JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj, District – Surguja (C.G.), in S.T. No. 254/2002 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 306 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 1 / 2 years. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 06.01.2002 at about 9:00 am, in the village and police station-Basantpur, Anarwa Bai died by hanging herself and the same was informed to the police by the brother of the appellant/accused. Then police reached the spot and the father of the deceased also reached the spot. During the course of panchnama of the dead body, the father of the deceased stated to the Investigating Officer that her daughter wanted to live with her husband/appellant but the appellant did not want to cohabit with the deceased, due to such grief, she committed suicide. Thereafter, police lodged FIR and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 23 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in the case in its true and correct perspective and succumbed to conjectures and surmises in convicting and sentencing the appellant. He also submits that the sentence of fine awarded by the learned trial court is not a considered one and is against the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits that the sentence of fine awarded by the learned trial court is not a considered one and is against the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code. He lastly submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC were not present in the case, the case as proved by the prosecution did not fulfil the ingredients of abetment as contained in Sections 107 to 120 of the IPC. The judgment of conviction and sentence is perverse to the evidence recorded and deserves to be set aside, therefore, the appeal may be allowed. He placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Mahendra Singh and another Gayatribai v. State of M.P. reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, Sudhakar and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 6 SCC 671 & Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 as well as the decision rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Basant Kumar and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 20th February, 1989. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is an undisputed fact that appellant Kamleshwar Yadav is the husband of deceased Anarva. Deceased’s father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5), mother Bigni Bai (PW-20), Kumari Shakuntala Yadav (PW-17), Ramgahan Yadav (PW-1), Balrup Yadav (PW-2), Nanku Yadav (PW-3), Shiv Prasad Yadav (PW-4), Ramcharan Yadav (PW-7), appellant’s brother Manager Yadav (PW-14), Patwari Shyam Kishore Jaiswal (PW-10), who proved the spot map (Ex.P/9) and Panchnama (Ex.P/3) as well as Inspector C.S. Sharma (PW-16), who prepared Panchnama of dead body of Anarva (Ex.P/2) established the fact that Anarva was committed suicide by hanging. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-18) and Dr. Sanju Ekka (PW-22) have also corroborated the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) to the effect that Anarva died on account of suffocation due to hanging. Thus, the fact that death of Anarva was caused as a result of suicide, has not been disputed. 9. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-18) and Dr. Sanju Ekka (PW-22) have also corroborated the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) to the effect that Anarva died on account of suffocation due to hanging. Thus, the fact that death of Anarva was caused as a result of suicide, has not been disputed. 9. Now, it has to be ascertain whether conclusion of trial Court is justified that Anarva committed suicide as a result of abetment of appellant Kamleshwar Yadav ? 10. It is noteworthy that total 23 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and none of the witnesses could state that in which year, marriage of Anarva took place with appellant Kamleshwar Yadav. Anarva’s father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) and mother Bigni Bai (PW-20) have also been unable to state the year of their marriage. Some witness has stated that their marriage had solemnized before 6 years and some witnesses have stated that their marriage had solemnized before 11-12 years. As such, it is not clear whether Anarva committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. Therefore, the situation of presumption contained under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. 11. The only important witnesses in the case are the father and mother of deceased Anarva, namely, Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) and Bigni Bai (PW-20). The rest of examined witnesses are either relative of the parties or persons from neighbourhood. From the statement of remaining witnesses, Nanku Yadav (PW-3), Shiv Prasad Yadav (PW-4), Moti Yadav (PW-6), Ramcharan Yadav (PW-7), Gulchand Kushwaha (PW-8), Jagmohan (PW-9), Ram Sundar Gond (PW-11), Talvya Prasad Yadav (PW-12), Amarjit Shyamle (PW-13), Manegar Yadav (PW-14) (appellant’s brother on whose information merg (Ex.P/12) was lodged), Ramkrit Yadav (PW-21), it is clear that appellant Kamleshwar Yadav and deceased Anarwa had two children. The elder daughter is alive, whereas after birth of younger daughter, Anarva became unwell due to air-sickness. The appellant had taken her for treatment to the Hospital at Renukut and thereafter, she was brought to her father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5). Anarva became very weak and later, her younger child died. About 3-4 months, Anarva stayed with her father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5). Thereafter, she had come to the appellant and within a week of coming to the house of appellant i.e. her in-laws house, Anarva committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree outside the house. Anarva became very weak and later, her younger child died. About 3-4 months, Anarva stayed with her father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5). Thereafter, she had come to the appellant and within a week of coming to the house of appellant i.e. her in-laws house, Anarva committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree outside the house. Thus, it is clear that before death, Anarva had gone to appellant’s house only for a few days and before that, she stayed in the house of her father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) for several months. 