JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Bellary, in Sessions Case No.84 of 2009 wherein the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 504, 341, 354, 323 and 305 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for the sake of brevity). 2. Brief facts for the purpose of this appeal are as under: According to the prosecution, the deceased, a minor girl, aged about 16 years was studying SSLC in Kartikeshwar High School, Taranagar. She sued to attend the school and return to house daily. The accused is also a resident of the said village. He used to tease her. Fifteen days prior to the date of incident, he used vulgar language against her. He was deliberately touching her body by making gestures. He used to tease and harass the deceased-minor girl. The said fact was informed by the minor girl to her father CW-1. The parents of the deceased went to the house of the accused and asked them to advice their son. Enraged by the said incident, the accused, on 30.09.2008 at about 6.00 pm, intentionally insulted the deceased in the presence of her friends and wrongly restrained her, slapped her and pulled her down. He also dragged her by hands. On account of this act by the accused, deceased after returning from school poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze to commit suicide. She suffered 90% burn injuries. While she was undergoing treatment in the hospital, she succumbed to the burn injures on 04.10.2008 at 7.30 pm on 01.10.2008. Before that the PSI of Gadiganur Police Station visited the hospital. He ascertained the condition of the deceased. He obtained permission from the Doctor to record the statement of the injured. The statement of the injured was recorded as per Ex.P-13. On the basis of Ex.P-13 Crime No.123 of 2008 was registered and FIR as per Ex.P-10 was delivered to the Court. Thereafter, the Taluka Executive Magistrate on requisition by the police, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased girl in the hospital as per Ex.P-6. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of occurrence and conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2. He prepared seized 2 liter capacity plastic bottle. Thereafter, the Taluka Executive Magistrate on requisition by the police, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased girl in the hospital as per Ex.P-6. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of occurrence and conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2. He prepared seized 2 liter capacity plastic bottle. The inquest panchanama of dead body was done as per Ex.P-3. The school records of the deceased and P.M. report were obtained. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. The learned JMFC, committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence under Section 305 was triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charges and held trial of the case. Learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences alleged. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence came to be passed. The said judgment has been challenged by the appellant-accused on the following grounds. The judgment of the Sessions Court is against the material evidence on record. The Sessions Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. There are a lot of contradiction and omission in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is delay in filing the complaint. The same has not at all been considered by the Sessions Court. The material witnesses who had witnessed the incident of accused using criminal force on victim have not been examined. The Investigating Officer has not seized the material objects like kerosene, burnt cloth pieces at the time of conducting panchanama. The dying declaration-Ex.P-6 by the deceased is not dated. The place of record and presence of Doctor is mentioned. It was not read over to the deceased. In the complaint, she has put her left thumb impression whereas in the dying declatation, she has signed. In whose presence she has signed is not spoken. There is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution. The trial Court has relied only on testimony of the interested witnesses. Therefore, the appellant has prayed to allow the appeal and acquitted the appellant/accused from the charges leveled against him. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Section 305 of IPC have not at all been proved. There is no abetment caused by the accused to the deceased. She has committed suicide for her own cause. Therefore, the appellant has prayed to allow the appeal and acquitted the appellant/accused from the charges leveled against him. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Section 305 of IPC have not at all been proved. There is no abetment caused by the accused to the deceased. She has committed suicide for her own cause. PW-2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 is not aware of the conducting of panchanama by the Investigating Officer. The deceased was beaten by her parents when the love letters written by her were shown to the parents. On account of showing all her love letters, the deceased was ashamed of herself and therefore on account of being beaten by the parents, she has committed suicide. There is a delay of nearly 2 days in filing the complaint. Parents or other family members of the deceased have not lodged any complaint. The case of suicide is not on account of the act of the accused. The deceased had sustained 95-99% burn injuries. She was not at all in a position to give any statement. Hence, the alleged dying declaration has been manipulated. It does not bear any date. Whether it is the dying declaration which came into effect at the first instance or the complaint is not forthcoming. Before registering FIR, request is