JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 1249/2013 dated 16.10.2017. 2. Though this case is listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of the learned HCGP, it is taken up for final hearing. 3. Learned counsel for respondent remained absent. 4. The genesis of the case of prosecution is that accused got married with deceased on 19.08.2010 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand only) was given in cash apart from gold and other articles. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused used to took up quarrel with deceased on trivial matters and subjected her to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically. The accused used to abuse deceased in filthy language on several occasion and he assaulted the deceased. Because of intolerable physical and mental torture given by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 10.01.2013 at about 5.45 p.m. by consuming pesticide at her residence. The complaint was registered in this behalf in Crime No. 13/2013. Thereafter, after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and after following the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. as it is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. Thereafter, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the charge was prepared and read over to the accused. Accused denied the same, he claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed. 6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has got examined in all 16 witnesses out of 22 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P14. Thereafter, the statement of accused got to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material and he has not lead any evidence on his behalf and no documents were marked. After having heard the parties, the impugned order of acquittal came to be passed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the State is before this Court. 7. After having heard the parties, the impugned order of acquittal came to be passed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the State is before this Court. 7. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that the Court below without properly considering the evidence and material placed on record, has come to a wrong conclusion and has given erroneous judgment. He further submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to PW-4 and PWs. 6 to 8 clearly goes to show that there was a demand for dowry and because of ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. The Trial Court has not properly examined the case of prosecution and has given a wrong conclusion. 8. He further submitted that once the prosecution proves that there was ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the accused, then under such circumstances, the presumption has to be drawn and the accused has also not come up with the specific defense as contemplated under Section 106 of Evidence Act. 9. It is his further submission that once the prosecution proves the case that there was ill treatment and harassment caused to the deceased then the Court below on the basis of the material placed on record, ought to have convicted the accused. He further submitted that all the witnesses have categorically stated about the demand of dowry and acceptance. It is his further submission that the death has taken place in matrimonial home and as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act; it is the accused who has to explain under what circumstances the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison in the house of the accused. In the absence of any such explanation, the Trial Court has ignored and committed an error and has wrongly acquitted the accused. 10. He further submitted that when the prosecution establishes the fact that there was ill treatment and harassment by the accused, there is no question for the Court below giving a wrong conclusion and has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and accused may be convicted. 11. Learned Counsel for respondent has remained absent. 12. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned HCGP. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and accused may be convicted. 11. Learned Counsel for respondent has remained absent. 12. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned HCGP. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution has examined in all 16 witnesses. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. In his evidence, he has deposed that accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand only) and gold as dowry at the time of marriage and the same was given to the accused. He further deposed that he has spent an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is his further deposition that in order to meet out the demand for dowry, he has raised loan. During the course of cross examination, he has deposed that he has not stated all the aspects in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 13. PW-2 is niece of the deceased. She also deposed by reiterating the evidence of PW-1 that the accused and his father demanded dowry of Rs. 3,60,000/-. In the cross examination of this witness, she has deposed that she was not present at the time of marriage talks and she has only the knowledge about the demand and acceptance of dowry. 14. PW-3 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she has deposed that at the time of marriage, she herself gave a dowry of Rs. 3,60,000/- gold jewellery to the accused and the marriage was also performed by the complainant. During the course of cross examination, it is brought on record that she has not stated any of the said aspects in her complaint. 15. PW-4 is another sister of the deceased and she has deposed that at the time of engagement, her father, mother and sisters and elder family members of the accused were present and demanded Rs. 3,60,000/- in cash and gold jewellery as dowry and the same is given to the accused. During the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discard his evidence. 16. PW-5 is the sister of the deceased. She has deposed that she was not present at the time of marriage negotiation, she has not stated that there was demand of Rs. 3,60,000/-. 17. PW-6 is the sister-in-law. During the course of cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discard his evidence. 16. PW-5 is the sister of the deceased. She has deposed that she was not present at the time of marriage negotiation, she has not stated that there was demand of Rs. 3,60,000/-. 17. PW-6 is the sister-in-law. She has also reiterated the evidence of PW-1. 18. PW-7 is the sister of the deceased. She has also reiterated the evidence of PW-1. 19. PW-8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P5. PW-9 is the Police Inspector who partly investigated the case. PW-10- is the Scientific Officer who conducted chemical examination and has given the report. PW-11 is the inquest mahazar. During the course of the cross examination, nothing has been elucidated to discard their evidence. PW-12 is the Police Constable who seizes the chemical examination report. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer who has brought the material for investigation. PW-14 is the Tahasildar who held the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P4. PW-15 who registered the case on the basis of the complaint and has issued the FIR. PW-16 is the Police Inspector who partly investigated the case and filed charge sheet as against accused. 20. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned HCGP and he has made available the entire depositions and charge sheet material. On going through the case of the prosecution, it is the specific case that the accused made demand for dowry in the form of money and gold and the same was given to him at the time of marriage. Subsequently, the accused used to pickup quarrel and was insisting for further amount as dowry. But as could be seen from the evidence of witnesses who have been examined as PW-1 brother of the deceased, PW-3 mother of the deceased, PW-2 is the niece of the deceased, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7, being sisters of the deceased, PW-6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased clearly go to show that there was demand for dowry from the accused. 