JUDGMENT A. Badharudeen, J. The 3rd accused in S.C. No. 203 of 2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, finding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In this matter, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, thirty days of default imprisonment also was imposed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the trial court. 3. The points arise for consideration are as follows:- 1. Where the trial court is right in holding that the 3rd accused/appellant committed o?ence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC? 2. Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict of the trial court? 3. The order to be passed? 4. Tracing the genesis of the prosecution case, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304 r/w 34 of IPC by accused Nos. 1 to 3 . Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the 3rd accused, and the 3rd accused is the husband of Ajitha, who committed suicide at her parental home. After investigation, police filed final report alleging commission of the said offences, and later the case was committed to the sessions court and in turn made over the same to the Additional Sessions Court. 5. The learned Additional Sessions judge framed charge for the said offences and tried the accused. PWs1 to 13 examined, and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. During prosecution evidence itself, Exts. D1 to D3 also were marked on the side of the accused. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 were questioned uaander Section 313(i)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances against them brought in evidence. Although the accused were then provided with opportunity of defence evidence, they did not adduce any defence evidence. 6 . Later on appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the 3rd accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC while acquitting him for the other offences. Although the accused were then provided with opportunity of defence evidence, they did not adduce any defence evidence. 6 . Later on appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the 3rd accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC while acquitting him for the other offences. The trial court also acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for all the offences. 7. In this case, while pursuing acquittal of the 3rd accused/appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court relied on the evidence of PWs1 to S to find that the 3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. But he would point out that on perusal of the evidence given by PWs1 to S, the same do not contain anything to attract the offence of cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant, on perusal of the evidence, the allegations are demand of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments on the premise that, at the time of marriage between the 3rd accused and the deceased, it was offered to give 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But only 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given. The second allegation is that the accused persons compelled the deceased to abort the two months old pregnancy of the deceased. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant that there is no convincing evidence forthcoming to see any act of cruelty at the instance of the 3rd accused, even after scrutinizing the entire evidence. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, and the verdict would require interference. 8. Opposing the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused/appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, going by the evidence of PWs 1 to S, demand of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments more as dowry and compulsion to abort the two months old pregnancy of the deceased could be foreseeable and the same would clearly constitute cruelty and satisfy the ingredients necessary to attract the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the verdict of the trial court does not warrant any interference. 9. Therefore, the verdict of the trial court does not warrant any interference. 9. While evaluating the evidence available to find commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, it is necessary to look into the ingredients which are necessary to constitute the said offence. Thus, it has become necessary to extract the penal provision as under:- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to ?ne. 10. On reading Section 498A of IPC, acts of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman against her, is the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Cruelty has been explained as (a) and (b), and the same is as under:- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. Once, cruelty as defined under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 498A of IPC is proved, the offender is liable to be punished for the said offence. In the instant case, crime was registered based on the First Information Statement given by the brother of the deceased, who got examined as PW1 soon after the commission of suicide by Ajitha on 28.12.2000. Ext.P1 is the FIS given by PW1. During chief examination, PW1 given evidence that the reason for the death of Ajitha are demand for dowry and demand to abort her two months old pregnancy. During cross-examination, it was brought out that the said versions were not given before the police, and it was stated so for the first time before the court as an afterthought. That apart, the said versions are without any certainty rather than general statements. During cross-examination, it was brought out that the said versions were not given before the police, and it was stated so for the first time before the court as an afterthought. That apart, the said versions are without any certainty rather than general statements. Therefore, in the evidence of PW1, there is nothing to indicate the allegation of cruelty to be acted upon, as alleged by the prosecution. PW2 examined in this case is the father of Ajitha; he also deposed that it was stated by Ajitha that she would bring the balance gold ornaments out of 50 sovereigns, and it was so informed by Ajitha. PW3 examined in this case is the mother of Ajitha, her version also is similar to that of PW2. PW4 examined in this case is another brother of Ajitha, and his version also similar to that of PWs2 and 3. PW5 examined in this case is the sister of Ajitha, and her version also exactly the same. PWS, examined in this case, is the sister-in-law of Ajitha, and her version also exactly the same. 12. Even though it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the demand for 15 sovereigns of additional gold ornaments as dowry and the compulsion to abort the two months old pregnancy of Ajitha, as stated by PWs1 to S, clearly would amount to cruelty as defined under clause (b) of Section 498A of the IPC, the evidence would require close scrutiny. On perusal of the evidence discussed, even though PWs2 to 6 also supported the evidence of PW1, the evidence would suggest that they got knowledge as stated by Ajitha, and they had no version to the effect that any dowry demand made directly to them with certainty and they did not specify the date, time, or period regarding the demand for dowry or the demand to abort the pregnancy. Their evidence in toto would show that they are given evidence in this regard as general and omnibus allegations without specifying the same, and without having any direct knowledge regarding the same. It is the well-settled legal principle that hearsay evidence is not evidence, and evidence of PWs1 to S in this case is nothing but hearsay. Their evidence in toto would show that they are given evidence in this regard as general and omnibus allegations without specifying the same, and without having any direct knowledge regarding the same. It is the well-settled legal principle that hearsay evidence is not evidence, and evidence of PWs1 to S in this case is nothing but hearsay. In order to succeed, a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove cruelty by adducing evidence narrating the cruelty with certainty by suggesting the date, time, and the manner by which the said cruelty was committed by the accused. Mere omnibus and sweeping allegations are quite insufficient to meet the said legal requirement. 13. In the instant case, it is discernible that Ajitha was brought at her parental home in connection with the festival of the temple on the previous day of the festival nearby, and she was instructed by the 3rd accused to reach his house on the next day. Instead of attending the festival at the temple, Ajitha stayed at her parental home and thereafter committed suicide on the same day. Even though Ajitha committed suicide, the evidence brought on record in no way suggests that the act of suicide was the result of any cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the trial court convicted the third accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, relying on hearsay evidence in a case where clear and convincing evidence to prove the offence was not available. Therefore, the verdict under challenge would require interference. In the result, the appeal succeeds. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court stands set aside. The accused is acquitted and is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond is cancelled.