JUDGMENT M.V.Muralidaran, J. The appellant herein assails the Judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2012 passed against him in Sessions Case No.124 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Chennai sentencing him to undergo 10 years of punishment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. in connection with Crime No.1243 of 2008. 2. It is the charge against appellant that he abetted suicide of his wife and he was put to undergo Criminal Trial for an offence charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. The Learned Trial Judge on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence led in by prosecution found the charge proven beyond reasonable doubt and thereby convicted the appellant in above terms. The said order of conviction is under challenge herein. 3. I heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, for Mr.B.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and on careful perusal of impugned order and case records. 4. It is the case of prosecution that the marriage between the appellant Dhanasekhar and one Sharitha took place on 27.08.2004 and they lived in Velacherry Housing Board quarters. During marriage Sharitha was given 50 sovereigns of Gold, besides 10 sovereigns given to appellant by Sharitha's father. Apart from other sridana articles a cash of Rs. 50,000/- was given to appellant by Sharitha's father immediately after marriage. 5. Misfortunately there developed difference of opinion over several issues between the appellant and his wife Sharitha, which resulted quarrel between appellant and his wife Sharitha, out of same their Matrimonial family life was unhappy and was at peril. They had a son namely Vignesh. 6. According to prosecution version the appellant and his wife Sharitha went to bazaar on 20.08.2008 at about 7:00 PM. Their son Vignesh on seeing a ball asked the same. However, as ball was not purchased, their son Vignesh in anger threw Sharitha's cell phone towards the wall. Thereupon appellant's wife Sharitha fumed by the act of her son, beat him. Seeing this, the appellant got angry by saying “XXX XXX XXX” and beaten Sharitha on check. 7. Having worried on above quoted abusive words of the appellant, Sharitha was driven to commit suicide by hanging in her bedroom window rod by her dupatta. Thereupon appellant's wife Sharitha fumed by the act of her son, beat him. Seeing this, the appellant got angry by saying “XXX XXX XXX” and beaten Sharitha on check. 7. Having worried on above quoted abusive words of the appellant, Sharitha was driven to commit suicide by hanging in her bedroom window rod by her dupatta. However it was informed to father of deceased Rathanasamy residing at his native place informing that his daughter suffers out of illness and was called to Chennai. Accordingly the father of the deceased Rathanasamy rushed to Chennai, however it was shocking to see that his daughter died. 8. For the above incident a complaint was made by the defacto complainant Rathanasamy/PW1 before the respondent police. On receipt of the complaint from PW11 namely Tamilselvi, the Sub Inspector of Police of J7 Velacherry Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1243 of 2008 viz Ex-P7 under section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. The case was taken for investigation by PW12 Natarajan, the then Assistant Commissioner. The PW12 Assistant Commissioner of Police took up the case for investigation, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazre in EX-P4, rough sketch Ex-P12 and he also arranged to take photographs in M.O.1 through the photographer Ravi. Requisition in Ex-P8 for inquest and enquiry was made before PW-10 Palanivel, the Personal Assistant to District Collector by PW12. 9. Further PW12 recorded statement of the witnesses and based on it FIR was altered vide alteration report in Ex-P13 for an offence under section 306 IPC. After completion of the inquest and other legal formalities the dead body was handed over to the relations by PW8 Venkatesh, the Head Constable assisting the personal assistant to Collector. 10. Further investigation was made by PW13 the succeeding officer of PW12 namely Senthilkumaran and he filed charge sheet against the accused under section 306 of IPC. The said final report was taken on file by the learned IXth Metropolitan Magistrate Court in PRC.No.178 of 2010 and the same to be committed to learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai and was assigned with Sessions Case No.124 of 2011. During trial, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits and 1 material object. 11. The said final report was taken on file by the learned IXth Metropolitan Magistrate Court in PRC.No.178 of 2010 and the same to be committed to learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai and was assigned with Sessions Case No.124 of 2011. During trial, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits and 1 material object. 11. The learned trail Judge on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the protection held the appellant/accused guilty of offence charged against him and accordingly convicted him by the impugned Order. 12. Thus the case of prosecution that Sharitha was driven to commit suicide by words of the appellant was held proved by the Trial Court. 13. On perusal of case records it is found that PW1 has deposed that at the time of marriage he gave 50 sovereigns of Gold Jewels to her daughter and 10 sovereigns to the accused. More so, Rs 50,000/- towards two wheeler. 14. After the marriage, the appellant/accused demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs for getting professor post for him. Whereby appellant was paid with Rs 4 lakh and Rs. 1 lakh such that 4 Lakh to be paid to job and 1 lakh to deceased Sharitha's studies. However the appellant failed to secure a job. Whereas the accused demanded further 1 lakh from PW1. The same was questioned by the deceased and due to that they had quarrel. 15. On the day of occurrence, the appellant and the deceased along with their son went to bazaar. After returning home, their son demanded ball, but as the same was refused by the deceased, Vignesh thrown the cell phone on the wall. Due to the followed quarrel and words of the accused, the deceased abetted to commit suicide by hanging herself with duppatta on the bed room window. Hence he lodged complaint Ex-P1. 