given to the Police Officer to record the statement. PWs.5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. Assault by the accused and slapping by him is admitted by the witnesses. The deceased was very sensitive. As the love letters were seen by her parents, she was beaten by them. That was the cause for her to commit suicide. Parents were present in the hospital at the time of recording dying declaration. Neighbours, who rescued the deceased, were not examined. A relative of the complainant has played an prominent role in filing the complaint, registering the crime by the police. He has also played a role in getting dying declaration of the injured prepared. PW-8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-9 has not seen the accused. Students who were present at the time of the incident were not at all examined. The genesis of crime has been suppressed. There is no proper investigation. The deceased committed suicide on account of beating by her parents only. PW-8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-9 has not seen the accused. Students who were present at the time of the incident were not at all examined. The genesis of crime has been suppressed. There is no proper investigation. The deceased committed suicide on account of beating by her parents only. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the accused of all the offences leveled against him. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the statement of the deceased given to the police officer and also her dying declaration before the Taluka Executive Magistrate cannot be disbelieved. Those documentary evidence prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The cause for commission of suicide is the act committed by the accused. The girl unable to bear the outraging of her modesty by the accused, committed suicide. That has caused the abetment to the deceased. There are no reasons to disbelieve the Head Master who had given the cause for the incident. Who gave information, at the time of admission of the deceased to the hospital, is not known. There was no stove burst, no kerosene stove or can has been seized. The injury caused would go to show that the deceased herself sustained burn injuries. It was on account of the abetment caused by the accused to the deceased. Moreover, it is not stated that the stove burst information was given by the accused. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate, the points that arise for consideration is as to: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved before the trial Court that the accused had caused intentional insult to the deceased on 30.09.2008 and also about 15 days prior to the incident and caused intentional insult by abusive words which would cause breach of peace has assaulted deceased girl with an intention to outrage her modesty and has wrongly restrained her from proceeding in any direction and thereby committed 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the act of the accused had caused abetment to deceased a minor and she committed suicide on such abetment and thereby had committed offence under Section 305 of IPC? offences punishable under Sections 509, 504, 341, 354 and 323 of the IPC? 6. On perusal of the charge sheet filed against the accused it is found that, it comprises of two incidents. The first incident is prior to 30.09.2008 at a public road. In the said place, the accused is alleged to have used to tease the victim and he was insisting her to come with him and talk to him. If the victim did not talk to him, he used to abuse her in filthy words. This fact came to the knowledge of the parents of the victim and as well as accused. Both of them called the victim and as well as the accused, advised and beat them. The victim unable to sustain the insult caused to her, she committed suicide. This is forthcoming from the dying declaration of the deceased given before the Taluka Executive Magistrate at Ex.P.6. 7. So far as the alleged incident of teasing, abusing in filthy words is not said to be witnessed by any independent witnesses. The Ex.P.6-dying declaration was recorded. The front page of the said document does not disclose date and time of recording. It does not bear any certificate of the medical officer to effect that the deceased was in a sound state of mind to give the statement. It is only on the back page mentioned that, on 02.10.2008 the Investigating Officer claims to have received the statement and on that basis he registered the crime. 8. Ex.P.9 is the detailed statement of the deceased recorded by the police officer. The date on which it is said to have been recorded is mentioned as 02.10.2008. It is overwritten on the back of the said statement the endorsement written by the Investigating Officer is 01.10.2008 again the month “10” is overwritten. On that basis the very same crime is said to have been registered. The said endorsement also discloses that, after recording the statement of the victim, he got the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. On 02.10.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. he returned back to the police station and registered the crime. On that basis the very same crime is said to have been registered. The said endorsement also discloses that, after recording the statement of the victim, he got the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. On 02.10.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. he returned back to the police station and registered the crime. On 02.10.2008 at about 5.00 a.m., the victim statement was recorded in the presence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate and after receiving the same came back to the police Station and registered the crime. Therefore it is not clear that, the crime was registered either on the basis of the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate under Ex.P.6 or it registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the Police Officer under Ex.P.9. There is material difference between the statements recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate at Ex.P.6 and the detailed statement recorded by the Police Officer under Ex.P.9. 9. In the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate under Ex.P.6, the victim affirms that the statement given by her is true and correct and accordingly she has signed the same as Kalavati. Whereas the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer discloses that, since the victim was not in a position to sign, on account of burn injuries sustained her hands, her toe impression is taken. Therefore, prima facie I find that, the statement alleged to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.9 appears to be suspicious. 10. In the statement given before the Police officer the victim alleges that, the accused assaulted her as to why she has told her parents and he beat her also. This was witnessed by the teachers in the school and therefore she felt insult and hence she committed suicide. Whereas, in the statement that was alleged to have been recorded in the presence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate is signed by the victim. She has stated that the accused was teasing, insisting and forcing her to come with him. If she does not talk to him, he was abusing her in filthy words. That matter was made known to the parents of the victim and the accused. Both of them were summoned and she was beaten by them. Therefore the victim unable to bear the said insult, she committed suicide. If she does not talk to him, he was abusing her in filthy words. That matter was made known to the parents of the victim and the accused. Both of them were summoned and she was beaten by them. Therefore the victim unable to bear the said insult, she committed suicide. If the statement made before the Taluka Executive Magistrate is accepted as it is, that does not make out a case of causing abetment to a minor girl by the accused to commit suicide. Even assuming it for the sake of arguments, if the statements of the victim given before the police officer and before the Taluka Executive Magistrate are taken as it is, it does not satisfy the ingredients of section 107 (abetment) of IPC. The only inference that can be drawn, the girl after having been beaten by her parents must have felt dejected, and might have committed suicide. Even according to the statement given before the police, the victim and as well as the accused were beaten by their parents. In the statement given before the Taluka Executive Magistrate at Ex.P.6, she does not allege that the accused had beaten her. The date and time of the incident is also not stated. It is only in the statement that is given before the Police Officer, date of incident does not specifically state that the assault and abusing by the accused was on 30.09.2008 only. According to the complainant, the accused was teasing, abusing and forcing her as to come with him, since 15 days prior to the incident. Therefore, on meticulous examination of the two documents which are the foundation for the case of prosecution, I find that the said statements do not make out the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 354 of IPC. 11. At this stage it is also mentioned that in the charge that the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. However, the learned Judge has convicted the accused for an offence punishable under section 305 of IPC as the victim is said to be a minor as on the date of commission of suicide. However, the learned Judge has convicted the accused for an offence punishable under section 305 of IPC as the victim is said to be a minor as on the date of commission of suicide. In the back ground, the facts that are emerging on reading the above said documents I proceed to examine the oral evidence on record to find whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. PW1 is the doctor who had conducted post mortem of the dead body of the victim and had given a report as per Ex.P.1. In the cross examination he admits that such injuries can be caused even accidentally. He admits that there will be a severe pain in case of burn injury. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give statement before the Police Officer under Ex.P.9. 13. PW.2 is a pancha witness to spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 and inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. PW.3 is also a pancha witness to Ex.P.2 and spot mahazar, where the MO1 plastic bottle which was used for storing the kerosene was seized. He has also attested inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3. He admits that he has not gone inside the house and he does not know what was written at Ex.P.2. By that time when he went to the spot, the panchanama was already written. He does not know whether the deceased has committed suicide. 15. PW4 is the grandfather of the victim who had attested the inquest mahazar at Ex.P.3. He did not know how the fire got the deceased. The left hand was little right. Remaining parts of the body were burnt. But he denies that it was an accidental fire incident. 16. PW.5 is the father of the victim. According to him his daughter complained that the accused is teasing her while she is going and coming from the school. Therefore he beat the accused and told his parents also. Thereafter when his daughter has gone to school, the accused is said to have pulled her hand and also abused her. Therefore on account of this insult, his daughter committed suicide by getting herself burnt with the help of kerosene. Therefore he beat the accused and told his parents also. Thereafter when his daughter has gone to school, the accused is said to have pulled her hand and also abused her. Therefore on account of this insult, his daughter committed suicide by getting herself burnt with the help of kerosene. Even if, the statement is accepted as it is not denied then also it does not prove the offence either under section 306 or 305 of IPC. PW.5 claims to have spoken with his daughter after the incident and she told him that the accused pulled her hand and slapped her as he was beaten by her father. This fact has not been stated by the deceased when she gave statement before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. According to him, the police had come to the hospital at midnight. They enquired his daughter and reduced her statement as complaint. The Tahasildar had noted down the statement as what is his daughter told him and taken her signature. According to PW.5 the Police Sub-Inspector and Tahasildar had sent them all out and then recorded his daughter’s statement. 17. In the cross-examination PW.5 denies that, family members of the accused i.e., parents used to talk to them and they had attended the ceremony in their house when his daughter attained puberty. It is admitted that in order to go to the school at Taranagar, ten boys also used to go to the said school. The school boys used to go in a tempo vehicle to the school and returned. According to him the accused was not going to school and he has been doing a cleaner work. He specifically questioned, he asked his daughter to beat the accused with slippers. He admitted that she had beat him. However he denied that the accused had shown a chit, which his daughter has been written as she loves the accused, on seeing the same, they brought back their house and beat her. It is denied that, because of this she committed suicide. The suggestion though denied, has not forced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in which the dying declarations were recorded, it is denied that his daughter got sustained burn injuries in a stove burst accident. It is denied that, because of this she committed suicide. The suggestion though denied, has not forced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in which the dying declarations were recorded, it is denied that his daughter got sustained burn injuries in a stove burst accident. He denied that he has not stated before the police that the Police Sub-Inspector came and recorded the statement of his daughter and thereafter the Tahasildar recorded her statement. He also denied that he has not stated before the Police that his daughter was taking till her death. He denied that since the parents came to know about the love letter written by her and she was beaten by them and hence she got dejected and committed suicide. He further denied that she has not done well in her SSLC examination and therefore she was dejected. He also denied that his daughter sustained injuries incidentally. He also denied that in order to avoid he being prosecuted, a false case is registered. The suggestions having regard to the facts of this case cannot be brushed aside straightaway. Though, he deposed that one witness Mallayya has not played any role in getting this case registered, but he admits that he had come to the hospital. He denies that he is a DSS leader and got the case registered. 18. PW.6 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased had complained about the accused as he had teasing her while she was going to the School and retuned from the school. That was also informed the parents of the accused. She was not present when the deceased got sustained burn injuries. Even according to the statement of the deceased nobody was there in the home when she had committed suicide. According to her, on account of harassment and insult caused by the accused in front of all the friends, her daughter told her that she has committed suicide. She has not seen the police and Tahasildar at night in the Hospital. In the cross-examination she admits that her husband beat the accused but she denies that her husband told his daughter to beat the accused with the help of slippers. She has not seen the police and Tahasildar at night in the Hospital. In the cross-examination she admits that her husband beat the accused but she denies that her husband told his daughter to beat the accused with the help of slippers. She denies that the accused had shown love letters to them and on coming to know that their daughter is wrong, they took back her daughter to their house by beating. But the witness deposed that, since there was possibility of raining they returned back. Her daughter was enquired first in the Jindal hospital and also in the Ballari Hospital. According to her one Ballari Mallayya had also come to the hospital and he took the lead in getting the complaint registered. Both the police and as well as Tahasildar came one by one to the hospital, the said Mallayya present when they had come and they had talk to him. The Tahasildar and the police told Mallayya and also to her that, not to be frightened and they will get their work done. The said Mallayya was coming to the hospital till the death of her daughter. When Mallayya had come to the hospital, the police also told him that, they have done the work as told by him. When she specifically questioned as to why if Mallayya had not got to the case filed, the police would not have left herself and her husband. For that question the witness answered that, she does not know the law. When it was specifically suppressed that Mallayya is the main person responsible for getting this case registered and the witnesses answered he has played a role in doing so. Further two days prior to the commencement of the evidence also the said Mallayya told them as to what is to be deposed. She admits that the police and Tahasildar came to the hospital herself and her husband were sent out. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence of the parents of the victim, I find that it is not free from doubt it cannot be believed without corroboration. 19. PW.7 is the relative of the CWs.4 and 5. According to him the deceased had told him that the accused used to tease her while she was going and coming to the school. 19. PW.7 is the relative of the CWs.4 and 5. According to him the deceased had told him that the accused used to tease her while she was going and coming to the school. This witness and father of the victim advised the accused and they also informed the same to his parents. Therefore, he had beaten her and hence the deceased committed suicide. It is admitted that she was alive for three days. His evidence in any way does not prove any ingredients of the offence alleged. He admits in his cross-examination that, when children come to the school and returned from the school he will be doing his work. Therefore, he witnessing anything does not arise. He denies certain omissions that have suggested to have not been stated before the police. 20. PW.8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Only in the cross-examination he admits the suggestion that was made by the Public prosecutor regarding the incident in question. In the cross-examination he admits that after the deceased got burnt, he has not gone to their house and nor enquired them, he has not visited the hospital. He further admits that he had stated before the police that he informed the parents who were in the land and brought them back to the house and they went to the hospital and he has told them that their daughter has sustained burn injuries. Apart from that he claims to have not stated anything before the police. He specifically admitted that, he had not stated before the police that the accused harassed to the deceased, therefore the parents went to the house of the accused and advised him and beating him, therefore accused got wild and when the deceased had gone to the school he pulled and pushed her. Therefore, the victim committed suicide by getting herself burnt. There is a serious omission which he has admitted. He is also relative of the victim and uncle and his evidence cannot be belied without due corroboration. 21. PW.9 is the high school teacher, where the deceased was studying. According to him he has not seen the accused at all. Therefore, the victim committed suicide by getting herself burnt. There is a serious omission which he has admitted. He is also relative of the victim and uncle and his evidence cannot be belied without due corroboration. 21. PW.9 is the high school teacher, where the deceased was studying. According to him he has not seen the accused at all. He had given the attendance register of the deceased at Ex.P.4 to the effect that on 30.09.2008 the deceased was attended the school when he was in the school at about 9.30 a.m. The students of the school came to him and told him that a boy on a motorcycle came and wrongfully restrain the victim and he beat on her cheek, pulled and pushed her. He immediately went to the spot and that time said boy had gone away from the spot. According to him the deceased told him that, a boy was teasing her since 15 days. Then, he had informed same to her parents. On the very same day in the evening he came to know that the deceased has sustained burn injuries. Even if his evidence is admitted as it is, it does not prove any offences alleged. Because he has not an eyewitness. He is a hearsay witness. He has not stated before the police that the boys came to him and told about the incident which he had came to know. He has also not stated before the police that the deceased had informed him that Ramesh was giving trouble to her and thereafter he had gone to Bannihatti and informed the matter to the parents are not stated before the police. He has also given her birth certificate at Ex.P.13 that is relied on to prove that she was minor on the date of incident so as to attract section 305 of IPC. 22. PW.10 is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who had recorded the statement of deceased on the request of the police. He claims to have received the requisition from the police at about 1.30 a.m. on 02.10.2008 at Ex.P.5. As per Ex.P.5, the Taluka Executive Magistrate is said to have received the requisition at 1.30 a.m. At about 2.00 a.m., he visited the hospital. He came to know that the police have already recorded the statement of the victim before he recording. As per Ex.P.5, the Taluka Executive Magistrate is said to have received the requisition at 1.30 a.m. At about 2.00 a.m., he visited the hospital. He came to know that the police have already recorded the statement of the victim before he recording. Then he has also made necessary enquiries and found that the injured was in a position to give statement. The victim is said to have been stated before him that the accused teasing and abusing her while she was going and coming from the school and he was harassing her. She had told the same to her parents. They advised the accused and informed same to his parents. Therefore, he got wild and while she was coming from school, the accused pulled her and questioned her stating that as to why she informed her parents and he has been admonished by them. Therefore, she felt insulted and got herself burnt. The said statement is already recorded at Ex.P.9 before the police officer. 23. In fact on perusal of Ex.P.9 statement recorded by the police officer and the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is compared the cause of deceased getting burnt his contradictory. As per the Ex.P.6 after the parents admonished and beat them, therefore unable to sustain the insult she got burnt. If the parents had come to known about the teasing and abusing of the injured by the accused when she refused to talk to him. There was no need for parents to beat her also. In fact on complaining to the parents of the accused, they who had possibility of beating their son for teasing a girl on the road or the parents of the girl would have filed a complaint to the police saying that the boy is teasing her daughter. What was the necessity for the parents of the deceased to beat her, which the victim had admitted before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Therefore the evidence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate in his examination-in-chief is not corroborated by the statement of the deceased herself. 24. The Tahasildar has not produced the document of inward registered of his office for having received the requisition of police asking him to record the statement. According to him it was given to him when he was in the house. He only orally enquired the doctor about the condition of the patient to give statement. 24. The Tahasildar has not produced the document of inward registered of his office for having received the requisition of police asking him to record the statement. According to him it was given to him when he was in the house. He only orally enquired the doctor about the condition of the patient to give statement. He do not know the name of the doctor, it is not mentioned in Ex.P.6 as to from what time to what time the statement was recorded. The endorsement of the doctor is not there on Ex.P.6. Since the police had already taken endorsement and therefore he did not take endorsement of the doctor on Ex.P.6. Therefore, the overhaul effect of the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate goes to show that it does not satisfy the condition that are to be followed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate before recording the statement of the injured person. In fact the said statement is quite contrary to the case made out by the prosecution. It does not disclose that the cause of the deceased getting burnt was on account of beating by the parents rather than due teasing of the accused. 25. PW.11 is the doctor who had treated the deceased. She was oriented. Therefore, he authorized the police to record the statement since the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement. His requisition is Ex.P.7. He had signed the same at about 12.10 a.m. on 02.10.2008. He has stated that, the case sheet is at Ex.P.8. The case sheet is written by the House Surgeon. In the case sheet the history is noted as stated by the injured herself. It is noted in the history that on account of stove burst she had sustained injuries. She was under severe pain. She was given pain killer and sedatives drugs. 26. PW.11 in his cross-examination denied that in all times the patient will be drowsy if sedatives are administered. Since injured had used to answer the questions therefore, he had not specifically mentioned that the injured was in a fit state of mind to give statement. This is an important, endorsement of a doctor and as well as the Taluka Executive Magistrate should made. He do not know when the Tahasildar came to the hospital he did not know whether at that time the deceased was in a position to give statement. This is an important, endorsement of a doctor and as well as the Taluka Executive Magistrate should made. He do not know when the Tahasildar came to the hospital he did not know whether at that time the deceased was in a position to give statement. He does not say that the deceased was not in a position to sign therefore her left toe finger impression was taken. In fact, this type of endorsement was not given to the Taluka Executive Magistrate. 27. PW.12 is the Head Constable who conducted inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3 of the dead body of the deceased. He referred the dead body to the doctor for postmortem examination. What he has understood from investigation cannot be in evidence. He has not stated that any of the witnesses told before him that, the cause of the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, his evidence not at all much assistance and it does not corroborate with the evidence of other witnesses. 28. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer who had recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex.P.9 to show that the deceased was not in a position to sign when this witness recorded the statement. That fact has not been corroborated by any of the doctors examined by them. On the contrary the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate at Ex.P.6 discloses that the deceased had put her signature. Therefore, weight has to be given that fact. On the basis of Ex.P.9 he registered the crime and sent the FIR at Ex.P.8. According to this witness the deceased said to have told before him as under : OTHER LANGUAGE 29. If that sentence is appreciated the accused is said to have beat her because he was beaten by her parents. Therefore, it was an act of retaliation by the accused. Further the teasing by the accused while the deceased was going to school and coming from it was not a solitary incident. It was an incident said to have been committed even much prior to the incident in question. Therefore, there does not appear to be a proximate cause for commission of suicide. He said to have taken the thumb impression of the injured to the Ex.P.9. He has not stated that the injured was not in a position to sign as her fingers were burnt. Therefore, he took her thumb imprison. Therefore, there does not appear to be a proximate cause for commission of suicide. He said to have taken the thumb impression of the injured to the Ex.P.9. He has not stated that the injured was not in a position to sign as her fingers were burnt. Therefore, he took her thumb imprison. His evidence is very clear that, after recording the statement at Ex.P.9, he submitted a requisition to the Tahaildar to record dying declaration. He has further deposed that in between 12.00 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. he had recorded the statement of the injured. Whereas in Ex.P.6, the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate it is clearly stated that the deceased declared that the statement given by her is true and after admitting the same she has signed on it. Then why her signature was not taken to Ex.P.9. Though it is mentioned in Ex.P.9 that, the deceased had sustained injures to her fingers and therefore she was not able to sing, she could not sign on her statement at Ex.P.6 also. 30. But it is not mentioned in said document that the injured was not in a position to sign and therefore her left hand thumb impression is taken. In the evidence also PW.13 does not say that for that reason the thumb impression is taken. In fact, neither person who wrote this statement that is a writer has neither attested nor cited as a witness. Then he claims that, before conducting the mahazar of scene of offence, he obtained document from the school, seized the MOs, and then conducted inquest panchanama after death of the injured. He has recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained school certificate and postmortem report thereafter he filed charge sheet against the accused. 31. In the cross-examination PW13, admitted the presence of parents of the injured and as well as the said Mallayya. He admitted that he has not recorded the statement of the injured in the presence of doctor. He admitted that from what time to what time he recorded the statement of the complainant. He had no difficulty to record the statement of injured in the presence of doctor. The doctor who had certified that the injured was in a fit state of mind to give statement is not examined. The burnt cloth pieces have not been seized. He admitted that from what time to what time he recorded the statement of the complainant. He had no difficulty to record the statement of injured in the presence of doctor. The doctor who had certified that the injured was in a fit state of mind to give statement is not examined. The burnt cloth pieces have not been seized. He admitted that he has not seized the stove from the kitchen, but voluntarily said that there was no stove. The kerosene residue fallen on the floor, burnt pieces of cloths were not seized. But he claims to have seized only the bottle containing kerosene that has not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. He has not aware that whether the injured was first taken to Jindal hospital after the incident. But he admits that the witnesses have told the said fact before him. He do not know that it was stated in the Jindal hospital that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of accidental stove bursts. He also not aware, the said fact is noted in the case sheet of the injured. The said case sheet was produced by him along with charge sheet. He has not recorded the statements of uncle and aunt of the deceased. Though their names were shown in Ex.P.9 but he denies that he has not examined them deliberately as truth would have come out if he had been examined. He denies that the witness has told before him that the deceased had sustained accidental burn injuries. Further the panchanama of the place where the accused has pulled the hands of the deceased and beat her was not at all conducted. Even though he found that it was an important place, it is only mentioned as Taranagar High School, but it is not mentioned exactly at what place the incident was occurred. He has also not recorded the statements of students who were present at the time of the said incident. Except, the Head Master, he has not recorded the statements of any of the teachers of that school. Therefore, from the above evidence, I find that the dying declaration alleged to have been recorded by this Investigating Officer cannot be believed without corroboration. In fact it should have been corroborated by the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. 32. PW.14 is the Head Master who had issued Study certificate at Ex.P.12. Therefore, from the above evidence, I find that the dying declaration alleged to have been recorded by this Investigating Officer cannot be believed without corroboration. In fact it should have been corroborated by the statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. 32. PW.14 is the Head Master who had issued Study certificate at Ex.P.12. In fact that was issued by the In-charge Head Master one Hanumanthappa. Head Master seal was affixed. Therefore, on the basis of documents available in the school, he was given that statement. In the cross-examination he admitted that Ex.P.12 is not in his hand writing. During the 1994 he was not working in that school. He recorded the date of birth on the basis of birth extract produced by her parents or else the date given by the parents at the time of admission. He admits that the date of birth given by the parents could be true or may not be. He has not produced the documents submitted by the parents at the time of admission of the deceased Kalavati. There should have been cogent evidence with regard to the age of the deceased also because the charge on the accused is under Section 305 of IPC. The root cause for commission of the suicide by the deceased was the alleged incident said to have taken place on the road leading to the school or in the school premises or at a place said to have been witnessed by her friends also. So far as that incident is concerned except the dying declaration of the deceased, absolutely there is no other evidence on record. Even say of parents would be that of which they have heard from the deceased. 