D.P. SOOD, J.

(1.) The present appeal is at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Palampur, on October 14, 1983, in Sessions Case No. 6/83.

(2.) Smt. Pawna Devi, since deceased, is the victim. Smt. Chin Devi (P.W. 1) is the mother, whereas Partap Singh (P.W. 3) is her father and Munshi Ram (P.W. 5) is her paternal uncle. P.Ws.1 and 3 belonged to village Paleta, whereas P.W. 4 was carrying his business in village KhuhChadiar. The deceased was married to accused Bhawani Singh whose mother Brahmi Devi also stands trial as his co-accused for the commission of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

(3.) The prosecution case in nut-shell is that Smt. Pawna Devi compiled suicide on or about the night intervening 11/12-6-1982 at Tike Katherine Maura Chadha and both the accused abetted the commission of this offence by advancing threats in furtherance of their common intention and thus they committed the offence as indicated above. Both the accused faced trial, which was the outcome of the un-natural death of Pawna Devi, wife of accused Bhawani Singh and daughter-in-law of his co-accused Brahmi Devi. The unfortunate incident as per the material emerging from the prosecution evidence can be conveniently divided into two stages detailed as under: FIRST STAGE: Dead body of the aforesaid deceased was noticed in a bowli at village Katheru on 13-6-1982 by Jaswant Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Mongal who informed the police of Police Station, Palampur at 7.15 P.M. vide his report Ex.PJ. It was sent to Police Station Baijnath as the case pertained to that police station. Another daily diary report was recorded on the same day at 9.05 p.m. (Ex. PK) wherein the report received at Police Station Palampur has been reproduced. Shri Mohinder Singh, S.H.O. (P.W. 17) then proceeded to the spot. He stayed for the night at Chadihar and covered the distance to Katheru village on foot in the morning. On 14-6-1982 he visually inspected the dead body, prepared the inquest report EX.PB and PB/I in the presence of P.Ws. 3 to 5, referred to above. The facts mentioned in the inquest only disclose that the dead- body of Pawn a was round in bowli which was taken out and no external injury was found on her person and to ascertain the cause of death, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. S.C. Kapila (P.W. 2) in Civil Hospital, Palampur conducted the autopsy on the dead body on the same day and handed over the postmortem report EX.PA. According to his opinion, the cause of death of Pawna was due to dry drowning and the time which elapsed between the death and the post mortem was stated to be 24 hours to 72 hours. He had sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner but nothing was found. The police on 16-6-1982 recovered the D.D.T. from the house of the accused vide recovery Memo. EX.PE and one letter EX.PF alleged to have written by the deceased to one Pradhan Singh in the year 1980. It was taken into possession vide Memo, EX.PD. The dead body after post-mortem was handed over to the accused who cremated it. SECOND STAGE: Later on, the investigating officer claims that he recorded the statement Ex.PG, of the mother of Pawn a, Chin Devi (P.W. 1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on 25-6-1982 and on the basis of this statement, the present case was registered and formal F.I.R. Ex. PH was recorded on that day. At this stage, it may also be noticed that there is dispute between the statement of Chin Devi (P.W.1) and Investigating Officer (P.W.17) about the actual place where statement Ex. PG of P.W.1 was recorded. P.W.1 states that she had gone to the police station and at the place her statement was recorded and thumb marked by her, whereas P.W. 17 claims that he had gone to the house of P.W.1 and recorded her statement. On the registration of this case codal formalities regarding the collection of material regarding the cruel behaviour and constant taunts and harassment caused by the accused person to Pawna deceased ultimately leading her to commit suicide was collected by recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Report of the Chemical Examiner was also received and on completion of investigation both the accused were prosecuted for the commission of the aforesaid offence.

(4.) To the charge framed under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P .C. against each one of the accused person, both pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. there is the defence of denial simpliciter. The only fact which is admitted by the accused relates to the marriage of accused Bhawani Singh with Pawna. Otherwise the accused have denied the prosecution version and claimed that they have been falsely implicated.

(5.) The prosecution produced 17 witnesses in support of its case. However, the accused led no evidence in defence.

(6.) The learned Sessions Judge recorded the order of acquittal of both the accused on the grounds; firstly that there was un-explained delay in lodging the First Information Repot; secondly that there was no iota of evidence on record to show that cruel behaviour, constant taunts or harassment way caused by either of the accused person to Pawna deceased which could be said to have instigated her to commit the offence in question and thirdly that the statements of prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon for basing conviction of either of the accused person. Rather it created a reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution version in the instant case.

