JUDGMENT : 1. Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 31.07.2017 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine amount to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. A criminal case came to be registered against the accused on the strength of the complaint lodged by one Gangamma, W/o Laxmana on 13.05.2011. The substance of the same is 8 years back marriage of Saraswathi was performed with one Chandrappa of Dhaganikote Village. The spouses set up marital house at Kamalapura Village, Maralawadi. The accused was posing cruelty and torture to the said Saraswathi because of which she fell in well on 13.05.2011. 3. A case came to be registered in Crime No.104/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and Section 306 of IPC. It was charge-sheeted in C.C.No.835/2013. When the trial started the charge for the said offences was read out and explained to the accused. Accused denied it and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned trial Judge was accommodated with oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-11 and documentary evidence Exhibits P-1 to P-8 including post mortem report. After concluding the trial, learned trial Judge pronounced the Judgment on 31.07.2017 convicting the accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel Sri H.S.Suresh for appellant submits that the complainant had not subscribed her signature to the complaint and same is elicited during her cross examination. Learned counsel would submit that the deceased during her life time was suffering from epilepsy. He also submits that there was no occasion for the accused to ill-treat the victim and never ill treated the victim at any point of time. He would also submit that the very contents of the complaint by itself reveals that there was no torture or cruelty by the accused on the victim. Learned counsel also draws the attention to discrepancies in the oral evidence of witnesses. 6. He would also submit that the very contents of the complaint by itself reveals that there was no torture or cruelty by the accused on the victim. Learned counsel also draws the attention to discrepancies in the oral evidence of witnesses. 6. Learned Additional SPP Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage would submit that there is oral evidence and credibility and reliability of which is not destroyed and in the allegation over the fact that the victim had visited the house of her parents and had exclaimed her grievance regarding torture both mental and physical by the accused. It is also stated that the victim had disclosed her grievance because of addiction to alcohol by the accused and assaulted her in the intoxicated state. 7. In the circumstances the unnatural death of Saraswathi on 13.05.2011 is not disputed and the reason for committing suicide differs between the prosecution version and defence. 8. Complainant- PW-6 Gangamma is the maternal aunt of deceased Saraswathi. According to this witness upto five years from the marriage the spouses were cordial, however later they used to quarrel for three days and alright for three days. Complainant says that accused was raising exception that he was not given any cash or gold jewels at the time of marriage. Complainant says that she sent her daughter to see Saraswathi and she returned frightened and told that Saraswathi was beaten. Evidence in 5th line of the deposition does not convey proper meaning. She deposed that she informed Saraswathis mother that victim was beaten by her husband and when they were ready to take the victim to the hospital, the victim fell into the Well. She has been cross examined. No significance is elicited from cross examination more particularly her evidence in chief is not clear and unambiguous. 9. PW-3-Jayarama is the father of the victim. He tells that marriage was performed 15 years back. He has three daughters namely Saraswathi, Manjula and Geetha. The elder one is Saraswathi and both his daughter and son-in-law were labourers. Her daughter had informed him that the accused was addicted to alcohol and used to come home intoxicated. He used to create galata. He further states his daughter had come home the previous day to the incident and stayed for one night. Saraswathi had come home and expressed that she would not be going back because of galata and torture of her husband. He used to create galata. He further states his daughter had come home the previous day to the incident and stayed for one night. Saraswathi had come home and expressed that she would not be going back because of galata and torture of her husband. Cross examination has been done in two phases. In the further cross examination further suggestions are made regarding offence by the accused that are denied. The further cross examination is regarding caste to the effect that the victim belonged to Bovi Community and accused belonged to Golla Community. Thus, specific evidence of this witness is three fold: (1) His daughter was troubled and tortured by the accused (2) Accused had addiction to alcohol. Accused used to come intoxicated and beat her. (3) Just one day prior to the incident she had come and informed about her plight and miseries in the marital house. 10. PW4 - Smt. Venkatalakshmamma is the mother of the victim and was doing coolie work. She deposes that her daughter Saraswathi had told her that the accused used to beat her over not getting dowry. About three days prior to the incident, the victim had come to her home. Again on the previous day of the incident, she visited the house of this witness and went back telling that she was going to get tablets. The witness has further deposed that the victim did not come back. Thereafter, she got the news that her daughter had committed suicide by falling into the well and she went and saw the dead body that was in the well. 11. PW-7 -Manjula is the younger sister of the victim. She deposes regarding the marriage of the accused and the victim. On the date of the incident at about 4 p.m. she got the news that Saraswathi had fallen to well which is near the land of Padiyappa. Herself, her sister and her family members went to the spot. However, she has not noticed who were all present at the spot. She also states that the accused is the reason for the death of Saraswathi. The incriminating version spoken by her, according to the prosecution, is that the accused was torturing the victim and he was addicted to alcohol. In the cross-examination she replies to a question that she does not know about consuming of tablet by the victim. 12. She also states that the accused is the reason for the death of Saraswathi. The incriminating version spoken by her, according to the prosecution, is that the accused was torturing the victim and he was addicted to alcohol. In the cross-examination she replies to a question that she does not know about consuming of tablet by the victim. 