ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.02.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi in Sessions Case No.94/2003, whereby, the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 120B, 306 and 494 IPC. 2. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons were continuously harassing the deceased Manju and after the delivery of three daughters, the accused persons subjected her to cruelty. Manju was thrown out of her marital house. Afterwards accused Radhyshyam filed a suit for restitution of conjugation rights. During the trial accused Radhyshyam documented a compromise with the deceased resulting retrieval of the deceased to her marital home. Thereafter deceased again became pregnant and presuming that the deceased would again deliver the baby girl her pregnancy was terminated. She was again subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of the marital house on 29.10.2021. 3. Afterwards, Radhyshyam filed a suit for divorce against the deceased and again took the deceased to the marital house. Thereafter, within three months accused persons hatched a conspiracy and murdered her. 4. The prosecution also alleges that fifteen days before the deceased death, Radhyshyam got married to another lady and was living with her. The police after an investigation charge-sheeted accused persons under Section 306 I.P.C. and did not find allegations of murder true. 5. Before dealing with the facts of the case it would be relevant to refer to the law concerning the abetment of suicide. The relevant provision contained in Section 306 I.P.C. reads as under:- “306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 6. “Abetment of a thing” has been described in Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:- “107. 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. —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.” 7. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it implies that to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely whether the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC has to be established. 8. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential fact that the deceased Manju committed Suicide. PW-1 Ganeshlal is the complainant and the brother of the deceased. In his relevant cross-examination, he admitted that after getting the information about the deceased death, he went to the place of occurrence, where police officials were also present. At that time he did not submit any written report about the incident and even after conducting the postmortem of the deceased, he did not endeavour to file a written complaint against the accused persons. He also admitted that her niece Mamta was also present at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that the report was filed 5 to 6 days after the incident in consultation with the advocate. He stated his unawareness about mentioning the allegations of murder in the complaint. He also admitted that he does not know Kamla and he has not seen the Nata ceremony of Kamla with the accused Radhyshyam. 9. PW-9 Premshankar is a deceased paternal uncle and his evidence is similar to the version of PW-1 Ganeshlal. He is also not an eyewitness and his evidence also does not transpire any relevance to the incident. The allegations levelled in the complaint have no proximity to the incident. The allegations of earlier harassment incidents with the deceased did not have any proximity to the act. He is also not an eyewitness and his evidence also does not transpire any relevance to the incident. The allegations levelled in the complaint have no proximity to the incident. The allegations of earlier harassment incidents with the deceased did not have any proximity to the act. Hence his evidence is rightly discarded by the trial court. 10. The versions of PW-11 Dhapu (mother of the deceased), PW-12 Puran Chand, PW-13 Dayaram and PW-14 Chotulal are also similar to the above witnesses and they have also narrated that accused Radhyshyam and other co-accused were continuously harassing her that resulted into her suspicious death. Their versions are also not connected with the deceased death as the incidents of harassment with the deceased were of earlier periods. 11. PW-8 Govind Singh is the Investigating Officer, who admitted that after getting information from complainant Ganesh inquest proceedings under 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The complainant party was present at the place of occurrence and they did not report foul play in the deceased death. He also admitted that the deceased daughter Mamta was also present at the place of occurrence and she stated that her mother accidentally fell into a well while pulling water from the well. He also admitted that in the inquest proceedings, he recorded the statement of Mamta. He also admitted that the complaint alleges murder of the deceased and there was no allegation that deceased committed suicide. Therefore, this witness also substantiates the defence version that the deceased Manju accidentally slipped into a well. The aforesaid witness is only a hearsay witness and is unaware of the cause of death of the deceased. His evidence also does not indicate that soon before the death of the deceased, Radhyshyam and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty resulting in her suicide. This fact also remains unproven that soon before the death of the deceased, Radhyshyam entered into a customary marriage with a woman named Kamla. 12. PW-4 Kanwarlal is also a hearsay witness and deposes that after getting the information that Manju has fallen into a well he went to the place of occurrence. He expressed his unawareness about the cause of death of the deceased. In cross-examination, the witness accepted that at the place of occurrence, a bucket was lying near the well and soap water was also spilling. Some wet clothes were also lying near to well. He expressed his unawareness about the cause of death of the deceased. In cross-examination, the witness accepted that at the place of occurrence, a bucket was lying near the well and soap water was also spilling. Some wet clothes were also lying near to well. He admitted that Mamta daughter of the deceased told him that her mother was washing clothes and she fell from the slope into the well. Thus, PW-4 only substantiated the defence version that the deceased accidentally fell into the well. 13. PW-5 Mangilal in his examination-in-chief stated that he saw the deceased Manju near the well. She had rope and a bucket with her and she suddenly fell into the well. He has denied the fact that the accused Radhyshyam entered into a second marriage with some lady. The said witness was declared hostile and after cross-examining by the prosecution he refuted the fact that Kamla committed suicide as Radhyshyam entered into customary marriage with a woman named Kamla. In the cross-examination by the defence, he deposed that Mamta and the deceased Manju were washing clothes near the well. He repudiated the fact that Radhyshyam and the deceased Manju were having strained relations. Thus, this witness also does not help the prosecution. 14. PW-6 Jawahari Lal only stated that he saw Manju lying in the well. Therefore his evidence is also not relevant for establishing the fact that the deceased committed suicide. 15. PW-7 Devi Shankar's relevancy is only about the fact that the deceased dead body was lying in the well. 16. The version of PW-2 Dr. O.P. Verma, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, also substantiated the fact that the injuries caused to the deceased may come due to falling in the well. 17. The prosecution has failed to prove the foundational fact that the deceased committed suicide. Rather a defence version has been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses that the deceased accidentally fell into the well resulting in her death. 18. The learned trial Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence put forth by the prosecution and rightly acquitted the accused respondents. I don't find any illegality or perversity in the findings arrived by the trial Judge. 19. Upshot to the above, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed.