JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 102/2002, convicting the accused/appellants as under :- Conviction Sentence Appellant No.1 under Sections 306 IPC. R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. Under Section 498 Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498-A IPC R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of accused/appellant No.1 – Avinash Yadu was solemnized with Aplana Yadu (since deceased) in the year 1995 according to the Hindu customs and since then they had been living as husband and wife. In the year 1995 itself, the marriage of Ashok, brother of accused/appellant No.1, was also solemnized. Since the accused/appellant No.1 had received less dowry compared to his brother Ashok, he used to torture the deceased, utter comments and commit maarpeet. The deceased used to complain the act of the accused/appellant No.1 to her brother Ram Gopal (PW/6) and mother Tamin Bai (PW/7) who used to make the deceased understand that the things would get normalize gradually. When the deceased, after one year of marriage carried 08 months pregnancy, the accused/appellant No.1 dropped the deceased to her maternal house, thereafter, the deceased was persuaded by her parents and sent her to in-laws’ house but there were no change in the behavior of the accused/appellants. On the date of incident, the accused/appellant No.1 – Avinash Yadu entered into quarrel with deceased and due to which, she committed suicide in her in-laws’ house by hanging. On the date of incident itself, accused/appellant No.1- Avinash Yadu asked Ram Gopal (PW/6) over phone to take his sister (deceased) to his house and thereafter, after some time, he was informed over phone that his sister has committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of oral information of accused/appellant No.1-Avinash Yadu, merg No.65/2001 was recorded at police Station Durg. On the same day at around 11.15 PM, on the basis of oral report of Ram Gopal (PW/6), offence under Section 304-B of IPC was registered. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. On the basis of oral information of accused/appellant No.1-Avinash Yadu, merg No.65/2001 was recorded at police Station Durg. On the same day at around 11.15 PM, on the basis of oral report of Ram Gopal (PW/6), offence under Section 304-B of IPC was registered. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Durg vide Ex.P/5, where postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Neeraj Shende (PW/1), who gave his report under Ex.P/1 opining the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. During the course of investigation, article received as dowry in the marriage of accused/appellant No.1 and his brother Ashok Kumar were seized under Ex.P/8 and P/9. Some letters written by accused/appellant No.1 and deceased & marriage card were seized from the room of deceased under Ex.P/7. During the course of investigation, statements of the members of in-laws’ and maternal side were recorded and on the basis of their statements, it came to fore that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of bringing less dowry, due to which she took such extreme step of suicide to end her life. After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of IPC before the jurisdictional Court. 3. The trial court framed charges against the accused/appellants under Section 304-B of IPC, alternatively under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment has convicted the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value, no offence is made out against the accused/appellants under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is unjust, unwarranted and against the requirement of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value, no offence is made out against the accused/appellants under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is unjust, unwarranted and against the requirement of law. Learned counsel further submits that the time of merg inquiry, statement of brother and father of deceased were got recorded, however, the same were not produced during trial, which creates suspicion on the prosecution case. Learned counsel also submits that the letters written by deceased (Ex.D-1 and D-2) shows that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, which was also admitted by Ram Gopal (PW/6) but the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence did not consider the documentary evidence and thus committed illegality. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baijnath and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 , Velladurai Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 715 and decision of this court in the matter of Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4466. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence & submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. It is not in dispute that the death of deceased took place within 07 years of marriage. 10. As regards the unnatural death of deceased, this Court finds from the evidence of Dr. Neeraj Shende (PW/1), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P/1 opining the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging, as such, death of deceased was unnatural. 10. As regards the unnatural death of deceased, this Court finds from the evidence of Dr. Neeraj Shende (PW/1), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P/1 opining the cause of death of deceased to be asphyxia due to hanging, as such, death of deceased was unnatural. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused/appellant No.1 from the charge under Sections 304-B IPC and accused/appellant No.2 from the charge under Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC & convicted them under Sections 306, 498-A & 498-A of IPC, respectively. 11. As regards harassment and cruelty to the deceased for demand of dowry, who can explain this better than her family members and in this context, this Court carefully gone through the evidence of Girdhar Yadav (PW/5), brother of deceased. According to the evidence of Girdhar Yadav (PW/5), he has admitted the seizure of letters written by the deceased to her husband (accused/appellant No.1) made under Ex.P/7, which shows that nothing incriminating with respect to torture being made by accused/appellants had been written by the deceased. In both the letters (Ex.P/7-A and P/7-B) written by the deceased, she has not stated about any torture or assault being made by the accused/appellants. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the letters of deceased and recorded its finding that the accused/appellant No.1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 12. While dealing with the cases of abetment, Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Velladurai (supra) held in para 4 as under :- “4. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.” 13. This Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar (supra) held in para 21 as under :- “21. ….. The exact date, time, place of occurrence and specific details of incident of any money demand and assault have not been presented. Therefore, allegations related to cruelty in the above form are not complete and clear, which can be established as ‘cruelty’ and on the basis of which, appellants can be convicted.” 14. In the matter of Baijnath (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 35 as under :- “35. A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code against them.” 15. In the light of above, in this case also although brothers (PW/5 and PW/6) of deceased have stated that accused persons demanded some dowry but in cross-examination Girdhar Yadav (PW/5) admitted this fact that at the time of marriage no dowry was demanded by the accused persons. It was also admitted by Girdhar Yadav (PW/5) that letters were written by his sister deceased and in all the letters, there was no mention of assault and torture for dowry by the accused/appellants. 16. Furthermore, Ram Gopal (PW/6), another brother of deceased, in para 11 of cross-examination, has also stated that in the letters written by his deceased sister and the seizure of which was made, there was no mention that deceased was being assaulted or beaten for dowry by the accused persons. Thus, in absence of any credible and clinching material to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at definite conclusion that the deceased committed suicide due to instigation of accused/appellants. Thus, in absence of any credible and clinching material to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, it would be difficult for this Court to arrive at definite conclusion that the deceased committed suicide due to instigation of accused/appellants. To reiterate, the prosecution has completely failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant No.1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide and the accused/appellant No.2 tortured the deceased for demand of dowry, as such, the benefit of doubt, of course, has to go to the accused/appellants. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.11.2003 is set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by extending them benefit of doubt. The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 18. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.