JUDGMENT : Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 10.09.2013 made in S.C.No.71/2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Court Judge, Salem and set aside the same. The appellants 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the 3rd appellant. On receipt of the complaint dated 29/09/2010 from Tr.Muthu Ramalingam, the father of the deceased Rupa Devi, a case in Crime No.292/2010 was registered at the Salem Steel Plant Police Station and investigated. On completion of investigation, final report filed alleging, Rupa Devi committed suicide by hanging on 29/09/2010 at about 6.00 a.m. in her house at door No.63, Steel Plant Gangai Nagar, Salem. The day before the incident the Appellants 1 and 2 scolded the third appellant for living with a barren lady, who is incapable to begot a child for him. The third appellant beaten her and physically caused cruelty in the public. The deceased on being attacked and humiliated in the public unbearable of the cruelty, on the next day morning committed suicide. Thus, the alleging father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased, (A-1 to A-3 respectively) caused mental and physical cruelty to the deceased Rupa Devi and abetted her to commit suicide by hanging. Final report laid before the Court. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, after furnishing copies of document, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. On committal, the case was taken up for trial in S.C.No.71/2012. Charges under Sections 498A IPC and 306 IPC were framed against the appellants herein as A1 to A3 respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred as per their ranking and designation mentioned in the trial Court judgment. 4. The prosecution to prove the charges examined 14 witnesses and marked12 exhibits as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The two pieces of nylon rope recovered from scene of occurrence were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 5. The learned Mahila Court Judge held the accused guilty of the charges and convicted them. 4. The prosecution to prove the charges examined 14 witnesses and marked12 exhibits as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The two pieces of nylon rope recovered from scene of occurrence were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 5. The learned Mahila Court Judge held the accused guilty of the charges and convicted them. Sentenced A-1 to A-3 to undergo 3 year RI and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month SI for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and to undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months SI for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The period of substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone ordered to be set off. 6. Aggrieved by them, the present appeal is filed. Pending appeal, it is reported that the first appellant/A-1 died and the same is hereby recorded. 7. The learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants submitted that the witnesses to the prosecution have not spoken about any overt act on the part of the accused persons regarding aid or assist or instigate the deceased to commit the offence of suicide. The witnesses for prosecution have not deposed that they saw the accused persons causing cruelty. The witnesses are all hearsay and not reliable. The charges as framed and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the accused persons treated the deceased cruelly pointing out her infertility. Once in five months, A-1 and A-2 used to come to the deceased house and pick quarrel. They used to abuse her and tease her for not getting conceived. On the day before the incident, A-1 and A-2 came to Salem from Tuticorin. In the street, A-1 to A-3 abused the deceased and humiliated her saying she does not have uterus to carry a child and assaulted the deceased on her cheek and back. On the next day morning, she committed suicide. 8. The trial Court relying on the testimony of PW-3 [Kamatchi] the owner of the house, where A-1 and the deceased living, convicted the accused without proper appreciation of the evidence. The parents of the third accused are residents of Iyyan Theppakulam in Tuticorin District. The third accused along with the deceased was living in Salem in a rented house. 8. The trial Court relying on the testimony of PW-3 [Kamatchi] the owner of the house, where A-1 and the deceased living, convicted the accused without proper appreciation of the evidence. The parents of the third accused are residents of Iyyan Theppakulam in Tuticorin District. The third accused along with the deceased was living in Salem in a rented house. A1 and A2 travelled all along from Tuticorin to Salem to quarrel with the deceased once in five months is highly imaginative. 9. The Court below erred in accepting the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that they come to know about the cruelty alleged to have caused to their daughter at Salem through phone call made by their daughter. However, the prosecution has not produced any phone call details to substantiate the said fact and most of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 in their deposition before the Court does not form part of their previous statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., or in the complaint (Ex.P1). PW-3 [Tmt.Kamatchi] has improvsed her statement before the Court by adding events which she has not disclosed to the RDO. Likewise, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 residing near place of occurrence are the interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon to implicate A1 and A2. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the third appellant/third accused and the deceased Rupa Devi got married in the year 2007 on 10th day of fourth month Avani at Iyyan Theppakulam, Tuticorin District. At the time of marriage, A3 was employed in Foreign. Four months after the marriage, he again went to the Foreign during the tamil month of Karthigai. The deceased was living with A1 and A2. After A3 left to Foreign, A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased demanding dowry. Therefore, the deceased came back to her parents house. In the month of Thai, 2008, the 2nd accused along with her elder daughter came to the house of PW-1 and quarrel with them for not giving Pongal seer. In the month of Karthigai, A3 returned from Foreign and came to PW-1 house and took his wife along with him to Salem and set up a separate house. A1 and A2 are the residents of Tuticorin. 11. In the month of Karthigai, A3 returned from Foreign and came to PW-1 house and took his wife along with him to Salem and set up a separate house. A1 and A2 are the residents of Tuticorin. 11. Once in five months, A1 and A2 used to visit their son house and at that time, they used to cause cruelty to the deceased physically and mentally. One such occasion was on the day before the incident when A1 and A2 came to A3's house and humiliated the deceased with obscene language for not having uterus. This was informed by the deceased to her father over phone and on the next day, she was found hanging in her house. 12. The incidents took place day before the occurrence has been spoken by PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 who are the residents near the house where the deceased and A3 were living. These witnesses have spoken about the visit of A1 and A2 and the quarrel occurred in the street. Particularly, PW-3 the house owner had deposed that due to the incitement and humiliating conduct of the accused persons, the deceased as forced to commit suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the required ingredient for offences under Sections 498A IPC as well as 306 IPC. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 14. The case of the prosecution is that Rupa Devi died committing suicide by hanging herself using a rope marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The post-mortem report is marked as Ex.P7 and the final opinion marked as Ex.P9, which indicates that the deceased was found with the following external injury:- “An interrupted oblique, Dark brown ligature mark seen over front and sides of neck-above the level of thyroid cartilage-measuring 1 to 20 cms width, 33 cms total length, and it is situated 12 cms above the supra sternal notch 6 cms below mid chin, 5 cms below right mastoid process; 10 cms below left mastoid process on the back, it merges with the hair line o/d the underlying ligature mark skin is pale, dry and parchment like, all neck structures intact hyoid bone, was found intact. No neck contusion. (antemortem). Dark red abrasion over left side of nostril 1 x 0.5 cms Dark red contusion seen over right side cheek 5x 4x0.5 cms.” 15. No neck contusion. (antemortem). Dark red abrasion over left side of nostril 1 x 0.5 cms Dark red contusion seen over right side cheek 5x 4x0.5 cms.” 15. The final opinion of the Doctor as per Ex.P9 is that the deceased appear to have died of the effects of asphyxia, due to hanging. The First Information Report [Ex.P10] has been registered on the complaint given by the father of the deceased. In this complaint, the incident of harassment and humiliation faced by the deceased is mentioned and they are all made known to the informant by the deceased over phone. After registering the complaint under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution has taken up the investigation thereafter altered the charge to Section 306 IPC on the same day based on the statements given by nearby residents. On the next day, the RDO has conducted inquest. On recording the statement of the panchayatars and the parents of the deceased, the RDO has concluded his opinion that the death of Rupa Devi is not due to dowry harassment. It appears that she has hanged herself on being humiliated by her mother-in-law, who called her out from the house and scolded her for not bearing a child for her son. The RDO report [Ex.P5] contains the statement of Muthuramalingam[PW-1] and Kamatchi [PW-3]. The trial Court has believed the statement of PW-3[Kamatchi] for holding the accused guilty. 