JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 16.04.2015 made in S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode and set aside the same.) 1. The convicted accused is the appellant herein. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 16.04.2015 made in S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Erode sentencing him under Sections 498 (A) I.P.C to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment and Under Section 306 of I.P.C to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. 3. The accused married the victim girl during the year December, 2011. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the victim girl, P.W.3 is the sister of the victim girl, P.W.4 is the brother’s son of the victim girl and the accused is the husband of the deceased. At the time of marriage, the accused was 40 years and the victim girl was 19 years. 4. On 08.11.2012, at around 09.00 a.m., P.W.1/father of the deceased has received a telephone call that his daughter has committed suicide by self-immolation. Then, he gave a complaint before the respondent police and based upon the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C was altered to Sections 498 (A) and 306 of I.P.C. 5. As stated supra, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased; P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the relatives of the deceased; P.W.5 to P.W.9 are the attestors of the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch; P.W.10 is the neighbout; P.W.11 is the Photographer; P.W.12 is the District Revenue Officer, P.W.13 is the Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem and given post-mortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P6, P.W.14 is the constable, who has accompanied the dead body, P.W.15 is the Special Sub-Inspector, who has received Ex.P1/complaint and registered Ex.P8/FIR and Exs.P16 and P17 are the Investigating Officers, who after investigation, had laid the charge sheet. 6. 6. Based upon the oral evidence of P.W.13/Doctor, coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P6/Post-mortem certificate, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to self-immolation and committed suicide. Now this Court has to consider levied conviction and sentence as stated supra whether the conviction imposed under Sections 498(A) and 306 of I.P.C is sustained and if so, whether the sentence is excessive. 7. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 are being the family members, they are interested witnesses and their version in the Court would amounts to contradiction as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.16/Investigation Officer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following decisions. (i) 2020 (10) SCC 200 [Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (ii) 2019 (7) SCC 4359 Wasim Vs.State (NCT of Delhi) (iii) 2017 (1) SCC 433 [Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab] (iv) 2015 (9) SCC 639 [State of Kerala and others Vs.S.Unnikrishnan & others]. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant/accused got married with the deceased 10 months prior to the occurrence. During their marriage period, the accused/appellant often consumed alcohol and abused the deceased in filthy language and assaulted her, hence the deceased went to her parental home. Four weeks prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused went to P.W.1’s house and asked the deceased to come with him, but the deceased refused the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 compromised the deceased and brought her to the accused’s house. While so, on 07.11.2012 at about 07.30 p.m the accused came to the house in drunken mood and abused the deceased and also asked to make fried egg. The deceased prepared egg fry and it was tasted by him and after spitting it he told that “TAMIL” Due to this occurrence, the deceased got mental agony and on 08.11.2012 at 06.30 a.m., the deceased poured kerosene and set a fire to herself and the deceased died due to the burn injury at 09.00 a.m on the spot. Hence, the complainant/P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police station and based on that a case was registered in Bhavani Police Station in Crime No.716 of 2012 under Sections 174 Cr.P. on 08.11.2012. 10. Hence, the complainant/P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police station and based on that a case was registered in Bhavani Police Station in Crime No.716 of 2012 under Sections 174 Cr.P. on 08.11.2012. 10. The suggestive case of the defence is that the accused was aged 40 years and the deceased was aged about 19 years and the deceased at the time of the marriage does not like to marry the accused because of the big age difference and there is no demand of dowry has spoken to by P.W.1 to P.W.4. The version of P.W.1 to P.W.4 suffers from improvement amounting to embellishment. 11. The case of the prosecution in brief is that due to the ill treatment and the harassment the deceased had taken a extreme step of self immolation viz suicide. Though P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the relative namely parents of the deceased, sister of the deceased and cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 to P.W.9, the neighbours who resided near the place of the deceased have turned hostile. Observation Mahazar witness P.W.10 and the seizure mahazar witness have deposed regarding the preparation of the observation mahazar Ex.P2 by the Investigation Officer and seizure of the victim girl. The entire case revealed around the P.W.1 to P.W.13 and P.W.16 and P.W.17 the police witnesses. 12. P.W.13 Doctor Dinakaran had conducted the post-mortem certificate and issued Ex.P6 post-mortem on the dead body and Ex.P7 final report certificate to the effect that the death could have been due to the show that they were tutored and hence based upon the medical evidence of Doctor P.W.13 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.P6 and P7 Alami alias Alamelu, W/o of the accused died due to self immolation and committed suicide by self immolation. 13. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the accused and P.W.2 are cousins. P.W.2 mother and P.W.1 and P.W.2 have arranged marriage between the deceased Alamelu aged about 19 years and the accused aged about 40 years which was disliked by the deceased. The above said fact has been elicited from P.W.3 Iyammal the sister of the deceased. She had categorically deposed that the deceased Alamelu didn’t like to marry elder person at the time of the marriage and it was the marriage was solemnized under the compulsion of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 14. The above said fact has been elicited from P.W.3 Iyammal the sister of the deceased. She had categorically deposed that the deceased Alamelu didn’t like to marry elder person at the time of the marriage and it was the marriage was solemnized under the compulsion of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 14. It remains to be stated that with regard to the dowry demand has spoken to by P.W.1 to P.W.3, the learned counsel for the defence has contracted those witnesses as required under Section 147 of Evidence Act and also with P.W.16 Investigation Officer. On an combine reading of answer elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there was no dowry demand prior or subsequent to the marriage between the accused and the deceased assumes significance. 15. With regard to the alleged version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 parents and the sister of the deceased that 20 days before the occurrence, the accused came with a knife and threatened to cut the Mangala Supra (Thali of the deceased). The same was answered negation by P.W.16 Investigation Officer and hence, after going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the cross-examination and answer elicited from P.W.16 Investigation Officer, I find that the prosecution witnesses has alleged so for the first time in the witness ox. In other words, the said version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is only an improvement in evidence for the first time being deposed before the Court. 16. It remains to be stated that even under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 submitted by P.W.2 before R.D.O no such averment or allegation has been made against the accused and hence, I find that the alleged harassment said to have been done by the accused on the deceased, 20 days prior to the occurrence appears to be made only as an improvement during the recording of the evidence in the Court. Furthermore, the author of the complaint is not known to anyone. 17. In the cross examination, as noted supra, P.W.1 to P.W.3 have categorically admitted that there was no dowry demand either prior to or subsequent to the marriage between the accused and the deceased and the alleged incident said to have taken place on a prior occurrence for a non cooking of a non-vegetarian (Mutton meals), it was not properly done by her and the accused said to have scolded the wife. Such an allegations is in the nature of outburst of a common living of the rural areas, the same cannot be said to be an instigation or abatement of suicide. 18. In order to sustain, a conviction order under Section 306 I.P.C the prosecution has to prove that the act or the words uttered by the accused is with one intention or active compencity here in the incident case. Except the version that on a previous night for non cooking a non vegetarian, the words uttered by the accused (husband) to the deceased (wife) as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.3 who is appears to be a reasonable words or it is a words of emotional, for not cooking properly. It is the common knowledge everyone that words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the movement cannot be taken to the abatement. Even to read the allegation in entirety it is made only kind of manner not cooking the non vegetarian food in a proper manner. 19. As stated supra, P.W.1 to P.W.4 are family members of the deceased and P.W.5 to P.W.9 are turned hostile not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2 regarding the prior occurrence was appears to be an improvement as per the evidence of P.W.16 Investigation Officer. So also the version of P.W.3 was found to be material contradiction with the evidence of the P.W.16 Investigation Officer and from the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 found to be improved their version before the Court which has been clearly elicited through the evidence of P.W.16, Investigation Officer and I am of the considered view the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 cannot be held to be reliable and found to be perversity. It appears to have been tutored in the tune of the prosecution. It appears to have been tutored in the tune of the prosecution. Except the fact that the deceased died due to suicide there is no inducement by the accused and even the serious allegation alleged acted upon the accused in try to in Mangal Supra appears to be the on material contradiction with P.W.16 Investigation Officer the same is held to be improvement amounting to material contradiction, I find that there is no positive evidence let in by the prosecution in support of the charge under Section 498 (A) and 306 of I.P.C and hence, the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in not analysing the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 in the proper prospective prosecution has failed to let in positive evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 20. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below is set aside and the revision petitioner is set at liberty and bail bond if any shall stand cancelled.