JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Originally Accused Nos. 1 to 10 were tried on three Charges. The first Charge was against A1, for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.; the second Charge against A1 to A10 under Section 306 I.P.C., and the third one also against A1 to A10 for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. By its Judgment, dated 05.10.2009, the learned Sessions Judge found A1 and A3 guilty of the offences under Sections 498A I.P.C. and under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (05) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one [01] month for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two [02] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one [01] month for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the same, the present Appeal came to be filed. 2. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under: i. PW1 is the mother of Sk. Mubina ('deceased'). PW2 is the husband of PW1 and father of the deceased. PW3 is the brother of PW1. while, PW4 is another daughter of PW1 & PW2. PW6 is the husband of PW5 and is a resident of Anandapet, Guntur, having acquaintance with the accused and the prosecution party. ii. A1 is the husband of the deceased; A2 & A3 are parents of A1; A4 and A6 are sisters of A1; A7 is the brother of A1; A8 is the wife of A7; A9 is another brother of A1, while. A10 is maternal grandmother of A1; A5 is the husband of A4. iii. The marriage between A1 and deceased took place on 22.09.2002 at Ponnur. PW1 claims to have sold her house at Ponnur for Rs. 2,05,000/- and performed the marriage of her daughter by giving Rs. 60,000/- as dowry, apart from presenting 10 sovereigns of gold to the deceased. Out of 10 sovereigns, three sovereigns of gold chain and a ring was presented to A1. iv. After marriage, the deceased joined A1 at Guntur, and both of them lived a happy married life. Out of wedlock, they blessed with a daughter and son. 60,000/- as dowry, apart from presenting 10 sovereigns of gold to the deceased. Out of 10 sovereigns, three sovereigns of gold chain and a ring was presented to A1. iv. After marriage, the deceased joined A1 at Guntur, and both of them lived a happy married life. Out of wedlock, they blessed with a daughter and son. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. On one occasion, A1 is said to have beat the deceased at the residence of PW1 and when she intervened, she was also beaten. Immediately, thereafter, the deceased went to the police station and lodged a report, requesting the S.I. of Police to chastise the couple and make them lead a happy life. Accordingly, the S.I. of Police, chastised the deceased and A1 and advised them to lead a happy marital life. v. About three [03] years after the marriage, the younger brother of A1, i.e., A7, got married, and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given as dowry to him. Since then, the accused started harassing the deceased demanding her to get additional dowry, as she brought less amount as dowry. Thereafter, A1 shifted his resident to 2nd line, Anandapet, so that they will be near to his parent's house. It is said that, at 7th line Anandapet, the parents, brothers and sisters of A1 started residing in the same house and constantly humiliated the deceased by passing unwanted remarks against her. The same was informed to PW1 by the deceased. vi. On 30.08.2007, one Shaik Basith @ Babu, who is related to PW1, came and informed that, the deceased is not keeping good health. Immediately, PW1 along with PW2 & PW3 went to the house of the accused situated in 2nd line Anandapet. They noticed the dead body of the deceased hanging to a ceiling fan. Suspecting that deceased was killed, PW1 & PW2 and others went to the police station and lodged a report [Ex. P1] with PW12-Head Constable. vii. PW12-the Head Constable, informed about the receipt of report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, over phone, and as per his instructions, registered a case in Crime No. 142 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued Ex. P11-First Information Report. He examined PW1 to PW3 in the police station and recorded their statements. He, then, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared a scene observation report in the presence of PW8 and another. Ex. P11-First Information Report. He examined PW1 to PW3 in the police station and recorded their statements. He, then, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared a scene observation report in the presence of PW8 and another. Ex. P6 is the observation report. Thereafter, he got prepared a rough sketch of the scene under Ex. P12. He also got photographed the scene of offence with the help of PW11. He then shifted the dead body to the mortuary at Government General Hospital, Guntur, and then sent a requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate for holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased. viii. On 31.08.2007. PW12 along with M.R.O., proceeded to Government General Hospital to conduct inquest over the dead body. His evidence is to the affect that, the blood relatives of the deceased protested for registering the crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C., when the ingredients constitute an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.PC., are alleged in the report and they refused to cooperate with inquest proceedings. PW12 informed about the same to his higher officials. ix. On 01.09.2007. PW12 handed over the Case Diary to the Sub-inspector of Police [PW14] for further investigation. On the said date, PW14 examined PW5, PW6, PW7 and others. On the next day, as per instructions of S.D.P.O., Guntur Town, he altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 304-B I.P.C. Ex. P15 is the altered F.I.R. Further, investigation in this case was taken up by Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was examined as PW15. x. On 