12. According to deceased’s father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) and mother Bigni Bai (PW-20), Anarva was not kept with him by the appellant. She and her children were not taken care of, treatment was not done properly, food was not given and she was beaten and tortured by the appellant, due to which, she committed suicide by hanging herself. 13. In turn, it is argued by the appellant that at the time of birth of second child, mental condition of Anarva had not remained good due to air-sickness, she became weak and later, due to death of second child, she started feeling sad and possibly, in these circumstances, she committed suicide. The prosecution has failed to establish any abetment of the appellant. 14. In the matter of Mahendra Singh (supra), on the point of abetment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “2. …...Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 15. Similarly, in the matter of Ramesh Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73 , this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 16. Likewise, in the matter of Sudhakar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus : “The conviction of the persons accused of offences cannot be based upon conjectures and suspicions.” 17. Considering the determination made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-mentioned judgments, it is apparent that father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) and mother Bigni Bai (PW-20) of deceased Anrwa have made exaggerated statements in the Court that appellant used to beat Anarva on account of demand of dowry, but the said fact has not come in their statement recorded before the police. No such evidence has been adduced by prosecution to establish that during the days when Anarva was staying with her husband in her matrimonial house, immediately before the suicide, any quarrel, dispute or fight took place between them or Anarva was harassed by the appellant. Therefore, there is lack of clear evidence that immediately before the incident of suicide, Anarva was harassed or tortured by the appellant to commit suicide. First Information Report (Ex.P/14) was registered on the basis of merg intimation after 73 days of the alleged incident. 18. Deceased Anarva’s father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) and mother Bigni Bai (PW-20) have stated in their evidence that appellant was not taken care of Anarva and his children properly, but there is clear evidence that appellant had taken Anarva to the Hospital at Renukut for her treatment, which was accepted by father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5). It has come in the evidence that appellant had taken his wife Anarva to her father Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) in her maternal home where her second child died. The defence of the appellant in this regard is that he is poor and he did not have any money, which cannot be ignored. In these circumstances, it he had brought Anarva to her maternal home for some financial support from his father-in-law Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5), then the same cannot be termed as abetment of suicide. 19. Mitthulal Yadav (PW-5) has admitted in his evidence that appellant along with his relatives used to come repeatedly to pick Anarva. At this stage, it cannot be said that Anarva and her children were not looked after or cared for by the appellant. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that after the birth of second child, Anarva had developed insanity and became weak, but he has denied the suggestion that Anarva committed suicide due to some insanity. The statement of rest of prosecution witnesses have revealed the fact that Anarva had become weak after the birth of second child. Some witnesses have confirmed the fact that he suffered from air-sickness and goddess used to come, whereas some witnesses have stated that Anrava had gone mad and as such, she committed suicide by hanging. Nanku Yadav (PW-3) and Shiv Prasad Yadav (PW-4) in their cross-examination have admitted that Anarva’s second child died, due to which, she used to unhappy and became insane and on account of this, she committed suicide by hanging. Nanku Yadav (PW-3) and Shiv Prasad Yadav (PW-4) in their cross-examination have admitted that Anarva’s second child died, due to which, she used to unhappy and became insane and on account of this, she committed suicide by hanging. Thus, looking to the entire evidence of prosecution, there is no clear evidence that Anarva had committed suicide as a result of provocation or any harassment by the appellant. 20. In paragraph-20 of the judgment rendered by the trial Court, the conclusion of conviction has been taken on the basis that about six months, after the death of younger daughter, when appellant had brought Anarva to his home, Anarva was completely healthy and then, for what reasons, she committed suicide by hanging herself, the said fact has not proved by the defence and as such, defence has failed to prove the fact that Anarva committed suicide due to insanity and grief over the death of her younger girl. 21. The finding of the trial Court is not based on prosecution evidence, but the same is based on the defence. It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at hand, no presumption has been made in favour of prosecution under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. In such a situation, the prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in the light of precedents presented, for which, prosecution has failed to do. In my considered opinion, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on failure of the defence, which is not justified. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not found to be sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. If the appellant has deposited the imposed fine amount, the same shall be returned to him. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 23. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.