JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 21.05.2008, made in S.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. 2. There were totally four accused in this case and all the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. After trial, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were acquitted from their respective charges. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted from the charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, however, convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) The deceased No.1-Amaravathi is the wife of A-1-Balamurugan. The deceased No.2-Thangalakshmi and the deceased No.3-Raja were their children. Accused No.2-Poochammal is the concubine of Accused No.1. The deceased No.1 and Accused No.1 married 16 years back. Out of wedlock, the deceased Nos.2 and 3 were born to them. Two years prior to the death of the deceased, Accused No.1 developed illegal contact with Accused No.2. In view of such contact, Accused No.1 repeatedly beat the deceased No.1 and started harassing her along with Accused No.3 and Accused No.4, the parents of Accused No.1. On 14.12.2006, Accused No.2 went to the deceased No.1's house and involved in a quarrel, due to which, Accused No.1 beat the deceased No.1 and sent her out from the house. (ii) P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the parents of the deceased No.1. P.W.6 is the sister of the deceased No.1. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are residents of the Village, where the deceased No.1 and Accused No.1 resided together. P.W.7 and P.W.8 were also aware of the fact that Accused No.1 had illegal contact with Accused No.2 and on 14.12.2006, Accused No.2 went to the deceased No.1's house and quarrelled with her. In fact, P.W.8 separated a quarrel in the morning. When P.W.8 returned to her Village, all the deceased were found missing. (iii) P.W.1 and P.W.3, Head Constables, on their patrol duty in the Campus of Thiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy Temple, found all the deceased sitting in the Temple campus. In fact, P.W.8 separated a quarrel in the morning. When P.W.8 returned to her Village, all the deceased were found missing. (iii) P.W.1 and P.W.3, Head Constables, on their patrol duty in the Campus of Thiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy Temple, found all the deceased sitting in the Temple campus. On enquiry, the deceased No.1 informed that her husband, having illegal contact with Accused No.2, tortured her. Therefore, they decided to end their life and consumed poison. At that time, the deceased No.1 also handed over a suicide letter (Ex.P.3) to P.W.1. P.W.1 and P.W.3 took all the three deceased to hospital in an auto belonged to P.W.10 and admitted them in the hospital and gave a special report (Ex.P.1) to the Inspector of Police concerned. (iv) P.W.2, the Medical Officer, attached to Thiruchendur Government Hospital, admitted all the three deceased in the Hospital at 11.45 p.m. on 14.12.2006. However, all the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital, in respect of which, he issued Exs.P.5 to P.7 - Wound Certificates and also gave an intimation to the police under Ex.P.2. (v) P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on the basis of the special report submitted by P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.382 of 2006 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Ex.P.17-printed First Information Report and handed over Ex.P.17-FIR, Ex.P.2-death intimation report and Ex.P.3-suicide letter to the Executive Magistrate. (vi) P.W.16, Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation and contacted the relatives of the deceased and on the next day early morning, prepared an Observation Mahazar- Ex.P.8 and rough sketch-Ex.P.18 in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, in the hospital, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies and prepared inquest report Exs.P.19 to 21 and gave a requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct autopsy. (vii) P.W.12, the Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over all the dead bodies and issued Post-Mortem Certificates Exs.P.9, 12 and 14 and opined that all the deceased died due to consumption of Organo-Phosphorous. (viii) P.W.16, in continuation of investigation, altered the crime for the offence under Section 306 IPC under Ex.P.22 and after arresting the accused and recording the statements of witnesses, finally, laid final report as against the accused under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. (viii) P.W.16, in continuation of investigation, altered the crime for the offence under Section 306 IPC under Ex.P.22 and after arresting the accused and recording the statements of witnesses, finally, laid final report as against the accused under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. (ix) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment 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.16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25 were marked. (x) 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. (xi) The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty under Section 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as referred to in the second paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 have come up with this appeal. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the alleged suicide letter (Ex.P.3) has not been proved and it has not been sent to the Forensic Lab for getting an opinion from the Handwriting Expert. Therefore, the alleged suicide letter left by the deceased No.1 cannot be given much weight age and there is no other evidence to show that the accused Nos.1 and 2 abetted the deceased No.1 to take extreme step of committing suicide along with her children. The deceased No.1 is a member of Self-Help Group and there is an allegation of misappropriation of fund. Thus, possibility of committing suicide, due to such allegation, also cannot be ruled out. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution do not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 306 IPC. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. Thus, possibility of committing suicide, due to such allegation, also cannot be ruled out. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution do not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 306 IPC. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Arokiasamy v. State [2014(2) MLJ (Crl) 401] and Criminal Appeal No.540 of 2009, decided on 24.02.2017 [Jayanthi @ Karolina vs. The Inspector of Police, Royapuram Police Station]. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 8 clearly prove the illegal contact of Accused No.1 with Accused No.2. The suicide letter was seized from the place of occurrence, where all the deceased were found lying after consuming poison and immediately, handed over to the concerned authorities. Hence, there is no chance for fabrication and the evidence of prosecution witnesses also clearly prove that only due to persistent torture committed by the accused No.1, the deceased took the extreme step to end their life. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court needs no interference. 7. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt? 8. Admittedly, the deceased No.1-Amaravathi is the wife of Accused No.1. The evidence of parents and sister of the deceased No.1, viz., P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 clearly established the fact that Accused No.1 married the deceased No.1 sixteen years back. It is the evidence of those witnesses that Accused No.1 had developed illegal connection with Accused No.2 and started treating the deceased No.1 cruelly. On 14.12.2006, Accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelled with the deceased No.1 and she was sent out from the house. Therefore, due to frustration and persistent cruelty meted out by her, she has committed suicide along with her two minor children. Admittedly, the deceased No.1 is the mother of deceased Nos.2 and 3. On 14.12.2006, Accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelled with the deceased No.1 and she was sent out from the house. Therefore, due to frustration and persistent cruelty meted out by her, she has committed suicide along with her two minor children. Admittedly, the deceased No.1 is the mother of deceased Nos.2 and 3. P.W.1 and P.W.3, who are the Head Constables of the local police station, while on their routine patrol duty, found all the deceased lying in the campus of Thiruchendur Subramaniya Swamy Temple at about 11.45 p.m., on 14.12.2006. The deceased No.1 informed P.W.1 and P.W.3 that Accused No.1, having illegal connection with Accused No.2, continuously, tortured her, which led her to take extreme step to commit suicide along with her children. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the suicide letter-Ex.P.3 has not been proved in the manner known to law and Expert Aid has not been taken up by the prosecution cannot be given importance. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014(2) MLJ (Crl) 401, referred to supra, wherein, at Paragraph No.9, this Court has held as follows: "Coming to the suicide note (Ex.P.2), according to the Police, it was recovered on 30.10.2002 under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P6). The Mahazar has gone to the Court only on 20.06.2003 as could be seen from the initials made thereon by the learned Magistrate. There is no evidence to show as to when the letter (Ex.P2) had gone to the Court. The police did not send the letter to the Handwriting Expert along with the admitted handwritings of Josephine for comparison and report. The authorship of the letter is through the evidence of P.W.1, who says that Ex.P2 was written by his grand daughter. Apart from this evidence, there is no other material to show that it was Josephine who had written this letter. Johnson (P.W.3), the brother of Sheeba and the maternal uncle of Josephine to whom this letter is addressed, has stated in his evidence that, it was he who handed over the letter to the police, but whereas, according to the Investigating Officer, this letter was seized in the house of the accused in the evening on 30.10.2002." 9. Johnson (P.W.3), the brother of Sheeba and the maternal uncle of Josephine to whom this letter is addressed, has stated in his evidence that, it was he who handed over the letter to the police, but whereas, according to the Investigating Officer, this letter was seized in the house of the accused in the evening on 30.10.2002." 9. In the above judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court, taking note of the fact that there is a serious contradiction as to the handing over of the letter by the witness to the Investigating Officer and also the fact that the letter has not been sent to the Court immediately, disbelieved the above letter. 10. But, in the case on hand, on careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is seen that while they were on routine patrol duty, they found all the deceased lying in the Temple Campus and in fact, the deceased No.1 informed P.W.1 and handed over the letter. The statement of the deceased No.1 to P.W.1 and P.W.3 clearly shows that she has given a declaration for cause of her death. She has clearly informed P.W.1 and P.W.3 that only due to the illegal connection of her husband (A-1) with A-2 and torture by him along with his parents, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide along with her children. 11. P.W.15, who registered the First Information Report, on the basis of Ex.P.1-Special report given by P.W.1, has forwarded the First Information Report and Ex.P.3-suicide letter to the Executive Magistrate and not to the Court. Only after alteration of the crime under Section 306 IPC, Ex.P.3 and First Information Report were sent to the Court on 28.12.2006. Therefore, merely because of delay in reaching these documents to the Court, in my view, the same cannot be thrown out. 12. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have no axe to grind against the accused Nos.1 and 2, at the first instance. It is not the case of the prosecution that the suicide letter was handed over by any of the family members at a later point of time. They collected from the deceased No.1 when she was lying after consuming poison. Therefore, merely because the Handwriting Expert aid has not been taken up, it cannot be said that Ex.P.3 was not handed over by the deceased No.1. They collected from the deceased No.1 when she was lying after consuming poison. Therefore, merely because the Handwriting Expert aid has not been taken up, it cannot be said that Ex.P.3 was not handed over by the deceased No.1. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6, when carefully seen, they have spoken in one voice that Accused No.1 had developed illegal connection with Accused No.2. P.W.7, though turned hostile, to some extent, her evidence also clearly proved the fact that on 14.12.2006, Accused No.2 went to the Accused No.1's house and there was a quarrel between the deceased No.1 and Accused No.2. P.W.8, a resident of the same Village, has also clearly spoken about the quarrel between Accused No.2 and deceased No.1 on the particular day. Their evidence also clearly proved that when they returned from work, all the deceased were found missing and on the next day, they came to know that the deceased committed suicide. The evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.8 clearly established the fact that there was quarrel between Accused No.2 and the deceased No.1 on 14.12.2006. A perusal of Ex.P.3-suicide letter also clearly shows that it has written in the note book paper used by the school student. On back of Ex.P.3, something has been written by class IX student. Ex.P.3 clearly shows that her husband, having connection with Accused No.2, tortured her and due to unbearable cruelty of her husband, she has decided to take such extreme step of committing suicide along with her children. Ex.P.3 has not implicated Accused No.2. In Ex.P.3, in categorical terms, she has stated that only her husband caused cruelty having connection with Accused No.2. 