ORDER : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G. in Sessions Trial No.64/2004, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the deceased-Suniti Bai was the wife of the appellant-Shatrughna Vishwakarma and their marriage was performed 10-12 years prior to the alleged incident, which occurred on 02/03/2004 and her dead body was found hanging with the aid of sari on a tree in the field of village Kahadkasa. It is alleged by the prosecution that her husband, the appellant herein, had illicit relation with a lady namely Janki Bai and due to their illicit relations, the appellant-accused started harassing his deceased-wife and on account of that, she left the house on 02/03/2004 alongwith her two daughters namely Pratima and Tulsa, whose dead bodies were found in the pond of village Singhabhedi. It is alleged further by the prosecution that the death of the children were caused by the deceased and thereafter, she committed suicide by hanging herself on a tree while using sari. The report of the alleged incident was lodged by one Surendra Kumar, the Kotwar of the concerned village, on 05/03/2004 and on the basis of which, merg intimation bearing No.10/2004 was registered by the concerned Police and on the basis of its enquiry, the first information report was registered by Navneet Patil, the Investigating Officer and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Vikas Bambeshwar (PW-5), who opined the cause of her death due to asphyxia. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and that by completing the due investigation of the matter, the charge sheet was submitted while registering the offence against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ambagarh Chowki on 23/03/2004, who in turn, committed the matter before the learned Sessions Judge. 3. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and that by completing the due investigation of the matter, the charge sheet was submitted while registering the offence against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ambagarh Chowki on 23/03/2004, who in turn, committed the matter before the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., which has been denied and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 08 documents, while none was examined by the appellant in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has mentally harassed his wife, owing to which, she has committed suicide, accordingly, he was held to be the author of the alleged crime and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and has been awarded the sentence as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant as such, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record as none of the witnesses have stated anywhere that the appellant immediately before the occurrence of the alleged incident, has either harassed his deceased-wife or has compelled or instigated her for taking an acute step to end her life, yet the court below has held the appellant guilty for the commission of alleged crime, which is liable to be set aside. In support, Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu Versus State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 and, Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Versus State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Court below. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the Court below. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. The appellant’s conviction has been made on the basis of the evidence of Neera Bai (PW-4), Parasram (PW-8), Turji Bai (PW-9) and Neera Bai, (PW-10), therefore, it is necessary to examine their statements in order to ascertain as to whether the appellant has committed the alleged offence, as alleged by the prosecution. 10. According to the statement of Neera Bai (PW-4), who is the wife of deceased’s brother namely Jaswant, the deceased came to her house at Chilhati and informed that her husband used to harass her and does not take the food prepared by her and she told further that her husband often used to say to drive her out from the house and was being tortured acutely by him. It was informed further by her (the deceased) that her husband had illicit relations with some other lady. Although, it was informed to this witness by the deceased that her husband had illicit relations with some other lady, but has not informed to her that owing to the alleged act of her husband, she was maltreated by him. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the version of this witness that the deceased has committed suicide owing to the harassment or on account of any kind of instigation meted out by her husband. 11. Parasram (PW-8) is the brother of the deceased-Suniti Bai and according to his statement, it appears that deceased had come to his house one and half months prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, who appears to be a hearsay witness as he came to know about the alleged harassment through his mother Turji Bai (PW-9), who however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution story. 12. Neera Bai (PW-10) is the sister of the appellant and it was revealed from her statement that the deceased had informed her only with regard to the fact that her husband does not used to talk with her and, it appears from her cross-examination that the deceased had never raised any kind of complaint prior to the year 2003. 13. Neera Bai (PW-10) is the sister of the appellant and it was revealed from her statement that the deceased had informed her only with regard to the fact that her husband does not used to talk with her and, it appears from her cross-examination that the deceased had never raised any kind of complaint prior to the year 2003. 13. It, thus, appears from their testimonies that none of them have alleged anywhere that immediately prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, the deceased was harassed by her husband nor, they have stated anywhere that the appellant had illicit relations with some other lady and, owing to which, she left the house and has committed suicide by hanging herself on the tree. It is to be seen further at this juncture, the statement of Head Constable- Rajkumar Netam (PW-7), who had conducted the merg enquiry, but has not found the commission of alleged crime in the said enquiry. 14. It is now to be seen the provisions prescribed under Section 107 of IPC, which provides as under :- “107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of 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.” Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2. - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 15. The issue that arises for consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses, namely, Firstly along with Explanation 1 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC. 16. The issue that arises for consideration is whether any of the aforesaid clauses, namely, Firstly along with Explanation 1 is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC. 16. It is to be seen the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu (Supra) that before holding the accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also has to assess the evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to find out as to whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim, which had left the victim with no other alternative, but to put an end to her life. The relevant observations have been made therein at paragraphs 12 and 13 to this effect, read as under : “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 17. It is to be seen further the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (Supra), wherein it has been held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Relevant observation to this effect has been made at para 27, which reads as under :- “27. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It 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. 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 extramarital 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.” 18. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it, however, appears from analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution that, in fact, none of them have stated anywhere that the deceased was instigated by the appellant, owing to which, she has committed suicide while hanging herself on the tree. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters, it is difficult to hold that the appellant by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide or has done any act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. 19. 19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G. in Sessions Trial No.64/2004 is hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. His bail bond shall remain in force for a period of 6 months, in view of the provisions prescribed under section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.