33. On perusal of the of the statement given by the deceased before the Taluka Executive Magistrate and also before the Investigating Officer at Exs.P.6 & 9, I find that the said statements of the deceased do not establish the ingredients of section 107 of IPC. Merely because the person who committed suicide was under the age of 18 years by itself is not sufficient to convict the person accused under Section 305 of IPC. Whether it is the offence under Section 305 or 306 of IPC, the ingredients of section 107 of IPC have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because the person who committed suicide was under the age of 18 years by itself is not sufficient to convict the person accused under Section 305 of IPC. Whether it is the offence under Section 305 or 306 of IPC, the ingredients of section 107 of IPC have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact even if the statement given by the deceased before the police officer or before the Taluka Executive Magistrate are accepted as it is, I find that the ingredients of the above said sections have not at all been made out. The defence of the accused is that, the accused had shown love letter written by the deceased to the parents of the deceased, therefore the deceased was beat by them after coming to know that the girl was at fault. That has made her to commit suicide. In order to avoid they being prosecuted for abetment of suicide, with the help of the said Mallayya, a DSS leader they got cooked up this case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record and also the statement of the deceased given before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, I find that the above said defence raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the Court. 34. If it was a case a simple teasing then why parents called both girl and also boy and advised them and beat them. Therefore, there must have been something between the accused and the deceased. It is clearly mentioned in the statement of the deceased that the parents after advising both of them beat them, therefore she committed suicide. If, that is the case, I find that the accused cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 305 of IPC. 35. As regards other offences punishable under Sections 509, 504, 341, 354 and 323 of IPC, the statement given by the deceased before the Taluka Executive Magistrate does not make out any ingredients. Further the facts and circumstances disclosed that the accused and the deceased knew each other very well, there was something between them. Therefore possibility of accused teasing or indulging in outraging modesty of the deceased was not at all a probable one. Even according to the statement of the deceased, the teasing or abusing was not a solitary incident. Further the facts and circumstances disclosed that the accused and the deceased knew each other very well, there was something between them. Therefore possibility of accused teasing or indulging in outraging modesty of the deceased was not at all a probable one. Even according to the statement of the deceased, the teasing or abusing was not a solitary incident. The deceased having been beat by her own parents, out of dejection and insult in the house might have committed suicide. 36. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on authorities to understand the ingredients of abetment caused to commit suicide and the position of law laid down as follows: 1. (2017) 11 SCC 176 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 242 (K.V.Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka) 2. (2008) 17 SCC 526 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 572 (Rajbabu and Another Vs. State of Madya Pradesh.) 3. (2002) 5 SCC 371 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 (Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madya Prades) 4. 2010 Cri.L.J.2110 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) 5. 2011 Crl.L.J.1990 (M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.) 37. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was any nexus in the commission of suicide and the act of the accused. Further the alleged incident of causing intentional insult using criminal force, assault or threatening the injured to her life etc. was not at all investigated by the Investigating Officer by recording statements of witnesses who had witnessed the same. He has not even visited that spot and not conducted mahazar. He has not enquired any school going boys or girls who had capable to giving evidence. Even teachers who are said to have seen the incident of teasing, assaulting etc., was not at all examined. 38. Therefore, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the accused. Therefore, judgment of the trial court suffers from legal infirmities, perversity, capriciousness, it is against to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record and against the law. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Therefore point Nos.1 and 2 raise for determination by this Court are answered in the negative. Hence this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Therefore point Nos.1 and 2 raise for determination by this Court are answered in the negative. Hence this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Ballari in S.C.No.84/2009 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 509, 504, 341, 354, 323 and 305 of IPC is hereby set aside. 3. Fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded. 4. Office is directed to send back the records to the Trial Court along with judgment of this Court.