JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the Informant / Appellant, State and the Respondent No. 2 on the prayer for condonation of delay of 75 days in preferring the appeal being I.A. No. 2514/2019 and also on the prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal in terms of section 378(3) of the Cr.PC against the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 344/2016 by the Court of Learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charge under section 306 of the I.P.C. while convicting him for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C and by the impugned order of sentence of the same date, sentenced him for two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and default clause. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, State and Respondent No. 2 on the merits of the challenge to the impugned acquittal under section 306 of the I.P.C. Appellant is also aggrieved by the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. 3. The Informant''s case is as follows: Informant''s sister Nargis Ara (deceased) aged 32 years was married ten years before with the accused. He has alleged demand of dowry and physical torture since her marriage and interventions by the Panch from time to time. On 15.06.2016 he was informed by the accused / brother-in-law that his sister is serious and asked to come to Pragati Nursing Home. On reaching there, he learnt that the doctor had declared her dead. On this assertion, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 56/2016 dated 15.06.2016 was instituted under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 306 of the I.P.C. After cognizance and commitment, charges were framed under section 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. which were explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he denied his involvement and pleaded his innocence. 4. During course of trial, prosecution examined eleven witness named as under: P.W.1: Sabbir Ansari P.W.2: Amarnath Sahis P.W.3: Md. Alam Ansari P.W.4: Abid Ansari P.W.5: Gyas Ansari P.W.6: Md. Basi Ansari P.W.7: Dr. 4. During course of trial, prosecution examined eleven witness named as under: P.W.1: Sabbir Ansari P.W.2: Amarnath Sahis P.W.3: Md. Alam Ansari P.W.4: Abid Ansari P.W.5: Gyas Ansari P.W.6: Md. Basi Ansari P.W.7: Dr. Vinit P. Tigga P.W.8: Raghunandan Kumar P.W9: Rajiv Ranjan P.W.10: Phuldeo Uraon P.W.11: Ramesh Prasad It also adduced certain documentary evidence as under: Ext.1: Written Report Ext.1/1: Endorsement on Written Report Ext.2: Postmortem Report Ext.3: Postmortem Report Ext.4: Inquest Report No defence witness was examined nor any document produced by them. 5. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.PC was recorded where he denied his involvement and pleaded not guilty. 6. On consideration of the evidence on record and submissions of the parties, learned Trial Court did not find the charges under section 306 of the I.P.C proved but convicted the accused for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the prayer for grant of leave, has assailed the findings on the following grounds: He submits that the evidence on record clearly shows physical torture due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, which compelled the victim to commit suicide. Learned Trial Court had wrongly disbelieved the prosecution evidence on this count. Even in a case of conviction under section 498-A of the I.P.C., sentence of two years is meagre considering the fact that the victim suffered death due to physical torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by her parents. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is vulnerable on both counts. If leave is granted, the Appellate Court may re-appreciate the evidence in entirety to come to a correct finding. 8. Learned counsel for the State and the Respondent No. 2 / accused has opposed the prayer and taken the Court to the findings recorded by learned Trial Court. It is submitted that though the doctor (P.W.7) has opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, but the oral evidence specially that of the Informant, brother of the victim (P.W.6) and also P.W.8 and P.W.9 did not substantiate the allegation that she was subjected to torture as a result of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted that though the doctor (P.W.7) has opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, but the oral evidence specially that of the Informant, brother of the victim (P.W.6) and also P.W.8 and P.W.9 did not substantiate the allegation that she was subjected to torture as a result of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. Moreover, the Informant at para-8 of his crossexamination, had stated that there were altercation between the accused and the deceased due to drinking habit of the accused. Further at para-13, he stated that the victim was undergoing treatment at Ranchi under a Neuro Physician Dr. Shailendra Kumar as she was suffering from depression. She was under medication for depression. This quality of evidence did not warrant inference that the victim''s death due to asphyxia by hanging was on the instigation of the accused person. Learned Trial Court has weighed the evidence and has not been persuaded by the number of prosecution witnesses to come to a considered finding that ingredients of section 306 of the I.P.C are not established. There is no evidence on record to substantiate that the accused person had been involved in abetment of suicide, as per section 306 or 107 of the I.P.C. The relevant provisions of IPC are quoted hereunder: "306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, whoFirst.- 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. Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.-Whowever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Marriage was ten years old. However, considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court convicted the accused person for the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this finding is also under jeopardy in pending Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1212/2018 before this Court. As such, appellant / Informant has not been able to make out any case for grant of Leave to Appeal. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, State and the Respondent No. 2 / accused. It is trite to observe that the proposition that standard of proof in criminal trial is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt is well settled. On perusal of the findings of the learned Trial Court, we are able to infer that the ingredients of section 107 of the I.P.C. or section 306 of the I.P.C. could not be made out by the prosecution evidence as there were contradiction in the evidence of P.W.6 Informant, brother of the deceased. P.W.6 in his deposition had failed to adduce evidence regarding demand of dowry and resultant physical torture, though in his written report, he had alleged so. He had also not stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused had instigated the victim to commit suicide. In his cross-examination at para-8, he has referred to frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased due to drinking habit of the accused. What is more significant is his statement at para-13 to 16 in his cross-examination where he clearly states that the victim was suffering from depression and was under treatment and medication of Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Neuro Physician at Ranchi. If she used to take medicine, she remained normal. P.W.8 and 9 have also stated that they had no knowledge of any quarrel or altercation between the accused and the victim and they had good relationship. Shailendra Kumar, Neuro Physician at Ranchi. If she used to take medicine, she remained normal. P.W.8 and 9 have also stated that they had no knowledge of any quarrel or altercation between the accused and the victim and they had good relationship. They had also not heard of any demand of dowry. Though P.Ws.1, 3, 4 & 5 have in their evidence suggested torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, but none of them have stated that the accused had instigated the victim to commit suicide. If that is the weight of evidence, then the ingredients of offence under section 306 or 107 of the I.P.C are not made out, as rightly recorded by the learned Trial Court. 10. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to grant Leave to the Informant / Appellant to seek reopening of the findings of the learned Trial Court on these counts. On the other hand, learned Trial Court has recorded conviction under section 498-A of the I.P.C which is already under challenge by the accused before learned Single Judge of this Court. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed by the learned Trial Court, the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned conviction also does not require any interference by this Court. As such, we are not inclined to grant Leave to Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11931/2018 seeking Leave to Appeal is dismissed. On consideration of the specific grounds of illness and treatment of counsel for the Informant at a hospital in Ranchi for fracture as stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 75 days in preferring the Acquittal Appeal. I.A. No. 2514/2019 is allowed. However, since Leave to Appeal has been refused by this Court, the appeal stands dismissed.