16. PW2 Kanaga the mother of the deceased corroborated evidence of her husband PW1. 17. In as much as other witnesses are concerned it is found that PW3 and PW4 who were neighbour to the deceased turned hostile. The Auto driver PW5 deposed that on the day of occurrence when the deceased was tried to commit suicide, the accused called PW3 and PW4 for assistance. After break open the door by him, they saw the deceased by hanging herself on the bedroom window by duppatta. The Auto driver PW5 deposed that on the day of occurrence when the deceased was tried to commit suicide, the accused called PW3 and PW4 for assistance. After break open the door by him, they saw the deceased by hanging herself on the bedroom window by duppatta. Immediately he rescued the deceased and taken her to Ponmani Hospital by his auto. 18. PW5 Neminathan is the auto driver who was called by the inmates of the street to carry Sharitha to Hospital. PW6 Suresh and PW7 Daniel are also auto drivers of that locality and were the mahazar witnesses. 19. PW3 Kala and PW4 Mala are neighbors of the deceased and appellant and they turned hostile stating that they were unaware of the alleged family dispute in the appellant's family. 20. PW9 Dr. Ilango deposed that one Dr.Mathikaran and Dr.Baskaran had conducted post mortem on the deceased body and after completion of Post Mortem the P.M certificate Ex-P6 was issued. From the deposition of PW9 Dr. Ilango it is noticed that except the injury caused out of tightening of dupatta around neck there is no Injury found over the body of Sharitha. In convicting the appellant it is found that the trial Court has relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the father and mother of the deceased informing its decision holding the appellant guilty of offence charged under section 306 IPC. Thus it is obvious to see that the impugned order illustrate appellant's conviction exclusively relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 the father and mother of the deceased. 21. At the same time it is equally important to state that the conviction on hand is based on the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. Again there is no overact or act projected as against the appellant causing abatement of suicide. 22. In this regard it would be useful to note that though the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty was leveled against the accused, it is the admitted case of PW1 that neither he nor the deceased Sharitha had made a complaint before the Court or Police calling for an action. 23. The complaint is completely silent as to allegation of dowry harassment. All along the complaint there is no say as to the demand of dowry or harassment. 23. The complaint is completely silent as to allegation of dowry harassment. All along the complaint there is no say as to the demand of dowry or harassment. At the same time it is seen that PW2 the mother of the deceased stated in her statement before the RDO which is exhibited in EX P3 that on the day of death of their daughter, the deceased called PW1 and she was talking nicely to her father. 24. In the case on hand, even according to the case of prosecution there is no quarrel over the fact that appellant was not with the deceased in home and it was deceased who closing the doors when the appellant was outside had committed suicide. PW5 had affirmed the same. 25. Therefore in the said factual backdrop, all that this Court has to see is whether appellant's mere word even if uttered "go and die" would be an abetment as held by the Trial Court. 26. In this regard it would be relevant to look in to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , it was held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the conference to actually follow cannot said to be instigation. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh agreement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. 27. In the context of protection case it is indispensable to highlight the recession of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swami Prahaladas Vs. State of MP and another whereby it was held that mere words uttered by the accused "TO GO AND DIE" will not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 28. 27. In the context of protection case it is indispensable to highlight the recession of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swami Prahaladas Vs. State of MP and another whereby it was held that mere words uttered by the accused "TO GO AND DIE" will not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 28. In as much definition to the Act of abatement is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanju Vs State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held that abetment mean that require a person to doing of a thing if he firstly, instigate any person to do that 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. 29. All the above decisions would show that mere words uttered by the accused "TO GO AND DIE" will not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Even according to the prosecution case the appellant had not done anything more than uttering words, projected as abetting suicide. 30. As stated above there are material contradictions over the version of PW1 and PW2 in as much as the allegation of Dowry harassment and cruelty. There is no direct or indirect evidence to hold the appellant to have abetted or instigated or intentionally aiding Sharitha to commit suicide in the light of above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 31. Hence, the appellant/accused had make out the case both oral and documentary evidence and this Court finds absolutely there is reason to interfere with the conviction passed by the trial Court. 32. In the result: (a) this Criminal Appeal is allowed and thereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.124 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, dated 30.07.2012, is set aside; (b) the bail bond if any executed by the appellant is stands cancelled; (c) the fine amount if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded by the trial Court.