JUDGMENT : SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA, J. 1. The Appellant is the sole Accused in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. 2. The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment in S.C.No.120 of 2016, dated 28.12.2016, has convicted the sole Appellant/Accused as follows:- Conviction under section Sentence Awarded Section 306 of IPC To undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo two years of simple imprisonment. The Trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and has also granted set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of incarceration undergone by the Accused during investigation/trial. 3. The Accused / Appellant challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment, has filed this Criminal Appeal. 4. The Prosecution case are briefly as follows: a) The deceased, Bakkiya, is the daughter of P.W-1-Tmt.Suvarnamma and P.W-2-Thiru.Marappa. The marriage between the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the son of P.W-7-Thiru.Mahadevappa, by name Sivakumar, was an arranged marriage. Both parties belonged to the Lingayat community. The marriage took place two years and four months prior to the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 committing suicide. P.W-1 and P.W-2 were engaged in agriculture. They were residing in Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa is a resident of Vazhaipalla Thottam, Panahalli Village, Byanapuram, near Thalavadi within Erode District, Tamil Nadu, engaged in agriculture. b) After the marriage, Sivakumar the son of Thiru.Mahadevappa and the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 lived in Panahalli Village happily. In the course of her matrimonial life, Bakkiya became pregnant. She delivered a girl child in the Byanapuram Government Primary Health Centre near Thalavadi. On hearing the news of the birth of the child, Sivakumar went to the hospital. After discharge from the hospital, P.W-1 and P.W-2 brought with them their daughter, Bakkiya, and grand daughter to their place of residence at Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. After following the customary practices, the wife and daughter were brought to the matrimonial home by Sivakumar, son of Thiru.Mahadevappa. While so, three days prior to the alleged date of occurrence on 16.10.2014, there was a marriage in Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka, where Sivakumar, son of Thiru.Mahadevappa, went for the marriage along with the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the newly born girl child. While so, three days prior to the alleged date of occurrence on 16.10.2014, there was a marriage in Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka, where Sivakumar, son of Thiru.Mahadevappa, went for the marriage along with the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the newly born girl child. In the marriage function, Sivakumar, the Accused, informed her parents, P.W-1 and P.W-2, to take her with them, let her stay with them for 10 days, and then return to the matrimonial home. He also informed them that he was going to his maternal aunt's house. After three days, the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 insisted P.W-1 and P.W-2 to take her to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, P.W-2- father of Bakkiya (deceased), took her and her newly born child to the house of P.W-7, along with P.W-5 and P.W-6. They convened panchayath regarding the domestic issues between the newly married couple, the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the son of P.W-7. They also requested P.W-7 to look after the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2. After leaving her in the matrimonial home, P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-5 and P.W-6 left for Udigala Village, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka. The next day, they were informed by P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa, that the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 committed suicide by hanging in the house of P.W-7. He had duly reported the matter to the police officials. On hearing the news of the demise of their dear daughter, P.W-1 and P.W-2, along with their relatives P.W-5 and P.W-6, came to the house of P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa. On reaching the house of P.W-7- Thiru.Mahadevappa, they saw their daughter's body placed on the floor in a lying position. c) P.W-1-mother of the deceased, had given a complaint to the Thalavadi Police Station, Erode. Since she was conversant only in Kannada, the Police had taken it down with the help of their relatives in Tamil and registered the complaint under Ex.P-1. Based on which, FIR in Cr.No.125 of 2014 was registered by P.W-14-Sub Inspector of Police. Since the death of the newly married woman occurred within 7 years, the original FIR was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam. The copy of the FIR and the complaint under Ex.P-1 were sent to P.W-9-Executive Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, for conducting enquiry regarding the cause of death and also with a requisition letter to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. The copy of the FIR and the complaint under Ex.P-1 were sent to P.W-9-Executive Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, for conducting enquiry regarding the cause of death and also with a requisition letter to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. Accordingly, P.W-9, the Revenue Divisional Officer, had conducted enquiry and also inquest over the body of the deceased. After conducting the inquest and enquiry, the enquiry report and the inquest report were furnished by P.W-9-Revenue Divisional Officer to P.W-15-Deputy Superintendent of Police of Sathyamangalam, Erode. P.W-15-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam, Erode, had recorded the statements of the witnesses of P.W-1-mother of the deceased; P.W-2-father of the deceased; P.W-3-elder sister of the deceased; P.W-4-younger brother of the deceased; P.W-5 and P.W-6 are relatives of P.W-1 and P.W-2; P.W-7-Thiru.Mahadevappa, father of the Accused; P.W-8 was the witness to the rough sketch, observation mahazar and seizure mahazar; P.W-9-Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam, who