JUDGMENT : Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, J. Heard. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/12/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 293/2000, whereby the learned Sessions Judgehas convicted the appellants under Sections 306 & 498-A of the IPC, however, they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on or before 29-5-2000, in village Silihidih, Shyamabai (hereinafter ‘the Deceased’) who was the married wife of accused Gautam and daughter-in-law of Chintaram and Daran and has 2 children, consumed some poisonous substance. After consuming the poison, she was admitted to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari for treatment, where she died on 29-5-2000, whose Merg intimation was given. In Merg inquiry, it was found that before her death, the accused persons used to harass the Deceased and had left her to her maternal house in connection with which the meeting was held. Distressed and motivated by the torture done to the deceased by the appellants, the deceased committed suicide by drinking poison. 3. During the investigation, the death Panchnama of the deceased was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the report was received. Merg intimation was registered. Before the witnesses, two bottles viscera of the deceased from the hospital was seized. One plastic box containing pesticides was also seized from the field of one Kewat. Spot map was prepared. Subsequently, FIR was registered and statement of Parasram Yadav was recorded. The appellants were arrested. The seized articles during investigation were sent for FSL examination at Sagar. 4. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses i.e. Shriram (PW1), Brijlal (PW2), Hemlal (PW3), Sonuram (PW4), Raghunath (PW5), Laltu (PW6), Dr. A. Rashid (PW7), Lalji Shukla (PW8) & Devendra Kumar Dewangan (PW9) in its support. Statements of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. A. Rashid (PW7), Lalji Shukla (PW8) & Devendra Kumar Dewangan (PW9) in its support. Statements of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27/12/2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. The learned trial Court did not pay heed to rely upon the evidence given by Domar Singh Yadav (DW1) and Tijuram (DW2) and passed the impugned judgment. Reliance has been placed in the matters of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 and Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 5 SCC 371 . He submits that there is delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR, therefore, the convictions awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 7. Per contra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent, would support the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Shriram (PW1) has deposed in his statement that the marriage between the Deceased and the appellant Gautam was solemnized 7 years ago. She was residing with her husband. He deposed that the appellants after beating the Deceased had sent her at Dadesar. He deposed that the Deceased had told him that her husband used to quarrel with her on the matter that she did not work properly. She also stated that her in-laws also quarrels with her on this matter. This witness has deposed that after beating the Deceased, she was left at his house. He deposed that a village meeting was convened in this regard wherein the Appellant Gautam was agreed to took the Deceased with him, but on the next day he went alone. She also stated that her in-laws also quarrels with her on this matter. This witness has deposed that after beating the Deceased, she was left at his house. He deposed that a village meeting was convened in this regard wherein the Appellant Gautam was agreed to took the Deceased with him, but on the next day he went alone. In cross- examination, he admitted that there are two children of Deceased and the appellant Gautam, aged about 4-5 years and 2 years and after the death of Deceased, both are residing with the appellants. In subsequent paragraphs, this witness has admitted that when they have gone to leave the Deceased at the appellants’ home, they were well treated. He also deposed that when the appellant Gautam and the Deceased used to come to Tija festival, all was good. He deposed that every time when he visited to the appellants’ house, he had never seen the appellants quarreling with the Deceased. He deposed after consuming the poison by the Deceased, the appellant- Chintaram had come to inform about the fact to this witness. 10. Brijlal (PW2) had deposed in his statement that the marriage between the appellant Gautam and the Deceased took place 7 years ago. He deposed that after the marriage all was good, but after 1 years of marriage, appellant Gautam started to beat the Deceased. He deposed that the appellants used to beat the deceased on the matter of not doing any work. In cross-examination, he deposed that there are two children of appellant Gautam and the Deceased, aged about 6 years and 4 years and both are residing with the appellants. In cross-examination, he has admitted that when on festivals, appellant Gautam and the Deceased used to come, it seems always good. In subsequent paragraph, he deposed that he had never seen the appellants beating the deceased in front of him. 11. Hemlal Nishad (PW3) has deposed in his statement that his house is adjacent in South direction to the house of the appellants. 6-7 years has passed after the marriage of the deceased with appellant Gautam. He deposed that some times, there had to be quarrel in between the Deceased and the appellants. He deposed that he did not know the reason of quarrel. 6-7 years has passed after the marriage of the deceased with appellant Gautam. He deposed that some times, there had to be quarrel in between the Deceased and the appellants. He deposed that he did not know the reason of quarrel. He deposed that once the Deceased met him on the way, she was weeping, on which he asked and the Deceased told him that the appellants always beat her, but she did not tell the reason. 12. Sonuram (PW4) has deposed in his statement that his house is adjacent to the house of the appellants. He deposed that the appellants used to quarrel with the Deceased, however, he did not know the reason of quarrel. He deposed that since the Deceased was not able to do more household work, the appellants used to quarrel and beat her. 13. Raghunath (PW5) has deposed in his statement that appellant Gautam had come to him and told that the Deceased had slipped and fallen down, then this witness had gone to see the Deceased. He deposed that the Deceased was lying on the surface, then he asked the appellant to call the Doctor, but the Deceased herself told him that she had consumed the poison and do not call the doctor. He deposed that when he asked the Deceased as to why she had consume poison, then the Deceased told him that the appellant Gautam and his family members used to abuse her on the small issues, therefore, she had consumed the poison. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the Deceased had not told him on which matter the appellants used to quarrel with her. She did not tell the reasons as to whey they used to beat her. 14. Dr. A. Rashid (PW7) has deposed that while conducting the postmortem of the Deceased, he found that blood mixed liquid was coming out from the mouth of the Deceased. Eyes pupils were in shrink condition. Hands and nails were became blue. In internal examination, he found the skull was normal. There was conjunction in the brain. The throat and breathing way were congested. There was blood mixed foam present. Both the lungs were congested. Left chamber of heart was empty and there was blood in right chamber of heart. He deposed that in the stomach, dirty color water was found and pungent smell was coming out from it. There was conjunction in the brain. The throat and breathing way were congested. There was blood mixed foam present. Both the lungs were congested. Left chamber of heart was empty and there was blood in right chamber of heart. He deposed that in the stomach, dirty color water was found and pungent smell was coming out from it. There was found some liquid in small intestine. There was fluid present in long intestine. Liver and kidneys were congested. Urinary bladder was empty. Womb was normal. He preserved viscera and sent the same for examination. 15. From perusal of the statement of the doctor as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is apparent that the Deceased died after consuming of poison and there is no sign of any injury or assault on her body. 16. Section 306 IPC provides that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be liable to be punished. The ingredients of abetment are set out in Section 107 of IPC which reads as under :- "107. Abetment of thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigate 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." 17. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellants having abetted the Deceased into committing suicide. The prosecution has relied on Section 113A of Evidence Act which reads as under :- “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” 18. In the instant case, all of the above witnesses have stated in their statements that the marriage between the appellant and the Deceased was solemnized 7 years ago and they were having two children, aged about 6 years and 4 years. Thus, it is apparent from the evidence that 7 years of marriage has passed. Thus, the ingredients of presumption of abetment of suicide that the suicide has been committed within 7 years from the date of her marriage was not proved. 19. From perusal of the record, the only allegation against the appellants is that they used to chant to the Deceased ^^[kkuk Bhd ls ugha cukrh gS fnu Hkj lksbZ jgrh gS** Therefore, the Deceased after seven years of marriage committed suicide after consuming poison. 20. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it only comes out that the appellants used to quarrel with the Deceased on the matter that ^^[kkuk Bhd ls ugha cukrh gS fnu Hkj lksbZ jgrh gS** It also comes out in the statement of PW1 and PW2 that because of non-working of the Deceased, the appellants used to quarrel with her. None of the witness has stated any where that because of any dowry demand, the appellants were intentionally harassing the Deceased. Though, the witnesses have stated about quarreling in between the Deceased and the appellants, but none of them have stated any reason as to why the quarrels used to took place. Raghunath (PW5) has stated that after consuming the poison the Deceased had told him that because of beaten by the appellant and abusing on little issues, she had consumed the poison. 21. Routine behavior, remark or quarrel by husband in matrimonial life cannot be taken to be sufficient to the extent to constitute abetment unless something extra-ordinary, more than normal wear and tear of married life, is shown on or just before the date of incident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending consequences can’t be said to be instigation for suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger without intending consequences can’t be said to be instigation for suicide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that to convict an accused for committing an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused, 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 this case, the only thing was found after perusal of the evidence that there happened to be quarrel in between appellants and the Deceased on the matter that the appellants used to tell the Deceased that ^^[kkuk Bhd ls ugha cukrh gS fnu Hkj lksbZ jgrh gS** Even in the postmortem report, there is no external or internal injuries found on the dead body of the Deceased. 22. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set-aside. 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 24. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall be remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437- A of the Cr.P.C. 25. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.