JUDGMENT M.G. Giratkar, J. - The State has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal of accused persons by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.33/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused/respondents can be summarized is as under: Deceased Kamina daughter of Ramesh (P.W.1) married with accused Kailash. Accused Chamubai and Harishchandra are the parents-in-law of deceased. Other accused are the relatives of husband of deceased. Deceased Kamina married with accused No.1 in the year 2008. At the time of marriage parents of Kamina gave Rs. 25,000/and other articles to the accused No.1. After 2025 days Kamina came to her parents house. That time she complained that accused persons illtreated her for petty reason. Her husband Kailash was saying that less dowry was given in the marriage. Her husband was demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle. He was illtreating on that count. Accused No.1 taken her to matrimonial home. After 15 days Kamina talked with her aunt Savita and informed her to send her parent. 3. Her parents (P.W.1 and P.W.2) went to the house of accused. Accused quarreled with them. They had taken Kamina to their house. There was a meeting at Kajaleshwar at the house of Shivdas Rathod. In the meeting matter was amicably settled. After 1015 days police informed the parents of deceased that Kamina committed suicide by hanging. The father of deceased lodged the report at Police Station Patur. Crime was registered against the accused persons. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur. The case was committed to the Court of Session at Akola. 4. The charge was framed at Exh.75, same was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined in all total five witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola acquitted all the accused for the offence charged against them. 5. Heard Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. None appeared for the accused/respondents. 6. The Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 (parents of deceased) show that they had given Rs. 25,000/and other articles at the time of marriage. 5. Heard Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. None appeared for the accused/respondents. 6. The Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 (parents of deceased) show that they had given Rs. 25,000/and other articles at the time of marriage. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that when deceased came to their house she made complaint against the accused saying that her husband was demanding Motorcycle. The accused persons were illtreating her. 7. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are contradictory to each other. P.W.1 has stated that accused was demanding Motorcycle. P.W.2, mother of deceased not stated anything about the demand of Motorcycle. P.W.3 has stated that deceased told her that her husband and mother-in-law often beat her. Her husband was demanding Motorcycle from her parents. She told that her mother-in-law was suspecting against her. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 and P.W.2 not stated about the beating by the husband and her mother-in-law. They have also not stated that her mother-in-law was suspecting the deceased. 8. P.W.4 has stated that he was the mediator for the settlement of marriage. Parents of deceased had given Rs. 25,000/, gold ring at the time of marriage. After one and half month of the marriage, Kamina told him that her husband and mother-in-law were illtreating her. They used to beat her. They were asking her to bring Rs. 40,000/more. This particular evidence not stated by the parents of deceased. 9. P.W.4 has stated that one month prior to the incident, meeting was called for settlement at his house. The matter was settled. Kamina resumeed cohabitation. After one month he came to know that Kamina committed suicide. In the crossexamination he stated that other respectable persons were also present at the time of marriage. But they are not examined by the prosecution. P.W.1, 2, 3 and 4 are the nearest relatives. Their evidence is contradictory to each other. None of the witnesses have stated in their evidence that accused demanded Rs. 25,000/at the time of settlement of marriage. Therefore, whatever the amount given by the parents of deceased was as per the custom. There is no evidence to show that accused persons illtreated the deceased on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence to show that accused persons beat the deceased. 10. 25,000/at the time of settlement of marriage. Therefore, whatever the amount given by the parents of deceased was as per the custom. There is no evidence to show that accused persons illtreated the deceased on account of demand of dowry. There is no evidence to show that accused persons beat the deceased. 10. The evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W.5) show that statements of neighbours were recorded, but those statements are not filed with the chargesheet. This itself show that the prosecution has suppressed the material evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that his relatives are residing near the house of the accused persons, but they are not examined by the prosecution. 11. There is no dispute that Kamina committed suicide by hanging. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death accused persons demanded any dowry. The material ingredients are not proved by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court rightly recorded its finding. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R [i] Criminal Appeal No.103/2013 is dismissed. [ii] The bail bond of accused/respondents stand cancelled. [iii] R & P be sent back to the Trial Court.