conducted inquest and enquiry regarding the cause of death of newly married woman within 7 years of the marriage and issued report under Ex.P- 6 and inquest report under Ex.P-4. P.W-15 had sent a requisition to the duty Doctor at the Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam, P.W- 10-Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.She sent the body along with P.W-12-Tmt.Priyadarshini, Woman Police Constable, and conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report under Ex.P-7. After obtaining report from the forensic laboratory regarding the internal organs from P.W-11-Forensic Expert, P.W-15-Investigation Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police had laid the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam. d) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the Accused. e) On appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Erode, and bound over the Accused to the learned Principal Judge, Erode. On appearance of the Accused, since the case is triable by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, the case was made over to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. f) On hearing the Prosecution and the learned Counsel for the Defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, had framed charges under Section 306 of IPC. g) The Accused denied the charges. Therefore, trial was ordered. f) On hearing the Prosecution and the learned Counsel for the Defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, had framed charges under Section 306 of IPC. g) The Accused denied the charges. Therefore, trial was ordered. h) The Prosecution examined witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-15 and marked documents under Ex.P-1 to P-13 and the material objects M.O-1 to M.O-5. i) After closing of the Prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C regarding incriminating materials available during the course of trial. The Accused denied the incriminating materials against him. No defence witnesses were examined. j) On completion of the Prosecution evidence, after hearing the Prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, on proper appreciation of evidence had convicted the Accused for the charge under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Accused had preferred this Appeal. k) On admission of the Appeal, the Accused/Appellant was released on bail. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant expressed his apology for his absence in the previous occasion and he was directed to proceed with the Appeal, failing which the Appeal will be dismissed. Accordingly, he proceeded with the argument and his apology was accepted for his absence on the previous occasion. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016. 7. To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined 15 witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-15 and marked 13 documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 and also marked 5 material objects M.O-1 to M.O-5. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that witnesses were parents, elder sister, and younger brother of the deceased. They were not familiar with Tamil. Therefore, their evidence was translated and accordingly, recorded before the Trial Court. 9. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that witnesses were parents, elder sister, and younger brother of the deceased. They were not familiar with Tamil. Therefore, their evidence was translated and accordingly, recorded before the Trial Court. 9. As per the list of witnesses before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, P.W-1 is the mother of the deceased; P.W-2 is the father of the deceased; P.W-3 is the elder sister of the deceased; P.W-4 is the younger brother of the deceased; P.W-5 and P.W-6 are the panchayatdars, who were alleged to have convened panchayath regarding the dispute between the deceased and the Accused, the Appellant herein; P.W-7 and P.W-8 are Mahazar witnesses; P.W-9 is the Executive Magistrate, who had conducted enquiry regarding the cause of death of a newly married woman within seven years from the date of marriage and also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-6. P.W-10 is the Medical Officer of Sathyamangalam Government Hospital, who had performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P- 7, postmortem report and Ex.P-8, final report of the postmortem report. P.W-11 is the Forensic Expert, who had analysed the body parts sent to the Forensic Department by P.W-10 and had accordingly furnished the certificate under Ex.P-9. P.W-12 is the Woman Police Constable, who had identified the body to P.W-10, who had performed the postmortem. P.W- 13 is the Head Clerk of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam, who had forwarded the internal organs of the deceased for forensic analysis to P.W-11. P.W-14 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had received the complaint under Ex.P-1, who had registered the FIR under Ex.P-11. P.W-15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam, who had conducted the investigation and prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P-12, observation Mahazar under Ex.P-2 and the seizure Mahazar under Ex.P-3 regarding the seizure of articles M.O-1 to M.O-5 in the presence of witnesses, P.W-7 and P.W-8. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1-mother of the deceased; P.W-2-father of the deceased; P.W-3-elder sister of the deceased; P.W-4-younger brother of the deceased, particularly, the portions dealing with cross-examination. 11. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1-mother of the deceased; P.W-2-father of the deceased; P.W-3-elder sister of the deceased; P.W-4-younger brother of the deceased, particularly, the portions dealing with cross-examination. 11. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the cause of death is disputed due to the conduct of the Accused, who is alleged to have teased the deceased, body shaming that she is not fair in colour and he does not want to live with her. 12. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is evidence before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, through P.W-1 to P.W-4. P.W-5 and P.W-6, who had convened the panchayath regarding the dispute that she was dark skin and as per the evidence, in the cross-examination of P.W-1, mother of the deceased had also stated that she was fair colour. Also, P.W-5 and P.W-6 stated in their cross-examination that P.W-5 had arranged the marriage and that both the deceased and the Accused liked each other only then the marriage was fixed. 13. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the motive attributed on the Accused is that he was having an illicit relationship as per the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4, stating that after delivery of the child, she was taken to her mother's place. Subsequently, the Accused had brought her back to the matrimonial home. Three days prior to the occurrence, she and the Accused had attended the marriage of the relative of the deceased. From the marriage hall, the Accused informed the deceased that she could come back after ten days stay with her parents and informed her that he will proceed to his maternal aunt's house from the marriage hall. The deceased accompanied her parents. It is the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2, parents of the deceased, that the deceased herself insisted on joining her matrimonial home. Accordingly, P.W-2, father of the deceased, took her to the in-laws house, where P.W-5 and P.W-6 had convened the panchayath and advised P.W-7, father of the Accused, to take care of their daughter-in-law (deceased). It is the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2, parents of the deceased, that the deceased herself insisted on joining her matrimonial home. Accordingly, P.W-2, father of the deceased, took her to the in-laws house, where P.W-5 and P.W-6 had convened the panchayath and advised P.W-7, father of the Accused, to take care of their daughter-in-law (deceased). The next day, they were informed by P.W-7-Thiru.Mahadevappa, that the daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-2 committed suicide by hanging in the house of P.W-7. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4, stating particularly the evidence of P.W-2, father of the deceased, that on the date when the deceased was taken to the in-laws house of P.W-7, the Accused was not there. Also, it is the submission that they had not preferred any complaint either to the police or any officials regarding the conduct of the Accused or the claim of the father and mother that the Accused demanded money from the parents through the deceased. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W-9, Executive Magistrate, who had conducted enquiry regarding the cause of the death of newly married woman within 7 years from the date of marriage and issued Ex.P-6. In the cross-examination of P.W-1 and P.W-2, parents of the deceased stated that her daughter was not of dark skin colour regarding the allegation raised by the Accused as against the deceased. Also, the learned Counsel would submit that the suggestion of the defence during cross-examination was that the elder sister of the deceased was married and settled in Bengaluru within city limits. She was born and brought up in the city and she was unable to adjust herself to the village life, which had caused disputes in her and she used to quarrel with the Accused to shift the residence from the village to the city, which was denied by P.W-1 and P.W-2 in the cross-examination. 17. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that a mere doubt that the Accused had developed illicit relationship with another woman in a village is the cause of death of the deceased by hanging cannot be a ground to convict the Accused. 17. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that a mere doubt that the Accused had developed illicit relationship with another woman in a village is the cause of death of the deceased by hanging cannot be a ground to convict the Accused. P.W-1 and P.W-2 in the cross-examination had clearly stated that they had not preferred any complaint against the Accused regarding the allegations made against him after the death of their deceased daughter. 18. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased did not want P.W-1 and P.W-2, parents of the deceased to prefer any complaint against him regarding the Prosecution case. The deceased committed suicide by hanging on the ground that the Accused ill- treated her on the basis of her dark complexion, which is not proved in the evidence. Therefore, the further allegation was that the Accused had disclosed to the deceased that he did not want to live with her because of her dark skin, which is also not proved. The Prosecution case is that the deceased committed suicide only due to the conduct of the Accused having developed illicit relationships outside the matrimonial relationship was the cause of death cannot be a ground to convict the Accused, for which the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V.Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 11 SCC 176 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “13. In this regard, Mr Singh has drawn our attention to the authority in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801. In the said case, the Court was dealing with as to whether relationship between the appellant and the second accused therein was extra-marital leading to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. In the said case, the Court was dealing with as to whether relationship between the appellant and the second accused therein was extra-marital leading to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. Dealing with the extra-marital relationship, the Court has opined that marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their upbringing, services in the home, support, affection, love, liking and so on, but extra-marital relationship as such is not defined in the Penal Code. The Court analysing further in the context of Section 498-A observed that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. The Court further elucidated that harassment need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. The Court ruled that in the facts of the said case the alleged extra-marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. The two-Judge Bench further opined that : (Pinakin Mahipatray case [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , SCC p. 58, para 27) “27. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide [which] says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra-marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.”(emphasis added) 14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 11 SCC 753 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 545, the Court perusing the material on record opined that even if the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted. The relevant passage from the said authority is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 759-60, para 21) “21. …True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.” 17. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.” 17. In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the house of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got involved with Deepa, daughter of Ashwathamma. It has come on record through various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs to be noted that Anjanamma, being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The mother and the brother of Anjanamma paved the same path. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 498-A IPC and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC. 18. Having said that we intend to make it clear that if the husband gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under Section 306 IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments. And we so clarify.” In the light of the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction of the Accused recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 and to acquit him. 19. And we so clarify.” In the light of the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction of the Accused recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 and to acquit him. 19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State by way of reply submitted that the charges under Section 306 of IPC had been proved through the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-6, particularly, the report of P.W-9, Executive Magistrate under Ex.P-6, wherein the parents of the Accused themselves had stated that the Accused was questioned by the parents regarding the conduct of the Accused developing extramarital affairs outside the matrimonial relationship, which was objected by the Accused questioning the parents and even abusing them. Also, it was pointed out by the parents of the Accused that they were given intoxicating drinks by the Accused, which had caused mental distress to them as well as the newlywed wife. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Prosecution had proved the charges through witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-6, and the report of P.W-9, Executive Magistrate under Ex.P-6. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, is a well-reasoned judgment that does not warrant any interference by this Court. 20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in paras 21 to 24, and seeks to dismiss the Appeal as having no merits, thereby confirming the judgment of the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. Point for consideration: Whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 is to be set aside as perverse? 21. Perused the evidence of Prosecution witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-15 and documents marked under Exs.P-1 to P-13 and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. 22. Point for consideration: Whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 is to be set aside as perverse? 21. Perused the evidence of Prosecution witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-15 and documents marked under Exs.P-1 to P-13 and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode. 22. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, had discussed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the extramarital affairs of the Accused was the cause of death by hanging by the deceased. 23. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that “a mere doubt that the Accused had developed illicit relationship with another woman in the village is the cause of death of the deceased by hanging cannot be a ground to convict the Accused.” P.W-1 and P.W-2 the parents of the deceased in their cross-examination had clearly stated that they had not preferred any complaint against the Accused regarding the allegations made against him by them after the death of their dear daughter. As per the reported ruling in K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 176 , mere fact that the husband had developed some intimacy with another woman, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. The Court further elucidated that harassment need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. The two- Judge Bench further opined in Pinakin Mahipatray case that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the Prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The Prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra-marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the Prosecution to show that the Accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide. 24. In the light of the above observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the case of K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 176 , the facts in the reported case squarely applies to this case. In that judgment, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had observed in para 18, as mentioned above. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, cannot be upheld.Therefore, the same is to be set aside. 25. In the light of the above discussion, the Point for consideration is answered in favour of Appellant/Accused and against the Respondent. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 is set aside as perverse. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.120 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 is hereby set aside. The Accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. The Accused is to be released from prison unless he is required in connection with any other case. The bail bond executed by the Appellant/Accused shall stand cancelled. The fine, if any, paid by the Accused/Appellant shall be refunded to him.