JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 07.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, Camp-Idar in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2005, acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 14.09.2004, the deceased had gone to take back his wife – accused No.1 at parental home, however she refused to come back to the matrimonial home and preferred to stay with her paramour. Even she and her paramour, her parents and brother insulted and taunted the deceased, due to which, the deceased feeling bad, committed suicide by consuming poison and died. Thereby, the respondents accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After registration of complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was triable by learned Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned trail court delivered the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, Camp-Idar in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2005, acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, Camp-Idar in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2005, acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and argued that as legally wedded wife – accused No.1 and other accused - her paramour as well as her parents and brother insulted the deceased and she refused to come back to the matrimonial home and preferred to stay with her paramour, the deceased got instigated and committed suicide by consuming poison which is clearly revealing from the evidence on record, though the learned trial court has not appreciated the said evidence in its proper perspective. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Archana Patel for leaned advocate Mr. Japee for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Shah for respondent No.3 have argued that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before his father who is the complainant wherein the deceased inter alia stated that while he (deceased) asked his wife Hansa to come back to the matrimonial home, she refused to come back and preferred to stay with her paramour Ramesh and other accused were also not willing to send her to the matrimonial home and were taunting, due to which, he feeling bad, consumed poison and died. They have argued that even if the same may be taken on its face value, no provision of Section 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents which call for no interference. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M. Arjunan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 . 6. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record & proceedings, impugned judgment and order as well as evidence of material witnesses. 7. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M. Arjunan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 . 6. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record & proceedings, impugned judgment and order as well as evidence of material witnesses. 7. The record & proceedings clearly indicates that when the deceased went to bring his wife Hansa at parental home, at that time, she refused to come back and preferred to stay with her paramour accused Ramesh for which other accused supported, due to which, the deceased feeling bad, committed suicide. It is also emerging out that at that time, others accused taunted him, but nothing is revealing from the record & proceedings as to how and what sort of taunting came to be made to the deceased which led him to commit suicide. In absence of any evidence on record, merely because the accused wife Hansa preferred to stay with her paramour instead of her husband would not ipso facto furnish any reason or any intention to lead the deceased husband to commit suicide. There should be an intention on part of the accused either to instigate or make inducement so as to lead the deceased to commit suicide and due to such inducement if the deceased is induced to commit suicide, then offence would be constituted. In the present case, there appears no evidence at all indicating that the deceased was ever intended to induce or instigate to commit suicide. The record & proceedings clearly indicates that the accused wife merely declared her intention to stay with her paramour and refused to come back and that would not amount to any sort of instigation to commit suicide. 8. For the reasons recorded above, no case is made out. The learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondents accused. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is dismissed. The record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.