16. In her chief examination, PW-3[Kamatchi] has asserted that when A3 and the deceased came to her house as tenant they informed her that they were married 3 years since. Once in five months, A1 and A2 used to come to her house and scold Rupa Devi as barren lady without uterus and a prostitute, on 28.09.2010 the accused A1 and A2 came to Salem and scolded her standing in the street along with A3 in public view and attacked her on her cheek and back. PW-3[Kamatchi] went and pacified them and on the next day at about 6.00 a.m., the third accused told PW-3[Kamatchi] that Rupa Devi committed suicide by hanging. When she went inside the house, she saw a part of the yellow colour nylon rope around Rupa Devi's neck and the remaining part of the nylon rope hanging in the hook of the roof. When she went inside the house, she saw a part of the yellow colour nylon rope around Rupa Devi's neck and the remaining part of the nylon rope hanging in the hook of the roof. The embellishment in her deposition before the Court which is not found in her statement before the RDO been highlighted in the cross examination. 17. The portion of the house in which the deceased committed suicide was occupied by A3 and the deceased alone. When A3 was in the house, the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, A3 is bound to explain what prompted his wife to commit suicide. Having been arrayed as accused he has the right of silence, so, he has remained silence. When A3 was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C regarding incriminating evidence against him he has denied the same as false, except admitting that he was a tenant under PW-3[Kamatchi] and living with the deceased. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that during the inquest, the witnesses have said that both A3 and the deceased were taking treatment for fertility for the past two months and also in the post-mortem report menstrual strain was found. This will prove that the deceased was not without uterus and she was experiencing menstrual cycle. Hence, the allegation that A2 abused her as a lady without uterus is an imaginary allegation. The learned counsel further submitted that according to the evidence of her father [PW-1], the deceased was taking fertility treatment. Since on the day of the occurrence, she had menstrual cycle, she got depressed and committed suicide. 19. In the morning when the accused woke up and found his wife hanging, he has informed the house owner Kamatchi [PW-3] and others. The allegation of harassment and humiliation are afterthought made on the advice of Advocate who was present at the place of occurrence from the morning at 6' o clock till 05.00 p.m. evening. On his advice, the complaint registered with false information. 20. The allegation of harassment and humiliation are afterthought made on the advice of Advocate who was present at the place of occurrence from the morning at 6' o clock till 05.00 p.m. evening. On his advice, the complaint registered with false information. 20. The learned counsel submitted that PW-3 [Kamatchi] in her statement to RDO, which find place in Ex.P5, had stated that A1 and A2 on 28.9.2010 morning came to the house of Rupa Devi and scolded A3, why he continue to live with a lady, who is not able to give birth to a child and left at 10.00 a.m. She had not said anything about A1 to A3 together humiliated Rupa Devi saying she is a barren lady without uterus and attacked her on the cheek and back. In PW-3 statement to the RDO, PW-3 [Kamatchi] had further stated that the deceased was having chat with her on 28.09.2010 night at about 09.00 p.m., before she left to bed. This would indicate that the deceased was normal till 09.00 p.m. on the previous day. 21. The ingredients to punish a person under Section 306 of IPC first should prove abetment which requires either of the three ingredients mentioned in Section 107 of IPC which reads as below:- “107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing if a thing, who- First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 22. PW-3 [Kamatchi] and PW-4 [Murugan] are the witnesses for prosecution, who have seen the incident, which had occurred on the previous day when A1 and A2 standing in the street and scolded the deceased, PW-3 [Kamatchi] has not mentioned the time of the morning occurrence in her deposition or before the RDO during inquest. Whereas, PW-4 [Murugan] had stated that on 28.09.2010 at about 06.00 a.m., when he was on the way to buy milk, he saw A1 to A3 accusing the deceased Rupa Devi as a person unfit to have a child, a lady without uterus and barren. Whereas, PW-4 [Murugan] had stated that on 28.09.2010 at about 06.00 a.m., when he was on the way to buy milk, he saw A1 to A3 accusing the deceased Rupa Devi as a person unfit to have a child, a lady without uterus and barren. A1 and A2 further shouted to A3 why he is living with the lady without uterus. He also saw A1 to A3 beating Rupa Devi. The deceased Rupa Devi begged with them that she will leave the house and go away. The people around her pacified. Later at 10.00 a.m. when he went to fetch water, Rupa Devi came running toward the well with an intention to commit suicide. He and Advocate Nagaraj pacified her and sent her back to her home. On the next day at 06.00 a.m., in the morning when he came out of the house hearing noise, A3 told him that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. He along with PW-3 [Kamatchi] and one Murugesan went inside the house and saw Rupa Devi dead, part of the yellow colour nylon rope around her neck and the remaining part of it hanging in the hook of the roof. 23. PW-5 [Maruthanayagam] is yet another witness for prosecution who has deposed that he know A1 and A2 quarrelling with the deceased for not bearing a child and used to say that they have to arrange for another marriage to A3. On 28.09.2010 at 06.00 a.m., A1 and A2 scolded Rupa Devi and humiliated her saying she is not having uterus; she is not having child and attacked her physically. A1 and A2 also said that only if Rupa Devi dies, they can arrange for another marriage for A3. PW-5 and PW-3 warned them that if they quarrel like this in future, they will report the matter to police. 