JUDGMENT Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short 'Cr.P.C.'] against the judgement dated 04.12.1999, passed by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) in S.T. No.225/1998, whereby each of the appellant has been convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced them as under :- S. No. Conviction Sentence Imprisonment Fine amount Additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine 1 306 of IPC R.I. for 4 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 6 months 2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :- (i) Appellants No.1 Kamal Singh & No.2 Tejukunwar Bai are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Lalkunwar Bai, who was married to appellant Kamal Singh about 10 years ago. At the time of her marriage, it was agreed that her parents will give 1 kg. silver, 10 grams gold and Rs.2,000/- in cash but her parents could not give the whole demanded items and only 250 grams silver was in short, due to which appellants started harassing the deceased and had refused to send her to her paternal house, for which deceased's father Narayan Singh gave silver bangles weighing around 400 grams and silver anklet weighing around 350 grams to the deceased. The appellants even then continued dowry demand cruelty with the deceased, due to which on 02.06.1998, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. (ii) On the same day at about 19.00 hours, ASI K.P.S. Chauhan, after receiving the information about the death of the deceased from Kesar Singh, lodged the Merg Intimation Report (Exhibit- P/6) at police station Kaytha, District Ujjain. On the next day i.e. 03.06.1998, I/O Dy. Superintendent of Police Y. U. Farukhi went to the place of occurrence, called the witnesses issuing Safina Form (Exhibit-P/9), prepared inquest report (Naksha Panchayatnama) vide Exhibit-P/7 of the body of deceased and thereafter, vide letter (Exhibit-P/10) sent the same to District Hospital, Ujjain for post-mortem examination. Dr. Shahid Hussain conducted post-mortem examination of the body of deceased, prepared the post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/1) and opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to suspected poisoning within 24-36 hours since the post-mortem examination. He also preserved, sealed and handed over the same to the police. Dr. Shahid Hussain conducted post-mortem examination of the body of deceased, prepared the post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/1) and opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to suspected poisoning within 24-36 hours since the post-mortem examination. He also preserved, sealed and handed over the same to the police. (iii) I/O Y. U. Farukhi prepared the spot map (Exhibit-P/11), seized plain and vomited soil alongwith the poisonous tablets found on the spot, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/3), recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter, lodged FIR (Exhibit-P/12) against the appellants. He vide letter (Exhibit-P/13) sent all the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore for chemical examination, arrested the appellants and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC before the Court of J.M.F.C. Tarana, Distt. Ujjain, who committed the case to the Court of 4th Additional Session Judge, Ujjain. 3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima-facie available on record, framed the charges under Section 306/34 of IPC against the appellants, who abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they pleaded their false implication in the matter. In support of their defense, they did not examine any witness. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in para-1 of this judgement. Being aggrieved with the said judgement of conviction and order of sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgement and discharging them from the charges framed against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Trial Court has committed a legal error while appreciating the evidence available on record. He submits that it is apparent from the statement of prosecution witnesses that the deceased was married about 10 years ago and father of the deceased as well as other prosecution witnesses themselves deposed that prior to the incident, they fulfilled the demand of the appellants and gave the remaining silver ornaments therefore, the allegations alleged against the appellants that they were demanding ornaments/jewelleries prior to the incident in itself appears baseless. Deceased's father deposed that about a month prior to the incident, appellant No.1 Kamal Singh took the deceased to his house, but appellant No.2 Tejukunwar Bai refused to keep the deceased with them and therefore, appellant No.1 Kamal Singh left the deceased to her sister's house. Prior to the incident, deceased lived at her sister's house in the same village but she has not been examined by the prosecution. Deceased's neighbours have not supported the prosecution case. The impugned judgement convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is totally baseless and the instant case is based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the charges framed against them. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgement was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellants may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Prosecution in its support has examined in all about 14 witnesses including Babulal (PW-2), Kesar Singh (PW-3), Ram Singh (PW-4), Umrao Singh (PW-5), Rai Singh (PW-6), Bhagwan Singh S/o Bahadur Singh (PW-10) and Thakur Singh (PW-13), who are residents of village Javasia, where deceased was residing and had committed suicide. The other material witnesses are deceased's father Narayan Singh (PW-7) and her uncle Bhagwan Singh S/o Bapu Singh (PW-12), Dr. Shahid Hussain (PW-9), who conducted the post-mortem of the body of the deceased and the I/O Y. U. Farukhi (PW-14), who lodged the FIR and investigated the case. 9. Dr. Shahid Hussain (PW-9) deposed that on 04.06.1998 at about 15.30 hours, he conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased Lalkunwar Bai and opined that her death was caused due to suspected poisoning