12. Insofar PW-4 Smt. Venkatalakshmamma is concerned, she is the mother of the victim. According to this witness, her daughter had told her about the grievance and the accused consuming alcohol and assaulting her. Saraswathi had no issues. She has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. It is elicited from her that she resides in a different village. On the date of the incident, she had gone to a marriage and had received the news of death of Saraswathi in the marriage hall itself. According to her, twice they had lodged complaint earlier, but the police had not taken any action. She stoutly denies the suggestion that Saraswathi suffered skid near the well and fell down and died. She further denies the suggestion that the accused has not tortured or treated the victim with cruelty. 13. Insofar as PW-1-Varadaraju is concerned, he is a mahazar witness, but turns hostile deposing that he does not know the contents of the mahazar. 14. PW-2 Naganna is also cited as a circumstantial and direct witness, but turns hostile. 15. PWs.3, 4, 6 and 7 are the father, mother, mothers sister and sister of the victim, respectively, in respect of whom, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that their testimony is interested and biased. 16. PW-8 Puttanna is the mahazar witness and PW-9 Dr. Raju J. E. is the doctor and anesthetist who conducted the postmortem. The post-mortem report is marked as Ex.P8. PW-10-M.Shyam, PSI has registered the case and conducted the investigation. PW-11, N. Jagadeesh is the Village Accountant and has issued the RTC Extract. 17. Accused is examined as DW-1. He deposes that they were leading a happy married life. He further deposes that she was suffering from fits. When he had to gone to work, he received the news about the death of his wife and when he came to the spot, there was too much of crowd. He states that a false complaint is lodged against him. He deposes that they were leading a happy married life. He further deposes that she was suffering from fits. When he had to gone to work, he received the news about the death of his wife and when he came to the spot, there was too much of crowd. He states that a false complaint is lodged against him. He also deposes that the maternal aunt of the victim had demanded money from him and when he stated that they shall discuss the same after the ceremonies. As he did not meet her demand, she has filed the complaint. 18. Official witnesses are doctor, Village Accountant and the Investigating Officer. The prime allegation of the material witnesses was that the accused was not looking after his wife properly. He was consuming alcohol and the allegations against the accused was that he was beating the victim under the influence of intoxication and in this connection she had informed her parents and family members about her plight in the marital house. It is also forthcoming that she had expressed her version that she does not want to go back to her husbands house. Further the mother of the victim, PW-4 Smt. Venkatalakshmamma in her evidence had stated that on the previous day of incident Saraswathi, the victim had come to her house and mentioned her grievances. When this witness tried to console her, the victim expressed that she does not want to go to her marital home. 19. A person when resorts to end his life and commit suicide, it very much depends on his/her level of thinking and understanding of the affairs. It is a stage wherein a person finds that there is no alternative, except to put an end to the life. The reason may differ from person to person with reference to the resistance level. Persons with abnormal behaviour and who are sensitive become prey to the act of suicide quicker than other person. The reasons explained for committing suicide cannot be assessed from the angle of the victim or the accused. The moot question would be when the victim of suicide comes to an irreconcilable situation from there they can only pass to the stage of death by committing suicide. 20. The reasons explained for committing suicide cannot be assessed from the angle of the victim or the accused. The moot question would be when the victim of suicide comes to an irreconcilable situation from there they can only pass to the stage of death by committing suicide. 20. The acts, attitude and the conduct of the accused, when one of such gravity pushes the victim to a platform where the next destination is death in suicide. However, such aspects are absent in the case. 21. We have seen suicides being committed very often for trivial reasons. Further we have noticed that failure in the examination drives a person to death rather than to live and become a performer. 22. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that victim had gone to her mothers house on the previous date of the incident. He would further submit that the visit of the victim and committing suicide by falling into the well on the next day is a prime circumstance from which it reveals that the accused committed the offence of instigation to commit suicide. 23. The prosecution ought to have established that the accused person through his acts, deeds, personality and interaction, has instigated the victim to commit suicide. 24. Complainant makes allegation that the accused had demanded dowry and assaulted the victim. She also tells about the panchayat that was convened in her house. Of course, PW-6 also has stated that accused used to mock at his wife stating that she has not brought gold jewels. 25. Thus this court finds that due to the impact of such instances, a person cannot be pushed to the platform of committing suicide. Suicide or suicidal tendency has to be assessed from the point of third and unbiased person. 26. This court finds that there are no specific instances that inspire confidence spoken or deposed by the witness or revealed by the document to hold the accused guilty for having instigated his wife to commit suicide. The prosecution has not established an event or the effect of the event reliable that made the victim to bid adieu to the planet by committing suicide. 27. Parents of a married lady are under the emotion ridden and depressed upon losing the daughter. The prosecution has not established an event or the effect of the event reliable that made the victim to bid adieu to the planet by committing suicide. 27. Parents of a married lady are under the emotion ridden and depressed upon losing the daughter. Mere allegations of the offence of cruelty or abetment to commit suicide without presenting the events that were said to have occurred to push the victim to resort to extreme step are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. It is a case wherein accused was entitled for acquittal, but the trial Judge has found the accused guilty and convicted him as stated above. The reasoning and appreciation of evidence does not qualify for holding the accused guilty. The Judgment dated 31.07.2017 in S.C.No.5003/2014 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2017 passed in S.C.No.5003/2014 is set aside. 3. Accused who is stated to be in judicial custody for a period of 1 year 11 months 21 days is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.