged abetment of suicide was not there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement of the commission of suicide as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC 731 where in the Hon’ble Court has held as under in paragraph 2 and 3. “2. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Section 306 IPC, under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge. 3. It was, however, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State that since the occurrence took place on 14-3-1984, Section 498-A IPC had priorly on 25-12-1983 been brought on the statute-book and that the appellant could well have been charged under the said provision which may now be applied in substitution. That appears to be so. 3. It was, however, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State that since the occurrence took place on 14-3-1984, Section 498-A IPC had priorly on 25-12-1983 been brought on the statute-book and that the appellant could well have been charged under the said provision which may now be applied in substitution. That appears to be so. But at this distance of time, we think it would be imprudent to substitute the charge and cull out incidences of cruelty inflicted on the deceased by the husband or relatives of the husband and determine whether any wilful conduct is attributed to the appellants which were likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her (whether physically or mentally). Prejudice would, in our view, be writ large if we involve the appellants under Section 498-A IPC in substitution. Even otherwise, substantial justice has been done when the husband and his mother, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 have undergone the sentence imposed on them. Their appeal would stand disposed of as infructuous. The sister-in-law also has undergone some sentence, though not much. The appeal of the sister-in-law would therefore stand allowed and she is acquitted of the charge. She is on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled. (Emphasis Supplied) The same was of the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishori Lal v State of M.P reported in (2007) 10 SCC 797 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph -7:- “7. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased wife with cruelty is not enough. (Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.) Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs 8, 10 and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.” (Emphasis Supplied) 21. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs 8, 10 and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this.” (Emphasis Supplied) 21. As already indicated above, the prosecution witness could not substantiate the case of the prosecution as made out in the fardbeyan that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage rather the evidence which has come from the independent witnesses and even in the cross-examination of the P.W.4 and other witnesses related to the P.W.4 also, that the deceased died more than seven years after her marriage. Thus the evidence in record is insufficient to establish that the deceased died within seven years after her marriage with the appellant No.4. There is no specific evidence regarding any particular manner of torture, ill-treatment or treatment with cruelty meted out to the deceased. There is no evidence regarding any specific date, day, month or year or any specific occasion on which the demand of dowry was made. It is highly unlikely as has been deposed by the P.W.4 that all the four accused appellants together at a particular point of time will demand dowry of Rs.15,000/- from the P.W.4. As has been already indicated above, the prosecution witnesses themselves have categorically stated that they had occasion to meet the deceased and she never complained against her in-laws or any dowry demand. The same is supported by the testimony of the son of the deceased and the appellant No.4. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of D.W.1 who is the son of the deceased and the appellant no.4. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the P.W.4 approached the appellant No.4 to be a house husband and the deceased also wanted that and even went to extent of threatening to commit suicide in order to pressurize the appellant No.4 to agree to the said proposal of the P.W.4 to be a house husband remains unchallenged in their respective cross-examination. So, that being a bone of contention between the deceased and her husband being the appellant No.4 and thus a possible reason for the deceased to commit suicide cannot be ruled out. 22. So, that being a bone of contention between the deceased and her husband being the appellant No.4 and thus a possible reason for the deceased to commit suicide cannot be ruled out. 22. Under such circumstances, in view of the settled principles of law and the facts of this case this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused persons be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I acquit the four appellants namely Golok Kumhar @ Golok Manjhi, Doman Manjhi, Bishakha Devi and Rati Kant Manjhi by giving them the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellants namely Golok Kumhar @ Golok Manjhi, Doman Manjhi, Bishakha Devi and Rati Kant Manjhi are in custody. In view of their acquittal, they are directed to be released forthwith from custody unless their detention is required in connection with any other case. 23. In the result this appeal is allowed. 24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.