within 24-36 hours since the time of post-mortem examination as per post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/1). He deposed that for knowing the actual cause of her death, he preserved, sealed and handed over the viscera of the deceased to police for chemical examination. Dr. He deposed that for knowing the actual cause of her death, he preserved, sealed and handed over the viscera of the deceased to police for chemical examination. Dr. Prahlad Bhargav (PW-1) has supported his above statements and stated that he was present at the time of post-mortem examination of the body of deceased and he also opined that her death was caused due to suspected poisoning. Although FSL report with regard to deceased's preserved viscera has not been produced on record, but the statements made by Dr. Prahlad Bhargav (PW-1) and Dr. Shahid Hussain (PW-9) have not been challenged by the appellants, therefore, this fact is established that deceased died due to suspected poisoning and her death was not natural. 10. Deceased's father Narayan Singh (PW-2) as well as her uncle Bhagwan Singh S/o Bapu Singh (PW-12) both have deposed that about 11 years ago deceased Lalkunwar Bai was married to appellant Kamal Singh. Deceased's father Narayan Singh (PW-2) deposed that it was agreed at the time of deceased's marriage that he will give 1 kg. silver, 10 grams gold and Rs.2,000/- in cash and as he could not give the whole demanded items, appellants alongwith their other family members started harassing the deceased mentally and physically. Rai Singh (PW- 6), Bhagwan Singh s/o Bahadur Singh (PW-10) and Bhagwan Singh S/o Bapu Singh (PW-12) have also deposed that after the marriage, appellants had made dowry demand cruelty with the deceased, but their statements are vague and inconsistent on the point of demand made by the appellants as well as the acts done by them in this regard. 11. Deceased's father Narayan Singh (PW-2) as well as Rai Singh (PW-6) both have deposed that as per demand made by the appellants, only 250 grams silver was in short, therefore, after about 4 years of deceased's marriage, he had given silver bangles weighing around 400 grams and silver anklet weighing around 350 grams to the appellants. It has nowhere mentioned that after the fulfillment of their aforesaid demand, what was demanded by the appellants and in which manner they continued dowry demand cruelty with the deceased. It has nowhere mentioned that after the fulfillment of their aforesaid demand, what was demanded by the appellants and in which manner they continued dowry demand cruelty with the deceased. It is apparent from the statement of Narayan Singh (PW-2) as well as his brother Bhagwan Singh S/o Bapu Singh (PW-12) that about a month prior to the incident, appellant Kamal Singh brought the deceased to his house, but his mother appellant Tejukunwar Bai refused to keep the deceased in her house therefore, appellant Kamal Singh left the deceased to her sister Jaikunwar's house, where deceased lived for about 15 days. Thereafter, she came to appellants' house, where after about 15 days, on 02.06.1998, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. 12. Narayan Singh (PW-2) as well as his brother Bhagwan Singh S/o Bapu Singh (PW-12) both have specifically deposed that prior to her death, the deceased had told her sister Jaikunwar Bai about the dowry demand cruelty committed upon her by the appellants and Jaikunwar Bai told them the aforesaid facts. Deceased's sister Jaikunwar Bai, with whom deceased was living prior to the incident, is a material witness, but she has not been examined. Her non-examination cast a doubt on the prosecution case as the statements of Narayan Singh (PW-2) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-12) are hearsay and based on her statements. In this regard judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rang Bahadur vs. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 454 can be relied upon. 13. Neighbours and other residents of village Javasia namely, Babulal (PW-2), Kesar Singh (PW-3), Ram Singh (PW-4), Umrao Singh (PW-5) and Thakur Singh (PW-13) have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Rai Singh (PW-6) and Bhagwan Singh S/o Bahadur Singh (PW-10) have made vague and omnibus allegations against the appellants. There is nothing on record which indicates that appellants incited, goaded, urged, provoked, instigated or encouraged the deceased by an act or omission to commit suicide or deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. As the ingredients of instigation/ abatement to commit suicide have not been fulfilled, appellants cannot be convicted under section 306 of IPC. In this regard judgement passed by this Court in the case of Vedprakash Bhaiji vs. State of M.P., 1994 JLJ 758 can be relied upon. 14. As the ingredients of instigation/ abatement to commit suicide have not been fulfilled, appellants cannot be convicted under section 306 of IPC. In this regard judgement passed by this Court in the case of Vedprakash Bhaiji vs. State of M.P., 1994 JLJ 758 can be relied upon. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC therefore, the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable. Hence, conviction of the appellants cannot be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed and the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order :- (i) Criminal Appeal No.1591/1999 filed by the appellants stands allowed. (ii) The impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.1999 passed by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) in S.T. No.225/1998, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced them as stated in para-1 of this judgement is hereby set aside. (iii) Appellants are granted suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2000, therefore learned Trial Court is directed to ascertain the period of jail incarceration suffered by the appellants from the concerned jail. Appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants be refunded to them. 15. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court record forthwith alongwith copy of this judgement. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action. Certified copy as per rules.