13. From the above evidence, now, it has to be analyzed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 306 IPC, as found by the Trial Court? 14. Though the parents of Accused No.1 also tried, they have been given benefit of doubt by the Trial Court. No appeal has been filed against that. The other charge framed under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act has also ended in acquittal as against the accused Nos.1 and 15. 14. Though the parents of Accused No.1 also tried, they have been given benefit of doubt by the Trial Court. No appeal has been filed against that. The other charge framed under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act has also ended in acquittal as against the accused Nos.1 and 15. Now, coming to the charge under Section 306 IPC, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.10 clearly established the fact that all the deceased were taken to the hospital on the same day by P.W.1 and P.W.3 in an auto belonged to P.W.10. The deceased No.1 has informed P.W.1 that her husband was the root-cause for her to take such extreme step. The evidence of P.Ws.4 to 8 clearly show the illegal connection of Accused Nos.1 and 2, besides the quarrel between Accused No.2 and the deceased No.1. P.W.2, the medical officer's evidence, clearly shows that all the deceased were immediately taken to the hospital and after some time, they died. The evidence of doctor, who issued Post-mortem Certificates, clearly proves the death by suicide by consuming Organo-Phosphorous. 16. Now, in the above background, it has to be analyzed whether the act of the accused Nos.1 and 2 would constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC? 17. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that the prosecution should prove that the accused had committed anyone of the overt acts enumerated in Section 107 IPC, namely (a) Instigation; (b) Entered into a conspiracy; or (c) intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission. 18. There must be a reasonable link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that Accused No.1, being the husband of the deceased No.1, keeping a concubine, committed cruelty on her, besides there was a quarrel between the concubine and deceased No.1. When any husband having two children and married sixteen years back and continuing illegal relationship with another woman and indulging in quarrelling will certainly destroy the normal mental frame of any wife. Such conduct of husband keeping a concubine and involving in a quarrel with his wife frequently would certainly amount to incitement and aid to an woman to take extreme step to commit suicide. Such conduct of husband keeping a concubine and involving in a quarrel with his wife frequently would certainly amount to incitement and aid to an woman to take extreme step to commit suicide. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 to P.W.8, I am of the view that the act of the Accused No.1 keeping the concubine and harassing the deceased No.1 certainly forced her to take the extreme step of committing suicide along with her two minor children. Thus, such act of the Accused No.1 would certainly amount to an act of incitement. 19. As far as Accused No.2 is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1, before whom, the deceased No.1 gave a first statement, when she was lifted to the hospital, shows that only her husband used to torture her. In Ex.P.3-suicide letter also, she has clearly spoken about her husband's torture. Therefore, merely because Accused No.2, having illegal connection, involved in a quarrel with the deceased No.1, unless the prosecution establishes what was the nature of quarrel and what were the words uttered by Accused No.2, at the relevant point of time, to force the deceased No.1 to take extreme step, in my view, the same would not amount to attract any of the ingredients of abetment. P.W.7 and P.W.8, though eye witnesses, in their evidence, they have not stated what was the quarrel between Accused No.2 and the deceased No.1. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that Accused No.2 has actually uttered any word, which destroyed the mental frame work of the deceased No.1 at the particular point of time, merely because of petty quarrel, Accused No.2 cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. The evidence of P.W.1, to whom the deceased No.1, gave an oral declaration about the cause of death, clearly implicates only accused No.1 The same is also corroborated by Ex.P.3-suicide letter. Therefore, I am of the view that the charge against Accused No.2 under Section 306 IPC cannot be attracted. Accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court convicting Accused No.2 is liable to be set aside. However, as regards the conviction recorded against Accused No.1 by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 306 IPC, since the prosecution has proved his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the same needs to be confirmed. 20. Accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court convicting Accused No.2 is liable to be set aside. However, as regards the conviction recorded against Accused No.1 by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 306 IPC, since the prosecution has proved his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the same needs to be confirmed. 20. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: The conviction and sentence imposed against the first appellant/Accused No.1, by Judgment dated 21.05.2008, made in S.C.No.27 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, are, hereby, confirmed. The Bail bond executed by the first appellant/Accused No.1, if any, shall stand cancelled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, is directed to secure the custody of the first appellant/accused No.1 to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the first appellant/accused No.1 is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Insofar as the second appellant/Accused No.2 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, by Judgment dated 21.05.2008, made in S.C.No.27 of 2008, are, hereby, set aside and she is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the second appellant/Accused No.2 shall be refunded to her. Bail bond, if any, executed by her and the sureties shall stand terminated.