02.09.2007, PW15 verified the scene of offence and the observation report of the scene, prepared by PW12, and recorded the statements of the witnesses. xi. Pursuant to a requisition received on 02.09.2007, PW13-the M.R.O., visited Government General Hospital, Guntur, and conducted inquest between 11.30 a.m., and 1.30 p.m. During inquest, he examined the blood relatives and other witnesses. Ex. P7 is the inquest report. During inquest, he noticed a small book with title 'Panj Sura", Rs. 200/- cash in denomination of Rs. 100/-& two Rs. 50/- notes, and a letter [suicide note] inside the bra of the deceased. The same were seized. Ex. P3 is the suicide note. Ex. P13 is the notebook and M. 0.7 is cash of Rs. 200/-. Later, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. xii. PW9-the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur. 100/-& two Rs. 50/- notes, and a letter [suicide note] inside the bra of the deceased. The same were seized. Ex. P3 is the suicide note. Ex. P13 is the notebook and M. 0.7 is cash of Rs. 200/-. Later, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. xii. PW9-the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur. conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex. P8-post mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and that the deceased died about 4 to 5 days prior to his examination. i. PW15, who continued with his investigation, arrested A1 to A3 and A6 & A10 on 06.09.2007 and sent them for remand. On 11.09.2007, PW14 produced A4, A5. A8 and A9 before PW15 and after affecting arrest, sent them for remand. During the course of investigation, PW15 claims to have seized a notebook produced by PW14 containing the admitted writing of the deceased. After collecting all the necessary material, PW15 filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 67 of 2007 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished to them. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, Charges, as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW15 and got marked Exs. P1 to P15, besides marking M.Os. 1 to 7. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, however, got marked Ex. D1 & Ex. D2 in support of their defense. 5. Relying upon the suicide note [Ex. P3] coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 & A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., while acquitting all the other accused for the offences with which they were charged. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed. 6. Sri. P3] coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 & A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., while acquitting all the other accused for the offences with which they were charged. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed. 6. Sri. Prabhunath Vasi Reddy. learned Counsel for the Appellants would contend that, there are many circumstances to indicate that the prosecution is not coming forward with a true version in the case. According to him, the suicide note, which is now made the basis for convicting the accused, was alleged to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, three [03] days after the incident and that too when the body was in mortuary, which is highly improbable and suspicious. Apart from that, he would submit that, a reading of Ex. P1 and comparing it with the contents of Ex. P3, would clearly give an indication that, it was fabricated to implicate A1 by making allegations which were not reflected in the First Information Report. 7. He would further contend that, even assuming for the sake of argument that writings in the long book and the suicide note are similar in nature but there is no positive evidence to prove that these writings were that of the deceased. In other words, his argument is that, the delay in holding the inquest was utilized for creating the death note and a long book containing the writings of one person. 8. He took the court through the evidence of prosecution witness to show that, it is improbable for the investigation agency to recover the said long book from PW3, who is a retired police officer. According to him, even the expert failed to consider the entire document and only, a few words in Ex. P3 were taken into consideration, for the purpose of comparing the writings on suicidal note with that of long book. According to him, the proper person to speak to the hand writing of the deceased and identify the writings as that of the deceased would be the maternal aunt of the deceased with whom the deceased was staying, but, for reason best know, the prosecution failed to examine her. According to him, the proper person to speak to the hand writing of the deceased and identify the writings as that of the deceased would be the maternal aunt of the deceased with whom the deceased was staying, but, for reason best know, the prosecution failed to examine her. Having regard to the evidence of PW1 vis-a-vis PW3, he would submit that there is no concrete material to show that the deceased wrote the suicide note. 9. One another aspect, which the learned Counsel for the Appellants would contend is that, suicidal note was on the body of the deceased for a period of three days in the mortuary. Definitely, it would have peeled itself into pieces due to wetness and it cannot be in the same form in which it was seized. Obviously, it has been planted only to establish the guilty of at-least A1 in the commission of offence. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that the argument of the Counsel for the Appellants that PW3 was responsible for foisting a false case against the accused is false. According to him, if really PW3 had a say in foisting a false case against the accused, he would have persuaded the police to register a case for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. itself, at the earliest stage, in-stead of one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Apart from that, he would contend that, he being a retired police officer, one cannot expect him to have any influence over the police. He further pleads that, the recovery of long book and comparing the writings in the long book with the contents of suicidal note, cannot be found fault with and the said suicide note itself can be made basis to convict the accused. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 498A of I.P.C.? Version as set out in F.I.R. 12. As seen from the material available on record, originally, a report [Ex. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 498A of I.P.C.? Version as set out in F.I.R. 12. As seen from the material available on record, originally, a report [Ex. P1] came to be lodged by PW1, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No. 142 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. A reading of the said report, which is crisp in nature, shows that the said report came to be lodged including the names of all the family members of the accused, who are ten [10] in number. It was stated in the report that, the marriage between A1 and deceased took place about six years back and since then, her husband. parents-in-law, sisters of A1 and their husbands, elder sisters and their husbands, younger brother of A1 and his wife, together harassed the deceased while they were living jointly and also separately. It is said that, they were harassing the deceased to get more dowry amount, and that the deceased committed suicide at the instance of all the accused. This, in substance is the First Information Report. The said report is as vague as anything and it is not in tune with the contents of Ex. P3 or the evidence of PW1 to PW3, which I shall refer to a little later. But, as on 30.08.2007 i.e., the date when the First Information Report was lodged, omnibus allegations were made against all the ten [10] accused, as if all of them have harassed and demanded dowry leading to deceased committing suicide. Version at the time of inquest. 13. It is also to be noted that the dead body, which was found in the house was shifted to the mortuary at Government General Hospital. Guntur. without conducting inquest. No explanation is given as to why the police constable shifted the body from the scene of offence to the Government General Hospital before conducting inquest. 14. Be that as it may. on 31.08.2007, PW12 along with PW13, M.R.O., proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, but, the relatives of the deceased protested for registering the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and did not cooperate in holding inquest. 14. Be that as it may. on 31.08.2007, PW12 along with PW13, M.R.O., proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, but, the relatives of the deceased protested for registering the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and did not cooperate in holding inquest. Probably the protest made by the family members of the deceased led to alteration of section of law, at the instance of higher officials. On 02.09.2007, after the alteration of the offence to one under Section 304B I.P.C., inquest was held on 03.09.2007. Having regard to the circumstances, in which the case proceeded, it would be appropriate to refer to the version of the witnesses examined at the time of inquest. 15. The evidence of the witnesses show that, the marriage of deceased was performed with A1 about five years back and after marriage, A1 along with the deceased and two children lived happily at different places in Guntur Town. Though, both of them had two children, it is stated that, they lived happily for six months and thereafter, all the ten [10] accused started harassing her physically and mentally to bring more dowry and because of the harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan in the rented house. It was further stated that, at the time of inquest, the M.R.O., and Tahsildar, recovered a letter from the bra of the blouse, which indicates the reasons for her death. In the said note, it was stated that, "the deceased has committed suicide unable to bear the harassment in the hands of her husband, parents-in-law and relatives". 16. Further, in the inquest report, allegations of harassment, though, omnibus in nature, were made against the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased, but one could notice that there was no reference to sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased. This is the variation from the contents of Ex. P1. VERSION IN THE SUICIDE NOTE 17. Coming to the suicide note, it was said to have been written by the deceased on a answer sheet of Gowtham Junior College. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. This is the variation from the contents of Ex. P1. VERSION IN THE SUICIDE NOTE 17. Coming to the suicide note, it was said to have been written by the deceased on a answer sheet of Gowtham Junior College. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. In the said suicide note, it has been stated that, "her husband was harassing her and mother-in-law was also responsible for the same and the reason for harassing her is that, A1 is having an idea of marrying a lady, who is also their relative and living at Tenali. The family members thought of performing the marriage of A1 with that lady, but, because of the money paid by deceased parents, her marriage was performed with A1. A1 used to tell the deceased that, the said lady was a troubleshooter to him and as such, he married her. Her mother-in-law thought of marrying A1 with that lady and for that reason, they were harassing her mentally without knowledge to others. According to her, she bore the harassment for five years and she is unable to bear the same now. She made a request that her children should not be handed to the accused and her husband and mother-in-law should be beaten on road only then all the husbands and mothers-in-law would know that after marriage, they should not harass a married woman". 18. From a reading of the suicide note, it appears that, even before her marriage with A1, her husband was having an affair with another lady and in-fact the family members of A1 wanted to perform A1's marriage with the said lady, but. for want of money, they performed A1's marriage with the deceased. As per the said note, even Accused No. 3 was aware about the same and after marriage she wanted to perform the marriage of A1 with the said lady without informing others. 19. A comparison of the contents of Ex. P1; the contents of column XV of the inquest report and Ex. P3-suicide note would show that, the versions stated therein with regard to harassment and persons responsible for the same are not consistent with each other. In the First Information Report given by the mother of the deceased, as observed earlier, a case has been registered against ten [10] persons making wild, vague and omnibus allegations. P3-suicide note would show that, the versions stated therein with regard to harassment and persons responsible for the same are not consistent with each other. In the First Information Report given by the mother of the deceased, as observed earlier, a case has been registered against ten [10] persons making wild, vague and omnibus allegations. There is no reference to the harassment by the accused on the ground that they wanted to perform the marriage of A1 with another lady. During inquest, the prosecution gave a go-bye to their earlier version and attributed allegations of harassment against A1 and A3, who are husband and mother-in-law. There is no reference to brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws. Now a death note is pressed into service showing as if it was recovered from the blouse [the bra of the deceased]. The contents of the said note, said to have been written by the deceased, gives a totally different version of harassment. If it is tested, with the contents of Ex. P1. inquest report and the evidence of PW1, it would clearly reveal that the nature of allegations in the death note and the version of PW1 with regard to acts of harassment are different. 20. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that PW1 may not be knowing about the acts of harassment may not be correct, for the reason that, PW1 in her evidence categorically deposed that, deceased used to inform her about the harassment in the hands of the accused. If that is so, she could not have missed mentioning the harassment by A1 and A3 for demand of additional dowry and performing of the marriage of A1 with another lady. 21. Further, though, PW1 in her evidence deposed about the demand of dowry by A1 and his family members and harassment of the deceased for want of more down' and information about acts of harassment was given by the deceased to PW1, but, strangely, the same is not reflected in Ex. P3. 22. At this stage, it is to be noted that, this death note along with book and cash of Rs. 200/- were recovered from the body of the deceased in the mortuary. The body of the deceased was in mortuary from 30.08.2007 to 03.09.2007 i.e., nearly 04 days, under minus 10 degrees temperature. P3. 22. At this stage, it is to be noted that, this death note along with book and cash of Rs. 200/- were recovered from the body of the deceased in the mortuary. The body of the deceased was in mortuary from 30.08.2007 to 03.09.2007 i.e., nearly 04 days, under minus 10 degrees temperature. If really the suicide note was on the body of the deceased (inside the bra], definitely, the police officers or the family members would not have missed seeing the same when the body was shifted from the house to the Government General Hospital prior to inquest. 23. Further, another circumstance, which throws some suspicion over the prosecution case is the evidence of PW13-the M.R.O., who while giving evidence before the court deposed that, apart from the suicide note, they also seized a book title "Panj Sura" and cash of Rs. 200/- in different denominations. Strangely, the same is not reflected in column XV of the inquest report. The said column only refers to recovery of the suicide note. If really, the said book and the suicide note along with cash were inside the bra of the deceased, definitely the same would not have missed the attention of M.R.O., or the family members when the body was shifted from the house to the hospital, prior to inquest, or at the time of inquest. The reason being that, the book contains 160 pages, wherein, the Arabic prayers were printed in Telugu. 24. One another circumstance to doubt the veracity of the suicide note is that, PW1. who is mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination, states that, at the time of inquest, she has not seen Ex. P3. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:- "At that time I have not seen Ex. P3". 25. Therefore, a doubt arises as to the seizure of the suicide notice. Regarding Long Book (Ex. P2). 26. Further, PW1 in her evidence deposed that, Ex. P2-long note book was given to PW3 who is the husband of her sister-in-law to be handed over to the police. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, upto 5th class, the deceased studied at Guntur and subsequently she had education at Ponnur, by living with her parents. P2). 26. Further, PW1 in her evidence deposed that, Ex. P2-long note book was given to PW3 who is the husband of her sister-in-law to be handed over to the police. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, upto 5th class, the deceased studied at Guntur and subsequently she had education at Ponnur, by living with her parents. The younger sister of PW1, by name, Laura who was residing along with her parents and was looking after the welfare of the deceased was not examined. According to PW1. her parents were residing at Islampet, Ponnur and by the date of marriage of deceased daughter, she was studying 1st year intermediate at Ponnur. and her education was later discontinued. The admissions elicited, in the cross-examination of PW1, are as under: "Upto 5th class the deceased studied at Guntur and subsequently she had education at Ponnur living with my parents. My younger sister-Lura was also residing with my parents and looking after welfare of my daughter. My parents are residing at Islampet, Ponnur. It is true that by the date of marriage my deceased daughter was studying 1st year intermediate at Ponnur and her education was discontinued". 