JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in S.C.No.159 of 2014 dated 24.02.2016 by allowing this appeal and to acquit the appellant.) 1. This is a case of suicidal death of the woman within 7 years of her marriage. The accused Selvam, S/o Govindan and the deceased Sivasathya, D/o Elumalai are relatives by blood. In the month of October, 2012, they both eloped to Guntur at Andrapradesh and got married in a temple. To celebrate Pongal Festival, they returned to Kottaimedu, Surapalli Village during the month of January, 2013 and stayed back in the village. On 30th March at about 10.00 am, the accused told the deceased to serve food for his maternal Grand Mother (she is also the Paternal Grand Mother of the deceased). The deceased delayed to serve the food. Infuriated by the delay, the appellant quarrelled with the deceased and left the home saying, “if she is not ready to serve food to his grand mother and live as per his wish, she may die”. The deceased got hurt mentally and at about 13.00 hours hanged herself to the roof inside the house and died. 2. Elumalai, the father of deceased Sivasathya, on 30/03/2013 at 20.00 hrs gave complaint to the police suspecting foul in his daughter’s death. Based on his complaint, case under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C was registered and investigated. The charges were altered to Sections 498A and 306 IPC and final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate, II, Mettur. On committal to the Mahila Court, Salem, charges under Sections 498 A and 306 of IPC were framed and the accused was tried. 3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Marked 15 documents and 1 Material Object. On the side of the defence, Selvam, S/o Anandhan examined. The trial Court, considering the evidence, held the accused guilty of offences under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC. The Court below convicted and sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months SI for offence under Section 498 A IPC; and to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months SI for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 4. The Court below convicted and sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months SI for offence under Section 498 A IPC; and to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months SI for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that, Ex.P-1 the complaint by the father of the deceased examined as PW-1 does not specify any incident of cruelty or torture or incitement to commit suicide. PW-1[Tr.Elumalai] had admitted that he gave the complaint only on suspicion. He also admits that to his knowledge, his daughter and the accused were living happily. The Inquest Report of the RDO marked as Ex.P-11 also does not disclose any incident of cruelty. The report states, the reason for committing suicide was not known. The deceased was last seen alive by the accused and their Grandmother PW-2[Tmt.Solaiammal]. PW-2 [Tmt.Solaiammal] had narrated the wordy quarrel erupted suddenly between the accused and his deceased wife. There is no element of cruelty or abetment to commit suicide made out from her evidence or from any other evidence. The testimony of PW-3 [Tr.P.Govindan], the Junior paternal grand father of the deceased and PW-4 [Tmt.Palaniammal], the mother of the deceased is an afterthought containing facts which were not said or found in the RDO report Ex.P-11or in the previous statements recorded by the police during the investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The contradiction in their evidence was not properly considered by the trial Court. Further, the proof of the marriage between the accused and the deceased is not proved and only on presumption, based on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, who are relatives, the marriage between the accused and the deceased presumed. The evidence of DW-1[Tr.Selvam] was not properly considered by the Court below. 5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted the girl was aged about 16 years, when she eloped with the accused and got married against the wishes of her parents. She came back with her husband after 4 months of the elopement. For nearly 3 months she and her husband (appellant) were living in the same village, where both their parents and grand parents living. On the fateful day, wordy quarrel arose between the spouses regarding the delay in providing food to PW-2. Soon thereafter, Sivasathya committed suicide. She came back with her husband after 4 months of the elopement. For nearly 3 months she and her husband (appellant) were living in the same village, where both their parents and grand parents living. On the fateful day, wordy quarrel arose between the spouses regarding the delay in providing food to PW-2. Soon thereafter, Sivasathya committed suicide. The wordy quarrel soon before her death is an undisputed fact. The immediate cause for her suicide cannot be anything else than the abetment of the accused, who had strictly told her to be submissive to him and hear his command or else to die. Therefore, the trial Court is right in convicting the accused. 