The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the legal provisions related to abetment and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

1) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27-7- 1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No. 42/90, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge punishable under Sections 306 and 498- A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) The facts and the events leading to the present appeal are the respondent was married with deceased Mamta, the daughter of complainant Durga Prasad (PW-1) and Nanhibai (PW-4), three years before the incident. According to the complainant, the respondent had made an allegation that the deceased Mamta had illicit relationship with his elder brother Kamdeen. He also threatened to perform the second marriage. He used to consume liquor and torture her mentally. On 30-6-1989 in the night, deceased Mamta committed suicide by consuming poisons substance in her matrimonial house. On 1-7- 1989, complainant Durga Prasad received an information that Mamta had died. He came to village Mowadehi, Police Station Chhindwara and saw her dead body. He went to Police Station Chhindwara and lodged merg report (Ex. P/1).

(3) Police conducted inquest proceeding and prepared Naksha Panchnama (Ex. P/2). The dead body of Mamta was sent to hospital for post-mortem examination and on the same day Dr. U. C. Jain (PW-11) and Dr. S. S. Nadkar performed the post-mortem on the dead body of victim. Dr. U. C. Jain (PW-11) has opined that the dead body was in the state of decomposition therefore they were unable to give any definite opinion about the cause of death. They preserved the viscera for examination in the Forensic Scinence Laboratory. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Ex. P/9) was also placed on record.

(4) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the respondent under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC on 3-9-1990. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded innocence.

(5) To substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as mentioned below :- PW-1- Durga Prasad - Complainant, father of deceased Mamta. PW-2 - Bhaurao, Panch to inquest Panchnama Ex. P/3 and panch to seizure Panchnama Ex. P/6. PW-3 - Nandkishore - Cousin of deceased Mamta. PW-4 - Nanhibai - Mother of deceased. PW-5. - Vinod - Brother of deceased. PW-6. - Mahatram - Kotwar of village Mowadehi. PW-7. - Mallu - Servant of respondent. PW-8. - Mahtu alias Linge - Servant of respondent. PW-9. - Basantrao - Servant of respondent. PW-10. - Mohan - Constable of police station. PW-11. - Dr. U. C. Jain - Chhindwara, who conducted post-mortem on dead body of victim Mamta and proved post-mortem notes at Ex. P/9. PW-12. - There is no witness of this number. PW-13. - Kamdeen - Brother of respondent. PW-14. - Ramkrishan Suryawanshi - Cousin of deceased and panch to inquest Panchnama (Ex. P/3). PW-15. - Sukhdas - Independent witness PW-16. - Brijkishore - Nephew of respondent. PW-17. - M. L. Sharma, ASI, Police Station Chhindwara.

(6) The respondent did not examine any witness in his defence.

(7) After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court did not find the respondent guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and acquitted him from both the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(8) Ms. Savita Choudhary, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. She prayed that the respondent should be punished.

(9) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable do