JUDGMENT : Challenging the Judgment dated 07.08.2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C.No.32/2007, thereby acquitting accused Nos.1 and 7 of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), this appeal is filed by the State. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, a complaint was given by Sri. Virupaxappa S/o. Irappa Talikoti on 13.07.2006 at 8.00 p.m. before the police station, Hunagund stating that, his sister Smt. Neelamma was married to Sri. Sharanabasappa S/o. Veerabasappa Otageri of Marol village about 12 years ago. Since marriage she was happily residing with her husband. Her mother-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law namely Sri. Shekappa and Sri. Sangappa also lived with them. They had two children namely Deepa and Ravi. Sri. Sharanabasappa was a class-II contractor. After he suffered loss about two years ago, he frequently sent Smt. Neelamma to bring money to tide over the loss. A sum of Rs.45,000/-was paid when he had come in the presence of Sri. Jagadish Muddebihal and Sri. Buddesab of Marol village. Thereafter, they lived happily. 3. But about six months ago, Smt. Neelamma informed him that Sri. Sharanabasappa had developed an illicit affair with one Smt. Khajabi living opposite to their house. She also told him when she demanded her husband to stop illicit affair with Smt. Khajabi, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. But Sri. Sharanabasappa did not stop his illicit affair. He was not treating his wife properly and was forcibly and repeatedly sending her to bring more money. 4. About one week ago, Sri. Amaregouda the brother-in-law of Sri. Sharanabasappa came to their home and asked Smt. Neelamma to be sent back to Marol, immediately. He stated that Sri. Sharanabasappa would be advised and also took responsibility of her wellbeing at Marol. Thereafter on 12.07.2006, complainant took Smt. Neelamma to Marol village. There, he along with Sri. Amaregouda and village elders advised Sri. Sharanabasappa to lead proper marital life with Smt. Neelamma. Both of them agreed in the temple of Godess Dyamavva. Thereafter, complainant returned back to his village at about 5.00 p.m. 5. On 13.07.2006 at about 8.20 a.m., Sri. Amaregouda informed him over phone that Smt. Neelamma had consumed poison and was receiving treatment. She was out of danger and asked the complainant to come alone. Both of them agreed in the temple of Godess Dyamavva. Thereafter, complainant returned back to his village at about 5.00 p.m. 5. On 13.07.2006 at about 8.20 a.m., Sri. Amaregouda informed him over phone that Smt. Neelamma had consumed poison and was receiving treatment. She was out of danger and asked the complainant to come alone. The complainant went to Marol immediately. When he reached, the door of his brother-in-law’s house was closed. Assuming there was none inside, he enquired in the village. He was informed that Smt. Neelamma was taken to Hungund, thereafter he went to Hungund. But as he could not find them there, he came back to Marol at about 12.30 p.m. He saw his sister’s body lying outside the house. There was no one else present. 6. Alleging that his sister Smt. Neelamma was murdered by Sri. Sharanabasappa, Sri. Sangappa, Sri. Amaregouda, Smt. Akkamma, Smt. Annamma and Sri. Veerabasappa, as she insisted her husband to stop his illicit relationship with Smt. Khajabi, complaint was given. The complaint was registered as Crime No.128 of 2006 for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 7. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Sri. Sharanabasappa (A1), Sri. Sangappa (A2), Sri. Amaregouda (A3), Smt. Akkamma (A4), Smt. Annamma (A5), Sri. Veerabasappa (A6) and Smt. Khajabi (A7) in C.C.No.942/2006 for offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 498(1), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. On committal of the matter to the Sessions Court, it was numbered as S.C.No.32/2007. The accused were read over the charges, which they denied and sought trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.16 and identified M.Os.1 to 7. 8. On being explaining the evidence against them, the accused gave individual statements, which were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). On consideration, Sessions Court acquitted all accused by its order dated 31.03.2008. Challenging acquittal, State preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.2551/2008. This Court affirmed acquittal of all accused except accused Nos.1 and 7, for offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 7 were also acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, read with Section 34 of IPC. But the matter was remanded back for re-trail of A1 and A7 for charges punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. Accused Nos.1 and 7 were also acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, read with Section 34 of IPC. But the matter was remanded back for re-trail of A1 and A7 for charges punishable under Section 498(A) and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. After remand, the prosecution filed memo adopting earlier evidence, but sought recalling of P.W.13 for re-examination. Except re-examination of P.W.13, no further evidence was led. Thereafter trial Court passed impugned order and acquitted A1 and A7. Challenging acquittal State is in appeal again. 10. Sri. Venkata Satyanarayana, learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for appellant-State contended that, acquittal of accused by trial Court was contrary to evidence on record. There was error in appreciation of evidence. The trial Court committed error in not considering evidence of material witnesses namely P.W.5, P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.16. 11. Learned HCGP drew attention of this Court to evidence of P.W.5, the complainant and brother of deceased Smt. Neelamma, who stated that when A1 came to his village, he gave A1 Rs.45,000/-in front of Sri. Jagadish Muddebihal (P.W.17) and Sri. Buddesab (P.W.15) P.W.5 further deposed that Smt. Neelamma told him about illicit relationship of A1 with A7 and that A1 used to bring A7 home despite her opposition. He further deposed that, when he took deceased to Marol on 12.07.2006, as per request of A3, A1 was advised by elders. At that time, A1 and Smt. Neelamma had sworn in Temple to lead happy married life with each other. But next day, he received a call from A3 that Smt. Neelamma was unwell as she had consumed poison. When he went to her house, except her children, there was no one else. The children were not in a position to speak. Thereafter, he went to Government Hospital at Marol & thereafter went to Hungund Government Hospital, in search of his sister. When he called A3, he was informed that her body was lying in front of her house. On return to Marol, he saw her body lying covered in a rug on a bench in front of her house. At that time, none of the accused were present. His sister’s children were not in a position to say anything. Thereafter, he went to Hungund Police Station and informed the C.P.I.. The C.P.I. after visiting Marol and seeing his sister’s dead body, asked him to give complaint. At that time, none of the accused were present. His sister’s children were not in a position to say anything. Thereafter, he went to Hungund Police Station and informed the C.P.I.. The C.P.I. after visiting Marol and seeing his sister’s dead body, asked him to give complaint. Thereafter, complaint was written by his friend Sri. Mahantesh Channur. He signed and gave it to police. P.W.5 identified complaint as Ex.P.3, and M.Os. 1 to 6. 12. Likewise, P.W.11 father of deceased Smt. Neelamma also stated that for about 10-11 years after marriage, Smt. Neelamma lived happily with A1 and begot two children. Thereafter A1 developed illicit relationship with A7 and used to send deceased to bring money as he had suffered loss. P.W.11 further deosed that he gave Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/-and Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, A1 began demanding money from his younger son, living in Bengaluru.. He further deposed that when his daughter had come to her maternal home, A3 called her back saying that A1 was about to contract second marriage. Therefore, he sent her back. The next day at 6.00 a.m. P.W.5 received call informing that Smt. Neelamma had consumed poison. He had sent P.W.5 to Marol along with P.W.12. They went to Marol and informed him by phone at about 9.00 a.m. that accused had murdered Smt. Neelamma by making her consume poison. Thereafter, he also went to Marol along with his wife and neighbors. When they reached, they saw that Smt. Neelamma’s body was lying in an old saree and covered in oil. He saw her tali chain, sarees and pieces of broken bangles scattered every where. When he came out of her house, one Sri. Hulagappa of Marol told him that as no one from their village gone to Court, he asked P.W.11 to let go and settle the matter there itself. 13. Further, P.W.12 deposed that he is the cousin of P.W.5. He stated that, Smt. Neelamma was married to A1 about 10 years ago. They were happily married for about 5-6 years and begot children. Thereafter, A1 began sending her to maternal home to bring money and that P.W.11 had given A1 Rs.45,000/-. He further deposed that, when A3 came to their village asking for her return, she was sent to Marol, on 13.07.2006. The next day P.W.5 asked him to accompany him to Marol, stating that A3 informed him about Smt. Neelamma taking poison. Thereafter, A1 began sending her to maternal home to bring money and that P.W.11 had given A1 Rs.45,000/-. He further deposed that, when A3 came to their village asking for her return, she was sent to Marol, on 13.07.2006. The next day P.W.5 asked him to accompany him to Marol, stating that A3 informed him about Smt. Neelamma taking poison. When they reached Marol, they were informed that she was taken to Hungund hospital. When they went to Hungund to check, A3 informed him that her body was lying in front of her house. Therefore, they came back and found her body lying covered in rug. On asking her children, they told that A1 had forced her to drink poison by closing her nose and killed her. 14. P.W.16 the daughter of deceased, after administration of voire dire, stated that A7 used to come to their house for cleaning vessels. She deposed that her father A1 was seen with A7. He was harassing her mother. About one month prior to death, A1 had quarreled with deceased and beaten her, therefore deceased took them to Nalatwad. Thereafter, they came back to Marol on request of A3. On the same night A1 to A7 tied the hands and legs of her mother and beat her; A1 then forced her to drink poison due to which her mother struggled and died. Thereafter accused changed her clothes and kept her body outside and went away. At about 9.00 a.m., P.W.5 and P.W.12 came there and sent them to Nalatwad. 15. Referring to above evidence, learned HCGP contended that there was virtually no dispute about illicit relationship between A1 and A7 and the same causing marital discord between A1 and deceased. It was also contended that, death of Smt. Neelamma in side house in presence of A1 is also not disputed. Such being the case, even when A1 failed to explain death of his wife, trial Court did not draw adverse inference against him as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. On these grounds, the acquittal was questioned. 16. It was also contended that, death of Smt. Neelamma in side house in presence of A1 is also not disputed. Such being the case, even when A1 failed to explain death of his wife, trial Court did not draw adverse inference against him as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. On these grounds, the acquittal was questioned. 16. In support of his submissions learned HCGP relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 for the proposition that if the accused failed to offer any cogent explanation or offers an explanation which is untrue, then it can be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against the accused to make it complete. 17. Learned HCGP also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharnidhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 7 SCC 759 for the proposition that evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected only because they are related to the deceased. 18. On the other hand, Sri. N.D.Gunde, learned counsel for accused submitted that, prosecution miserably failed to make out any case against accused either under Section 498A or under Section 306 of IPC. Learned counsel contended that, there was neither consistency regarding demand for dowry by A1, nor was the evidence free from material discrepancies. P.W.5, P.W.11 and P.W.12 admitted that A1 led happy married life with deceased for more than a decade. The only evidence to support demand for dowry by A1 is statement of P.W.5 and P.W.11. While P.W.5 testified that Rs.45,000/-was paid to A1, when he came to Nalatwad along with P.W.15 & P.W.17, P.W.11 testified that money was paid to A1 in three installments of Rs.10,000/-Rs.15,000/-and Rs.20,000/-. In the complaint it was stated that, payment was made at Marol village in the presence of P.W.15 and P.W.17. But neither P.W.17 nor P.W.15 supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that, it was never the case of prosecution that demand for dowry was made by A1 and A7 with common intention. 19. Learned counsel submitted that, in order to establish offence under Section 306, the prosecution is required first to establish the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC. It was further submitted that, it was never the case of prosecution that demand for dowry was made by A1 and A7 with common intention. 19. Learned counsel submitted that, in order to establish offence under Section 306, the prosecution is required first to establish the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC. It was contended that, the prosecution case at best indicated illicit relationship between A1 and A7, which was grossly insufficient to constitute intention to abet commission of suicide by deceased. Relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (8) SCC 628 , it was submitted that, specific evidence was required to establish abetment. It was further submitted that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750 had clarified that the act of abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person without any positive act on the part of the accused 20. Adverting to evidence of P.W.5 learned counsel submitted that, P.W.5 was, at best, a hearsay witness. P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination that, up to her death, relationship of deceased with A1 was not strained. His assertion in examination-in-chief that A1 came to their village along with P.W.15 and P.W.17 demanding money and Rs.45,000/-was given contradicts with his version in complaint and testimony of P.W.11. P.W.5 further admitted that at the time of marriage of A1 with deceased, it was agreed to give him Rs.8,000/-in cash and one tola of gold which was not given to him and even then A1 led happy marital life with deceased. It was further elicited that A1 had given them a sum of Rs.23,500/-when they were digging bore well in their field. P.W.5 further contradicts himself when he admitted during cross-examination that his sister’s children told him accused had beaten Smt. Neelamma. Even his statement that during inspection of body of the I.O, they found scratch marks on her neck and body is contrary to contents of P.M. report – Ex.P.15 which mentions no injuries or marks. 21. It is also contended that even testimony of P.W.11 did not support prosecution charges, it was contradictory to P.W.5. In fact, P.W.11 does not depose about illicit relationship between A1 and A7. Though he testified about demand of money by A1 and A7, he states that he paid Rs.10,000/-once, Rs.15,000/-once and Rs.20,000/-once, without mentioning any particulars such as place and witnesses. In fact, P.W.11 does not depose about illicit relationship between A1 and A7. Though he testified about demand of money by A1 and A7, he states that he paid Rs.10,000/-once, Rs.15,000/-once and Rs.20,000/-once, without mentioning any particulars such as place and witnesses. During cross-examination, he admits that he did not state about payments made to A1 during recording of his statement by police. Learned counsel further submitted that, trial Court rightly refused to consider evidence of P.W.16 by observing that she was tutored. It was submitted that, though P.W.16 as per prosecution case, was the only eyewitness, her evidence is recorded at the end of trial, with a view to fill up gaps in evidence. A bare perusal of her testimony indicates extreme improvisations, addition of contradictory details which led to the trial Court making observations against her. In her examination-in-chief she deposes that accused had tied up the limbs of her mother and beat her with sticks and rod, resulting in bleeding injuries and thereafter A1 administered poison in steel tumbler. After drinking poison, her mother struggled for some time and died. Thereafter, they changed her clothes and after placing her body on the bench outside the house, they went away from home, before dawn leaving the children behind. During cross-examination, she states that, during one night, A7 was pestering A1 to marry her, but she is not able to say the time. She further says that her mother was screaming when accused were beating her. And when P.W.16 also screamed, accused threatened her that they would kill her also. No charge is framed against accused in this regard. She further states that, her mother died during night, but is unable to state the time which contradicts with evidence of P.W.13. P.W.16 further states that, when she and her brother were sitting near her mother’s body crying, neighbors came there. When confronted with her statement recorded by police, she admits that, statements made by her during deposition had not been stated by her before the police. Her statement recorded by before the police was marked as Ex.D.1. Learned counsel further pointed out that in Ex.D.1, she had stated that her mother was taken to Hospital in a Jeep, which she denies in her cross-examination. 22. Learned counsel submitted that, the contradictions between the evidence of the material witnesses inter se and the prosecution case were glaring. Her statement recorded by before the police was marked as Ex.D.1. Learned counsel further pointed out that in Ex.D.1, she had stated that her mother was taken to Hospital in a Jeep, which she denies in her cross-examination. 22. Learned counsel submitted that, the contradictions between the evidence of the material witnesses inter se and the prosecution case were glaring. The trial Court taking note of the same rightly acquitted the accused. Learned counsel further high lighted the fact that the entire evidence led by the prosecution was with an intention to establish charges of murder against the accused. However, on remand by this Court, the only charges against them were those under provisions of Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and there was no additional evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charges, except further examination of one witness namely P.W.13. It was lastly contended by learned counsel that scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal was extremely limited as the innocence of the accused stood fortified by acquittal. He relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard: (i) (2011) 3 SCC 626 (M. Mohan vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.) (ii) (2003) 8 SCC 180 (State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram) 23. From the above, it is not in dispute that Smt. Neelamma committed suicide by consuming pesticide at her home in Marol on 13.07.2006. The only dispute is whether accused whether the same is abetted by A1 and A7 ? And whether there was demand for dowry by them ? 24. In order to establish the same, prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 16 documents, and 7 MOs. The entire evidence of prosecution was initially directed to support the charges under Sections 143, 147, 498(1), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. But after remand in terms of judgment dated 15.11.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2551/2008, the only charges against A1 and A7 were for offences under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court was therefore tasked with examining whether the same evidence would support prosecution for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The trial Court was therefore tasked with examining whether the same evidence would support prosecution for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. Since it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide due to A1 contracting illicit relationship with A7, neglecting the deceased and subjecting her to mental and physical torture, the same has to be established by the prosecution. It is next required to establish that A1 and A7 indulged in these acts with intention to abet Smt. Neelamma to commit suicide. 25. In the case on hand, out of 21 witnesses examined by prosecution, only the complainant P.W.5, father of deceased P.W.11, cousin of deceased P.W.12, the Doctor at Marol P.W.13, the daughter of the deceased P.W.16, the Engineer who drew sketch of the house P.W.18, the PSI, who received the complaint P.W.19, the carrier of F.I.R P.W.20 and the I.O P.W.21, supported the prosecution case. All other witnesses, who are either Pancha witnesses or neighbors and villagers of Marol and Nalatwad, turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Even among these witnesses P.W.13 has spoken about first aid administered to deceased; P.W.18 deposed about preparing hand sketch of the house; P.W.19 deposed about receiving the complaint and P.W.20 deposed about carrying the FIR to the Court. Therefore, they are not material witnesses. 26. P.W.1 is the pancha witness for seizure panchanama drawn at the time of seizing the clothes of deceased. However, P.W.1 does not support the prosecution. P.W.3 is examined by prosecution as one of the village elders of Marol. However, even P.W.3 did not support the prosecution case. The entire suggestions of the prosecution made during cross-examination are denied by him. P.W.4 is another village elder of Marol examined by the prosecution. However, P.W.4 also denies giving any statement to the police. The entire suggestions made by the prosecutor in cross-examination are denied. Even P.W.6 the Pancha witness for the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.4, P.W.7 the pancha witness for seizure panchanama Ex.P.5, P.W.8 the pancha witness for inquest panchanama, P.W.9 and P.W.10 the neighbors and elders of Marol did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.13 the private Doctor who attended to the deceased, P.W.14 the Jeep Driver who took the deceased for treatment to Hungund and brought back her body from Hungund to Marol are not material in establishing the offence alleged against the accused. The evidence of P.W.13 the private Doctor who attended to the deceased, P.W.14 the Jeep Driver who took the deceased for treatment to Hungund and brought back her body from Hungund to Marol are not material in establishing the offence alleged against the accused. P.W.15 and P.W.17 who were examined to establish the payment of money by P.W.5 and P.W.11 to A.1 also have not supported the prosecution. Therefore, the only material witnesses for the prosecution are the relatives of deceased namely P.W.5 – brother, P.W.11 – father, P.W.12 – cousin and P.W.16 – daughter of the deceased. 27. On an analysis of their evidence, it is seen that P.W.5 has stated in the complaint (Ex.P.3) that his sister Smt. Neelamma told him that A1 had suffered loss and required money and that A1 was having illicit relation with A7 & as she opposed it, she was ill-treated and harassed to bring money from her parents. P.W.5 further says that, a sum of Rs.45,000/-was paid in front of P.W.17 & P.W.15. He further states that on 12.07.2006, he took Smt. Neelamma to Marol, where he along with A3 and elders of Marol village advised A1 and left her with A1. But on 13.07.2006 at about 8.20 a.m., A3 telephonically informed him that Smt. Neelamma had consumed poison. When he went to Marol at 9.00 a.m., the door of A1’s house was closed. Thereafter, he went to Hungund and after checking all hospitals and not finding his sister, returned back to Marol at 12.30 p.m. At that time, he saw his sister’s body lying outside the house and accused not present. His sister’s children were unable to say anything. Thereafter, he gave complaint alleging that his sister Smt. Neelamma was murdered by accused. 28. But during his deposition before Court, he stated that when his sister told him about demand for money by A1 due to loss in contract work, he gave A1 Rs.45,000/-in the presence of P.W.15 and P.W.17 when they came to Nalatwad. He further deposed that his sister told him about illicit relationship of A1 with A7 and about A1 brining A7 home despite her opposition. However, in his deposition before Court he states that on 13.07.2006, when he went to Marol, he say his sister’s body lying covered in a rug on a bench in front of her house. 29. He further deposed that his sister told him about illicit relationship of A1 with A7 and about A1 brining A7 home despite her opposition. However, in his deposition before Court he states that on 13.07.2006, when he went to Marol, he say his sister’s body lying covered in a rug on a bench in front of her house. 29. From a comparison of the two versions there are contradictions about time and place of payment of money, about seeing his sister’s body, about her children able to say anything, etc. More over, there is no specific statement about abetment of suicide by deceased. Even no particulars are mentioned about illicit relationship between A1 and A7. Even in respect of demand and payment of money to A1, there are material contradictions about where money was paid whether in Nalatwad or in Marol. In any case, P.W.15 and P.W.17 who were named as witnesses to the payment have not supported the prosecution case. 30. P.W.11 the father of the deceased in his examination in chief states that A1 and the deceased led happy marital life for 10 to 11 years. Though he mentions about A7, joining A1 in forcing the deceased to get money from her parents as A1 suffered loss, P.W.11 does not mention about any illicit relation between A1 and A7. Insofar as his statement regarding money paid to A1, he says that it was paid in three installments, but no particulars such as date, time and place or witnesses are mentioned. Even his statement regarding the events on 13.07.2006 are also contradictory to evidence of P.W.5. While P.W.5 says he received call from A3 at 8:20 a.m., P.W.11 mentions it as 6:00 a.m. P.W.11 further deposes that P.W.5 and P.W.12 informed him at 9:00 a.m. that the accused had murdered the deceased by making her to drink poison. But as per the version of P.W.5, he found his sister dead only after returning from Hungund at 12:30 p.m. It is also elicited from him during cross examination that when he went to Marol after receiving information about his daughter’s death, he saw swelling on the right arm of the deceased, he saw blood fallen at the place where the body was kept. P.W.11 further admits that the police visited Marol at 4:00 p.m. P.W.11 admits that he did not mention to the police about paying money to A1 while his statement was recorded by them. The suggestions that demand by A1 for return of money paid by him to P.W.11 at the time of digging bore-well, angered them into giving a complaint against A1 and also the suggestion that the deceased was suffering from ill health due to which she committed suicide are denied. However, the glaring discrepancies between the prosecution case, evidence of P.W.5 and the deposition of P.W.11 are not only numerous but also material. The fact that P.W.5 informed P.W.11 about death of deceased at 9.00 a.m. is material as the complaint is registered only at 8:00 p.m. i.e., about 11 hours. Even the plausible explanation offered by P.W.5 that after he went to Hungund police station, he was made wait for arrival of CPI, who thereafter visited Marol and after seeing the body of the deceased at 6:00 p.m. asked him to give complaint is contradicted by the evidence of P.W.11. This is a material circumstance that is required to be considered. 31. P.W.12 is the cousin of the deceased. He accompanied P.W..5 to Marol on 13.07.2006 after P.W.5 received call from A3 informing that deceased has consumed poison. Even P.W.12 does not depose about illicit relationship between A1 and A7. His testimony is only with regard to demand for money by A1. Since he deposed that P.W.11 had told him about giving Rs.45,000/-to the accused, he can at best be a hearsay witness about that fact. Interestingly P.W.12 says that when he went to Marol with P.W.11, one of the door was closed while another was open which is in stark contradiction to the deposition of P.W.5. Likewise his statement that on asking the children, they told about A1 murdering the deceased by forcing her to drink poison is also contradictory to the deposition of P.W.5. According to P.W.5 the children were not in a position to say anything. The same is also mentioned in the complaint. It is also elicited in his cross examination that he did not mention about receiving information about murder of the deceased by A1, from the children, while police recorded his statement. According to P.W.5 the children were not in a position to say anything. The same is also mentioned in the complaint. It is also elicited in his cross examination that he did not mention about receiving information about murder of the deceased by A1, from the children, while police recorded his statement. Further as P.W.12, it was 6:15 a.m. when he along with P.W.5 left for Marol on receiving call from A3, on 13.07.2006. These statements are glaring contradictions with the evidence of P.W.5. 32. P.W.16 is the daughter of the deceased and A1. In her examination in chief, she deposes that A7 use to come to their house for washing utensils and stayed in their house. She deposes that A1 was always with A7 and use to go around with her and used to abuse and beat her mother. She deposes that about a month prior to her death, there was a quarrel between A1 and her mother, when A1 had beaten her, due to which her mother had taken them to Nalatwad. About a month thereafter A3 had come to Naladwad and told about A1 expressing intention to marry A7. The same day they went to Marol, when A7 began insisting A1 to marry her. When her mother opposed, the accused tied up the arms and legs of the deceased and after beating her, A1 put poison in her mouth due to which she suffered and died. P.W.16 further deposes that the accused changed the clothes of the deceased and went away from home leaving the children behind with the body. It is elicited from P.W.16 during cross examination that on the date of incident she was sleeping with the deceased. It is also elicited from P.W.16 that she is not able to say the time when A7 was forcing A1 to marry her. However, she says that due to blows inflicted by the accused with sticks and rod, the deceased suffered bleeding injuries. When confronted with her statement recorded by the police, P.W.16 admits that she did not mention the above particulars. In addition to the contradictions, there are visible attempts for improvisation. The fact that despite P.W.16 being the only ‘eye witness’, she is examined virtually at the end of trial apparently in order to fill up the gaps in the evidence for the prosecution case. In addition to the contradictions, there are visible attempts for improvisation. The fact that despite P.W.16 being the only ‘eye witness’, she is examined virtually at the end of trial apparently in order to fill up the gaps in the evidence for the prosecution case. Yet another factor which requires to be considered is the fact that the police recorded her statement about three and half months after the incident. Though it is sought to be explained that she was not in a fit mental state, the statement of P.W.12 that they told him about the accused murdering the deceased contradicts the explanation and casts serious doubt. 33. Lastly in the deposition of P.W.19 the P.S.I. who received the complaint and P.W.21 the I.O., there is no explanation about the delay in giving complaint. From the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.11, the complaint is given about 8 to 11 hours after knowing about the death of deceased. The explanation that when P.W.5 went to Hungund Police station to give complaint, he was made to await arrival of the C.P.I. of the I.O., who on arrival went to Marol, confirmed the incident and thereafter asked P.W.5 to give complaint are not supported by P.W.19 or P.W.21. Therefore, the delay in lodging complaint is unexplained. Yet another factor that has to be considered is the fact that none of the neighbours or villagers of Marol as well as Nalatwad supported the prosecution case and only the relatives of the deceased deposed against the accused. From the above evidence, it cannot be held that the prosecution has either substantiated its case about demand and payment of money by accused or about the accused abetting the suicide of the deceased. As rightly relied upon by the counsel for the accused, the appellant-State has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of material circumstances necessary to support charge of abetment of suicide. It has failed to prove mens rea on the part of the accused to commit the offence under Section 306 as required to be done in view of the decisions in Madanmohan Singh and M.Mohan (Supra) The evidence on record is not only inconsistent but also very sketchy and therefore cannot be held to support charge of abetment. 34. It has failed to prove mens rea on the part of the accused to commit the offence under Section 306 as required to be done in view of the decisions in Madanmohan Singh and M.Mohan (Supra) The evidence on record is not only inconsistent but also very sketchy and therefore cannot be held to support charge of abetment. 34. Though the prosecution has relied upon the decision in Trimukh (Supra), the said decision is an authority for the proposition that failure of accused to offer explanation or offering a false explanation is to be viewed as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In the case on hand, as there is no direct or circumstantial evidence with regard to the commission of the offences alleged against the accused, a conviction merely on the basis of drawing adverse inference under Section 106 would not be justified. Moreover the accused are acquitted by the trial Court and as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent-accused, the scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal is not only limited but should not be exercised readily. 35. Further, as seen from the above, the evidence of the material witnesses has not been disregarded by the trial Court merely on the ground that they related to the deceased but on the ground that the same suffers from material contradictions. Therefore, the decision in Dharnidhar (Supra) does not come to the avail of the appellant. 36. Under the circumstances, acquittal of the accused by the trial Court is justified. 37. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.