JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Though the present appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the XII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak in S.C.No.127/2016 dated 06.03.2018. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant is staying along with the deceased father, mother, wife and his son. Accused No.1 is his uncle, accused No.2 is his wife, accused Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of accused No.1. It is further alleged that they were having ancestral property in survey No.259/1 measuring 1 acre 51 guntas and survey No.259/2 measuring 19 guntas. Survey No.259/1 was standing in the name of accused No.1 and 259/2 was standing in the name of the father of the complainant. A case was pending before the Tribunal between the accused No.1 and the deceased. It is further alleged that accused No.1 harassed the deceased by not giving any share in the said land and as such, the deceased consumed poison on 14.08.2014 and died on 15.08.2014 at about 11.00 am. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered and after investigation charge sheet was led against accused Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter after following the procedure, the said case was committed to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused regarding framing of the charge, charge was read over and explained to the accused persons. Accused pleaded not guilty and as they claimed to be tried, the case was fixed for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 9 witnesses and got marked 11 documents and also five material objects. After hearing the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. Assailing the same the State is before this Court. 5. After hearing the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. Assailing the same the State is before this Court. 5. It is the submission of the learned HCGP for the appellant that, there is evidence to show that the accused No.1 along with his family members harassed and ill-treated the deceased by not giving share to the deceased and thereby he has committed suicide by consuming poison. It is his further contention that the panchayat was also held in this behalf to give share and in spite of that accused persons have not given their share. It is his further submission that, though death note has not been sent to RFSL, but the death note clearly goes to show that, because of the harassment caused to the deceased he consumed poison. Though all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, without proper appreciation, the Court below has acquitted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused vehemently argued and submitted that there is no prima facie material to come to the conclusion that it is the accused persons who have harassed and gave torture to the accused persons by not giving share in the property. The civil litigations are also pending before the Tribunal and the deceased was also party to some proceedings. It is his further submission that, PW8 is an independent witness. He has deposed that the deceased has borrowed a loan of Rs.80,000/- and the persons who have given loan were demanding repayment and the said aspect has also been admitted by the wife of the deceased - PW2. Under the said facts and circumstances, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there are two views and that the case of the prosecution is doubtful and in that light the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused and has rightly acquitted the accused. There are no good grounds made out by the prosecution to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment. 7. There are no good grounds made out by the prosecution to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Pw1 is the son of the deceased and is also the complainant. By reiterating the contents of the complaint, he has further deposed that his father was having landed property and he was demanding share from accused No.1 and accused No.1 has not given any share and because of their harassment he has taken the poison. But during the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that accused No.1 is not the true brother of his father and a case is also pending before the Tribunal in respect of 1 acre 21 guntas and he has also filed a partition suit before the Civil Court. He has also further deposed that, to prove the handwriting of the deceased on the death-note he has given note book containing the handwriting of his father, but the said notebook has not been produced before the Court. He has also further admitted that, in the death note the date is mentioned as February 2012 though the alleged incident has taken place on 14.08.2014. 9. Pw2 is the wife of the deceased and mother of PW1. She has also stated about the alleged harassment and ill-treatment caused by accused persons regarding not giving share in the property. But during the course of cross-examination, she has admitted that the deceased has availed loan and the persons who have given the loan were demanding for repayment of loan amount. 10. PW3 is the owner of the adjoining land. He has also deposed regarding the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons to the deceased and in his cross-examination he has deposed that he do not know anything about the civil disputes pending between the parties and he is not having any knowledge about the genealogy and he is not having any knowledge about the panchayat held in the village in this behalf. 11. PW4 is also one of the elderly persons who is said to have been participated in the panchayat. 11. PW4 is also one of the elderly persons who is said to have been participated in the panchayat. In his evidence he has deposed that, in spite of the advice by the elders accused has not given any share to the deceased and he has also further stated that the deceased died by consuming poison because of harassment given by the accused. In his cross-examination he has deposed that the panchayat was held in the year 1986 and thereafter he has not participated in any panchayat. He has also deposed that he do not know civil litigation pending between the deceased and the accused. PW5 is panch witness to the spot mahazer Ex.P3. PW6 is also a panch witness. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued the post-mortem report as per Ex.P8. PW8 is also a panch witness to inquest mahazer Ex.P7. PW9 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 12. On perusal of the entire evidence produced, the main case of the prosecution is that, because of not giving share and harassment by the accused, the deceased consumed poison and died in the field. But as could be seen from the records, civil disputes are pending between the parties before the Court and the Tribunal. Even the panchayat was held during 1986 and thereafter no panchayats were held in this particular behalf. In order to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC, there must be some trustworthy and reliable evidence to show that the accused persons have instigated or abetted to commit suicide by the deceased. From going through the evidence, only stating that the accused were harassing the deceased by not giving share will not constitute an ingredient to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. 13. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the evidence of PW8, he has clearly admitted the fact that he has given a loan of Rs.80,000/- to the deceased about 8 years back and the wife of the deceased has also admitted about the loan availed by her husband and she has further admitted the fact that they were demanding repayment of the loan amount etc. Even from the evidence produced, it creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Even from the evidence produced, it creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Whether he died because of demanding of repayment of loan amount by PW8 and others or only because of the harassment caused by the accused for having not given the share is a matter which is creating doubt in the case of the prosecution. When there is no material to connect the accused to show that the deceased committed suicide because of the accused abetting and instigating him, the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. Even as could be seen from the records of the prosecution, Ex.P2 has been produced, which shows that it is the death note said to have been given by the deceased. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said death note has not been sent to RSFL for analyzing whether it belongs to the deceased or not. Though PW1 in his evidence has deposed that he handed over the note book and the handwriting contained in the note book has also been seized, but the said notebook is also not produced before the Court. Apart from that, even as could be seen from Ex.P2 - death note, the date mentioned therein shows that it is February, 2012 and admittedly the alleged incident has taken place on 14.08.2014. When there are so many circumstances which have been brought on record to show that everything is not fair and only because of the harassment the deceased consumed poison and died, it is well established proposition of law that, if there are two views possible, the one which is beneficial to the accused has to be taken. From the evidence it can be seen that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison because of the demand for loan or for some other reasons. 14. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the prosecution has not made out any case so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. Though the trial court has not discussed all the issues in its right perspective, but ultimately the decision arrived is not reversible and under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. Though the trial court has not discussed all the issues in its right perspective, but ultimately the decision arrived is not reversible and under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.