27. From the admissions elicited, it is clear that, upto 5th class, the deceased studied at Guntur and thereafter, she stayed with her grandparent's house at Ponnur and was looked after by her younger sister, by name, Laura. That being so, it is strange as to how this long book-Ex. P2 alleged to contain the writings of the deceased was with PW1. Also, as to how she could give it to PW3 at the time of inquest. The relevant admission is as under: "At the time of Inquest I handed over Ex. P2". 28. If really. Ex. P2 was handed over at the time of inquest, it should have been in the custody of the police by 03.09.2007. But, on the other hand, the evidence of PW3 is to the affect that, on instructions of Inspector of Police, he handed over the marriage certificate and book containing hand writing of deceased to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur. He categorically states that, he handed over Ex. P2 notebook to the police. But, on the other hand, the evidence of PW3 is to the affect that, on instructions of Inspector of Police, he handed over the marriage certificate and book containing hand writing of deceased to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Old Guntur. He categorically states that, he handed over Ex. P2 notebook to the police. The relevant admission is as under:- "As the Inspector of Police asked me to produce Marriage Certificate and handwriting of the deceased I handed over the marriage certificate and a book containing the handwriting of deceased to the SI of Police, Old Guntur. As a note book, a suicide paper and some cash was found on the body of deceased I was asked to produce the handwriting of deceased for comparison. Ex. P2 is the notebook handed over by me to the police. Ex. P4 is the Marriage Certificate relating to the deceased". 29. Hence, a perusal of the evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW3 would reveal that, on one hand, PW1 claims to have given it [Ex. P2] at the time of inquest, whereas, PW3 in his evidence deposed that, after the inquest proceedings, he was asked by the police to produce the marriage certificate and handwriting of the deceased, since, the inquest proceedings show recovery of suicide note. His evidence is silent as to when he has handed over the notebook to the police. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would show that the deceased was staying at Ponnur in her grandparents house along with Laura and pursuing her education. If that was so, the long book, which appears to be a mathematics book, could not have been produced by PW1 or PW3. 30. Further, the mathematical problems referred in the book do not reflect to be one that can be dealt with by a student of 5th class. Apart from that, this book also contains photographs of Mickey Mouse and other cartoons drawn and colored. Strangely this book does not contain the name of the deceased anywhere on the book. 31. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, while the evidence of PW1 is silent to the affect that, she along with PW2 went to Ponnur and brought the book-Ex. P2, PW3 in his evidence states that, she accompanied PW1 to Ponnur. where, PW2 is having a house and from where PW1 brought the notebook-Ex. 31. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, while the evidence of PW1 is silent to the affect that, she along with PW2 went to Ponnur and brought the book-Ex. P2, PW3 in his evidence states that, she accompanied PW1 to Ponnur. where, PW2 is having a house and from where PW1 brought the notebook-Ex. P2. Though, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to rely upon the same, but, in view of the discrepancy between the evidence of PW1 and PW3 with regard to going to Ponnur and securing Ex-P2. a doubt arises as to how the said book, even assuming for the sake of argument, to be that of the deceased, came into the hands of PW3. Further, PW3, in his evidence categorically admits that, there is no name of the deceased on the book and that he cannot say that the book belongs to the deceased. 32. Therefore, as argued by the counsel for the Appellants, if really, the book belongs to the deceased and if it was the book, which has been used by her towards her education, definitely, her name should have been reflected somewhere on the cover or on the first page of the notebook. But, as admitted by PW3, no name of the deceased was mentioned anywhere on the book alleged to have been used by her regularly. Hence, a doubt arises as to whether really Ex. P2 is the book of the deceased, used regularly by her. Writing in suicidal note (Ex. P3) vis-a-vis long book (Ex. P2) 33. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the evidence of expert, who was examined as PW10. According to him, on 03.10.2007, he received a requisition from the court for examination of certain documents, namely, a sheet containing disputed writings marked as 'Q1' & 'Q2', to be compared with standard writings of Sk. Mobina [deceased] in the long book, which are marked as 'S1' & 'S10'. After comparing the two writings, the expert gave an opinion stating that the person who wrote the red enclosed writings 'S1' to 'S10' also wrote the red enclosed 'Q1' and 'Q2'. It may be true that the writings on 'S1' to 'S10' tallied with 'Q1' & 'Q2' in the suicide note. These 'Q1' & 'Q2' are only the alphabets in Telugu. Neither the entire word nor the sentence was taken into consideration for comparison. It may be true that the writings on 'S1' to 'S10' tallied with 'Q1' & 'Q2' in the suicide note. These 'Q1' & 'Q2' are only the alphabets in Telugu. Neither the entire word nor the sentence was taken into consideration for comparison. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion in the opinion of the expert, which is as under: IMAGE 34. Even accepting, for the sake of argument that the writings in Ex. P3 are similar to writings in 'S1' to 'S10', but, there is no conclusive evidence to show that this letter and the contents in 'ST to 'S10' were written by the deceased herself, more so, when there is a discrepancy with regard to production of long notebook and as to when it was produced vis-a-vis the recovery of suicide note. 35. In Smt. Bhagwan Kaur vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma And Others (1973) 4 SCC 46 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "26......It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting between (PW 1/A) and other admitted writings of the deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in view of the main essential features of the case, not much value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. In Sri. Sri. Sri. Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat this Court observed that conclusions based upon mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case." 30) It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence" 36. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence" 36. In Murari Lal S/o. Ram Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 1980 AIR 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: @"..........It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa. AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentially value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial". 37. 37. In S.P.S. Rathore v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2017) 5 SCC 817 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, although the opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant, but that too is not conclusive. The Court further held that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence, which need to be corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. In Paragraph No. 47, following has been laid down:- "47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused that the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum were forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri. S.C. Girhotra, Ms. Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence." 38. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence." 38. Having regard to the circumstance, the opinion of the hand-writing expert cannot be taken at its face value. 39. Therefore, all the circumstances referred to above throw a doubt as to whether the writings in the suicide note and the writings on long book, even assuming to be the same, were that of the deceased. In-fact, 1 had an opportunity of going through the writings in both the documents i.e., Ex. P3 and Ex. P2, but, to a naked eye, there are of variations in the writings of both the documents. Hence, for the aforesaid reason. I am of the view that, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. 40. As held in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)9 Supreme Court Cases 618 the presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. The court went to hold that, the consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression The other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause and affect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. As held by the Apex Court, in-spite of a presumption having been raised, the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. In the facts of the case, the court went on to hold that, it was not a case, which would fall under clauses, secondly and thirdly of Section 107 of I.P.C., and that it has to be decided whether there was an instigation to do a particular thing and ultimately held that, the prosecution failed to prove that the case falls under first part of Section 107 I.P.C., as well and accordingly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. 41. Even, in the instant case, as observed and held by me earlier, there is no positive and conclusive evidence to show that, any of the accused either instigated or intentionally abetted the deceased in committing the suicide. As held by the Apex Court, a presumption cannot be drawn automatically to conclude that the deceased committed suicide because of the harassment, more so, when the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. 42. Further, there is no evidence available on record to show as to what happened on the fateful day, which, as held by the Apex Court, is very material for the purpose of recording a finding on the question of abetment. In-fact, as held by me earlier, not only the allegations of harassment varied from stage-to-stage but also the persons responsible for the alleged acts of harassment changed from stage-to-stage. 43. Having regard to the above, I feel that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the said circumstances do not form a complete chain, connecting the accused with the crime. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it may not be safe to convict the appellants/accused no. 1 and 3 on the Charges leveled against them. Accordingly, 1 am inclined to acquit the appellants. 44. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/accused No. 1 and 3 in the Judgment, dated 05.10.2009, in Sessions Case No. 214 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under S.Cs., & S.Ts., (POA) Act, 1989, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C., is set-aside and they are acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellants/accused No. 1 & 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused No. 1 & 3 shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs. 45. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.