24. The reading of evidences of PW-1 to PW-5 collectively show the systematic embellishment of facts and addition of new facts being added one after other. PW-1 had stated her daughter did not live with the in-laws house. After, A3 went to Abroad. There was a demand for Pongal Seer and daughter called him frequently and complaining about the cruelty and harassment. He also stated that the deceased was taking treatment for fertility and she was conceived once, but on the advise of the Doctor at Pushpa Nursing Home, foetus was aborted. After, A3 went to Abroad. There was a demand for Pongal Seer and daughter called him frequently and complaining about the cruelty and harassment. He also stated that the deceased was taking treatment for fertility and she was conceived once, but on the advise of the Doctor at Pushpa Nursing Home, foetus was aborted. When she was taking further treatment for fertility at Tuticorin, A3 came back to India. He got a job at Salem Steel Plant and settled at Salem. PW-1 has deposed that on 28.09.2010, his daughter (the deceased Rupa Devi) called him over phone informed that she was attacked by A1 to A3. He advised her not to get tension when she is under medication and assured that he will come on the next day. However, on the same day at 06.00 p.m., Rupa Devi called him and told that when A3 went out from home, fearing that he will desert her she followed A3, A3 attacked her and she got fainted in the road. 25. All these facts are introduced by PW-1 for the first time before the Court. The incident alleged to have happened at 06.00 p.m., which he heard from his daughter over phone not spoken by PW-3[Kamatchi], who had chat with the deceased subsequently at 9.00 p.m. (i.e.) 3 hours later to the alleged incident. PW-4 [Murugan] had stated that on 28.09.2010 at 10.00 a.m, Rupa Devi ran towards the well to commit suicide and he along with Mr. Nagaraj, Advocate stopped her, pacified her and sent her to home. This is not spoken by any of the other prosecution witnesses namely, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. They only uniformly say about the visit of A1 and A2 from Tuticorin on 28.09.2010, scolded the deceased in the public view and also shouting at A3, why he is living with Rupa Devi, who is not able to bear a child for him. 26. These facts as spoken by the witnesses does not indicate anything to hold that A1 to A3 aided or abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide on the next day. By scolding or uttering these words 24 hours before the occurrence cannot be termed as abetment. 26. These facts as spoken by the witnesses does not indicate anything to hold that A1 to A3 aided or abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide on the next day. By scolding or uttering these words 24 hours before the occurrence cannot be termed as abetment. Strangely, PW-4[Murugan] introduces a new fact for the first time in his chief examination that at 10.00 a.m on 28.09.2010 the deceased made an attempt to commit suicide and ran towards the well then, he and Advocate Mr. Nagaraj prevented her. This new fact which was not spoken by any of the other witnesses proves the anxiety on the part these witnesses to get conviction of the accused. The said Nagaraj was not examined by the prosecution. Also, for the first time, PW-5 [Maruthanayagam] in the course of chief examination stated that A1 to A3 attacking Rupa Devi on 28.09.2010 and said that only if she die, they can arrange for another marriage to A3. This part of evidence has not been corroborated and was said for the first time during the examination before the Court. 27. For the above reasons, the evidence of these witnesses is wholly unreliable. The intention of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 clearly shows that they want conviction of these accused persons and therefore, they had made several incriminating statements without any corroboration and also inconsistent to each other. Therefore, the very allegation that A1 to A3 caused cruelty to the deceased itself has become highly doubtful, in view of the contradictory and unreliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. While so, even if their evidence has taken on face value, there is no material to hold that the deceased committed suicide because of any aid, incitement or instigation by these accused. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused persons. The Trial Court has miserably failed to see the contradictions, embellishment, exaggeration and imaginary statements of these witnesses. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 28. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of trial Court viz., Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C.No.71 of 2012 dated 10.09.2013 is set aside. The appellants/accused are set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to the accused. Bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.