21. I am conscious of the fact that merely because there was demand for dowry or ill-treatment or harassment from the accused, on that ground, the evidence of said witnesses cannot be accepted. 21. I am conscious of the fact that merely because there was demand for dowry or ill-treatment or harassment from the accused, on that ground, the evidence of said witnesses cannot be accepted. Further, it is well settled principle of law that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be scrutinized carefully and scrupulously. By adopting the said method if the said evidence has been looked into, though PW-1 in his evidence has stated that there was demand of dowry in the first instance but persisted even after the marriage. In the statement which was given before the Police no such allegations were found and even in the evidence of PW-2 said to be the hearsay witness, she has stated that she is not having any knowledge about the marriage talks. As PW-3 is concerned, she has not stated anything in respect of the complaint. PW-4 has deposed that the accused never asked or demanded dowry and she has also stated that the marriage expenses were borne by the accused. 22. PW-5 has not supported the case of the prosecution and she was treated hostile. PWs. 6 and 7, who are the sisters of the deceased also reiterated the evidence of PW-4 and PW-1. PWs. 5 and 7 have deposed that there was no actual demand for dowry by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage negotiations, accused demanded dowry of Rs. 3,60,000/- and gold jewelry and the same has been paid including expenses for the purpose of marriage but who were present at the time of marriage negotiations are not examined before the Court below. When, where exactly the marriage was taken place is not stated, even if the entire evidence which has been produced before the Court below appears that there was no further demand of dowry by the accused and if really there was demand of dowry, the accused could have consumed alcohol and assaulted the deceased. Then under such circumstances, the complainant and other members of the family could have held panchayat to settle the issue. No such evidence has been produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Even on perusal of the records, when and at what time the deceased has intimated the complainant and others about the dowry demand is also not specifically stated in their evidence. No such evidence has been produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Even on perusal of the records, when and at what time the deceased has intimated the complainant and others about the dowry demand is also not specifically stated in their evidence. Even it is also seen that PW-1 who is the complainant has also not stated in the complaint and PW-3 who is the informant and mother of the deceased have also not stated the said aspect in the complaint. 23. On the close reading of Ex.P4-inquest mahazar, there are no serious allegations made in this behalf. Though it is stated that the accused and the deceased were residing separately at Bengaluru and the deceased used to tell that accused is ill-treating and harassing both physically and mentally but what exactly the demand, ill-treatment or harassment was there is not specified. No specific case or allegation has been made out. A vague allegation has been made that the accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased. If really the accused has ill-treated and harassed the deceased, then under such circumstances, complaint or some other records would be filed in this regard. 24. Be that as it may, even as could be seen from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7, there is no consistency in the evidence which has been adduced in this behalf. Though the sisters of the deceased have examined before the Court below and they have deposed that the marriage expenses were borne by the accused but in the evidence of PW-1, he has stated that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been spent by him for the purpose of marriage expenses. PW-4 in her cross examination has deposed that the accused never asked any dowry and PWs. 5 and 7 have deposed that they were not present at the time of marriage negotiations. Looking from the evidence of these witnesses, there is no consistency in the evidence given by the said witnesses, though they are very close relatives. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint-Ex.P2 the necessary witness who has whispered in the complaint that in the marriage negotiations, accused demanded dowry, gold and an amount of Rs. Looking from the evidence of these witnesses, there is no consistency in the evidence given by the said witnesses, though they are very close relatives. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint-Ex.P2 the necessary witness who has whispered in the complaint that in the marriage negotiations, accused demanded dowry, gold and an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- has been paid to the accused, if really it has been paid as contended in the evidence then under such circumstances, the said fact could have been stated in the complaint-Ex.P2. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint-Ex.P2, it is alleged that since 10 days, the accused used to drink heavily and torture the deceased and the deceased informing about the ill-treatment and torture meted out by the accused has not been stated on 10.11.2013 at about 11.00 p.m. when her daughter Kalpana has consumed poison and committed suicide. 25. It is settled proposition of law that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of IPC, there must be instigation by the accused for the deceased to commit suicide. It is held that there must be instigation, pursuance of the conspiracy or incitement or urging to do some drastic or indivisible action to stimulate or to incite. In order to constitute the offence under Sections 306 of IPC and 107 of IPC, mens-rea is necessary for instigation. In the absence of such material it cannot be inferred that the deceased because of intolerable torture of the accused has committed suicide by consuming poison. 26. Even though it is contended in the evidence that accused used to consume alcohol and torture the deceased, the specific allegation of torture or harassment or what is the word used to the relatives of the deceased and what is the nature of quarrel have not been stated. In the said facts and circumstances, the suicide was not a proximate cause for the death of the deceased. When suicide is not direct result of the said act of the accused, then under such circumstances, accused could not be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 27. Looking from any angle the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution is not cogent and acceptable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. 27. Looking from any angle the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution is not cogent and acceptable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is also settled proposition of law that if any doubt arises, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. It is also settled proposition of law that the Trial Court after considering the evidence and material placed on record has exercised its discretionary power and has acquitted the accused. The appellate Court is very slow in interfering with such orders. Such orders can be interfered only if there is any illegality or perversity in the findings of judgment of the Trial Court. On close reading of the said judgment of the Trial Court, it is neither perverse nor illegal. It does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 28. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.