6. The prosecution witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 incriminate the appellant to the extent that the appellant prevented the deceased from contacting her family members. Whereas, the evidence of PW-1 (father of the deceased) indicates that he used to visit their house. PW-1 has deposed that to his knowledge, there was no quarrel between them. On the date of incident, the accused has asked the deceased to give food to PW-2, who is his maternal grand mother. The deceased had some difficulty in providing food to her immediately. The conversation held between them is not spoken by any one, except the accused who had given his statement to the RDO about the incident triggering conversation. On the reading of this statement, which forms part of the report Ex. P-11, there is nothing to draw a presumption that there was cruelty or abetment to commit suicide. Very ordinary quarrel between the husband and wife regarding taking care of the family elder had led to the incident. 7. Witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 are related to each other by blood. PW-5 and PW-6 are neighbouring residents. DW-1 who is yet other relative had deposed that the accused and the deceased never eloped nor married and they never lived as husband and wife. These two families were not in talking terms due to property dispute. The deceased used to frequently visit Lakshmi, the mother of the accused. So, PW-1 used to scold the deceased. At the time of incident, the accused was in Andra Pradesh. 8. Though PW-1 to PW-4 consistently had deposed about the elopement and marriage. These two families were not in talking terms due to property dispute. The deceased used to frequently visit Lakshmi, the mother of the accused. So, PW-1 used to scold the deceased. At the time of incident, the accused was in Andra Pradesh. 8. Though PW-1 to PW-4 consistently had deposed about the elopement and marriage. Contrary to their evidence, DW-1 denies the factum of marriage, but his testimony is not reliable since the accused himself to RDO had admitted the marriage. Further, Sivasathya has committed suicide in the house of the accused. Therefore, the fact that the accused and the deceased were living as husband and wife in the house where the deceased died by hanging is well proved. 9. The point under consideration is whether she she was subjected to cruelty and abetment to commit suicide. 10. The evidence of PW-1, father of the deceased and PW-4, mother of the deceased are hearsay in nature in so far as the incident that took place at the house of the accused soon before the death. They are not witnesses to the offending dialogue alleged to have spoken by the accused to the deceased. According to PW-2 [Tmt.Solaiammal], while she and her brother Govindan (PW-3) were on the Pyal, there was wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. After the accused left the house, she went to inside the house and found the deceased hanging. PW-3 had deposed that PW-2 while going to the deceased house told him that Sivasathya (deceased) had not brought food for her, so she is going to her house to collect food. PW-3 admits in the cross examination, he say about these facts for the first time in the Court and said in his previous statement to the police and RDO. PW-4 [Tmt.Palaniammal] is the mother of the deceased. She while narrating the incident, states that her daughter after the first serve of food to PW-2 for the second serve went inisde the house but did not turn up again. When her mother-in-law (PW-2) went inside stumbled upon the hanging body of the deceased. 1. The father (PW-1) and the mother (PW-4) had stated that to their knowledge, the accused and the deceased were living happily and nothing adverse was noticed. On the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel regarding serving food to PW-2. When her mother-in-law (PW-2) went inside stumbled upon the hanging body of the deceased. 1. The father (PW-1) and the mother (PW-4) had stated that to their knowledge, the accused and the deceased were living happily and nothing adverse was noticed. On the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel regarding serving food to PW-2. The offending dialogue that the accused scolded the deceased to “go and die” is not spoken by any of the witnesses, who are supposed to be the eye witnesses. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, who are not eyewitnesses to the wordy quarrel and not perceived the words used in the conversation through one of their five senses, directly can be only an hearsay. So, it is not proper to hold the accused guilty of offences under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC solely on the hearsay evidence. 2. 11. There is nothing found from the evidence relied by the prosecution to attribute any cruelty or abetment to commit suicide. The ingredient for offences under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC is totally absent. Hence, this Court holds that the trial Court judgment is not based on reliable evidence. 12. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem made in S.C.No.159 of 2014, dated 24.02.2016 is set aside. Fine amount paid, if any, by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. The accused is set at liberty. If the appellant is in prison, he may be released forthwith, if he is not connected with any other case.