JUDGMENT N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 03.04.2008, made in S.C.No.436 of 2007 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) P.W.1-Muthazhaki is the daughter of the deceased-Petchiammal. P.W.2-Rani is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3-Kathavarayan is the husband of the deceased. P.W.4-Murugan is the brother of the deceased. P.W.5-Sivan is the son of the deceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are relatives of Accused No.1. There was enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused over a piece of land. P.W.3, the husband of the deceased, is frequently consuming liquor, which led the deceased to reside at her brother's (P.W.4) house. At that time, all the accused quarrelled with the deceased over the piece of land, which led to lodging of complaint to the police station. However, since the accused abused the deceased continuously, the deceased went to her husband's house and committed suicide by hanging, in respect of which, P.W.1 lodged a report-Ex.P.1. (ii) P.W.10-Sivasubramanian, Sub-Inspector of Police, received a report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C, under Ex.P.7-First Information Report. The Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.8), and recovered M.O.1(series)-rope and he has also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and issued an inquest report-Ex.P.9 and after examining the Medical Officer and other witnesses, altered the case into one under Section 306 IPC. The alteration report is marked as Ex.P.10. (iii) P.W.11 took up the case for further investigation and arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, P.W.12 took up the case for investigation and finally, laid final report as against the accused. for the offence under Section 306 IPC. (iv) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 4(B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1(series) were marked. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1(series) were marked. (v) When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, they neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document. (vi) The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty under Section 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 5 have come up with this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is no material whatsoever available on record to prove the charges under Section 306 IPC against the accused. Ex.P.1 is totally contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide at her husband's house, whereas, the accused were residing in different area. Therefore, the statement to the effect that the accused abused the deceased is an improved version and cannot be believed. Hence, he prayed for acquittal of the accused. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.4 have clearly spoken about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court need not be interfered with. 6. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The evidence of P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, clearly indicates that the deceased was residing at matrimonial home, whereas prior to the occurrence, the deceased was residing in her brother's house. The entire evidence of P.W.1, when carefully seen, shows that the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased was heard by P.W.1 and thereafter, she reported the same to the police. 8. The entire evidence of P.W.1, when carefully seen, shows that the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased was heard by P.W.1 and thereafter, she reported the same to the police. 8. P.W.2 has also supported the version of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that there was some quarrel between two family three days prior to the occurrence, due to which, the deceased committed suicide in the house of P.W.3. 9. P.W.3'S evidence appears to be hearsay. He does not know what had actually happened when her wife was residing in her brother's house. 10. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased. His evidence also appears to be hearsay. 11. P.W.5 also has no direct knowledge about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. 12. Admittedly, prior to the deceased committing suicide, she was residing in P.W.4's house, who is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 has never whispered anything about the alleged quarrel or abuse made by the accused. It is curious to note that the deceased admittedly committed suicide in her husband's house, which is far away from P.W.4's house. The very charge of the prosecution itself clearly shows that the alleged occurrence and quarrel between the accused and the deceased took place three days prior to the deceased committing suicide. 13. When that being the position, even assuming that there was a quarrel, in which, the deceased was abused, in my view, the same would not amount to incitement or abetment to force a person to commit suicide. The abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be inferred. There should be a live link or proximity link between the act of the accused and the act of the deceased committing suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused have incited or induced the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide. There should be a live link or proximity link between the act of the accused and the act of the deceased committing suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused have incited or induced the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide. Therefore, even assuming that there was a petty quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which had happened two or three days prior to the occurrence, which led the deceased to commit suicide, such quarrel would not amount to incitement or abetment to bring the act of the accused within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. 14. It is curious to note that in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has clearly stated that the deceased left her husband's house because of the fact that her husband is taking liquor regularly and was residing in her brother's house. The above statement also makes it clear that possibility of deceased taking such extreme step in her husband's house due to continuous consumption of liquor by her husband also cannot be ruled out. At any event, charge as framed against the accused has not been established. Mere quarrel between the neighbours for some other issue, much prior to the suicide, cannot be brought under the ambit of incitement or abetment to convict the persons. Thus, I am of the view that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the judgment of the Trial Court needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5, by Judgment dated 03.04.2008, made in S.C.No.436 of 2007 on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, are set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by them and the sureties shall stand terminated.