(7.) Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the State of Himachal Pradesh has come up in this appeal. It has been contended by the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant, that there is sufficient evidence regarding the accuses having persistently taunted the deceased and tortured her prior to her death. It is urged that letter EX.PF was written by the deceased to Pradhan Singh P.W. on 16-12-1980 showing the maltreatment meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused persons and the same was taken into possession from their house. According to P.Ws. 1, 16 and 8 whenever the deceased was maltreated she used to either come to the house of her parents or to the house of her maternal grand-mother and used to complain and the matter used to be somehow or other settled. Another set of prosecution witnesses to which our, attention has been drawn by the learned Assistant Advocate General is that of P.Ws. 9 to 11 and P.W. 5 who claim that few days prior to the occurrence, Pawna deceased had complained to them that she is being maltreated and that the mailer be reported to her parents. Yet another set of witnesses that is, the father of the deceased, Partap Singh (P.W. 3) has deposed that he had conlacted Pradhan ManshaRam on 6-6-1982 and had reported to him about the maltreatment meted out to his daughter. The Pradhan had deputed Sukh Ram and Pancham Chand with him and all of them had contacted accused Bhawani Singh who had assured that he will not maltreat Pawna in future. II is al that time that Brahmi Devi is reponed to have said that she was interested in remarrying her son Bhawani Singh accused at some other place. Pratap Singh is supported about this version by Mansha Ram (P.W. 4), Sukh Ram (P.W. 6) and Pancham Chand (P.W. 12). On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, it is pointed out that totality of the evidence so adduced clearly testifics to the conduct of both the accused tantamounting to cruel behaviour, maltreatment and persistent taunts which amount to abetting of the commission of the offence of committing suicide.

(8.) We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Asstt Advocate General and we have also carefully gone through the entire record The first thing that is necessary for proving the offence is the fact of suicide Abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided the thing abetted is an offence Abetment does not involve the actual commission of the crime abetted; it is a crime apart, as observed in Barendra Kumar Ghose1. No doubt Pawna aforesaid was residing in her-in-laws house just prior to the commission of the offence but what led her to take this extreme step, in our opinion, there is neither any direct evidence to this effect nor that of the act of suicide by Pawna. The entire facts narrated above indicate that both the accused had cordial relations with the deceased prior to her death. The dead body of Pawna was found in the bowli and consequently was taken out in the presence of her parents, Munshi Ram (P.W.5) her paternal uncle and that of Pradhan Mansha Ram (P.W.4) by the Investigating officer. The inquest report Exs. PB and Ex. PB/I was prepared in their presence and none of them came out with the story of cruel behaviour, maltreatment and harassment caused by either of the accused person to the deceased person at that time. Even the dead body was handed over to the accused person who had cremated her. It was only after the statement of Chin Devi (P.W.1) the mother of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 25-6-1982 that the instant criminal case was registered and which led to the prosecution of the accused. Initially, the, parents of the deceased did not suspect any foul play nor they reported their (accused) complicity in the commission of the offence in question. The conduct of the accused on the death of Pawna fails to show any semblance of their guilt. Rather it points towards their innocence. If the parents of the deceased had suspected any foul play they could have immediately pointed out it against the accused at the time of the inquest was prepared or the matter could be disclosed immediately thereafter to the Investigating Officer who had visited the spot. We also find that the statement of Chin Devi P.W. 1 regarding maltreatment and harassment of the deceased tantamounts to simply a general statement. Even the statement of other P.Ws. is of similar type. There is some cloud created on the testimony of all these witnesses as Smt. Ghugi (P.W.9) has deposed that a few days prior to the death of Pawna both the accused had gone to attend the marriage at village Bheri. This fact is also admitted by the Investigating Officer in his testimony although he has not specified the dates nor had taken the trouble to find but the period spent by both, the accused as also the deceased in that marriage. However, assuming the incident of 6th June, referred to above, regarding the complaint of maltreatment meted out to Pawna at the hands of the accused person, none of the prosecution witnesses had stated a word that Pawna deceased or her father Pratap Singh had ever complained that the accused were interested that Pawna should end her life or they were instigating her to commit suicide. The only circumstance brought out by the prosecution against the accused is some sort of maltreatment meted out to the deceased which in legal parlance docs not amount to abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

(9.) Criminal charges must be brought home and proved beyond all reasonable doubt. While civil case may be proved by mere preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is true even today as it was before. There must not be any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused in respect of the particular offence charged. The courts must strictly be satisfied that no innocent person, innocent in the sense of not being guilty of the offence of which he is charged, is convicted, even at the risk of letting off some guilty persons. There is a higher standard of proof in criminal cases than in the civil cases, but there is no absolute standard of proof in either of the cases. There are major contradictions on material particulars of the case stated by various sets of witnesses referred to above which create a reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the prosecution version in the present case.

(10.) Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there is no direct evidence indicating the circumstances in which the death took place, the conduct other accused and the nature of the crime with which the accused was charged, there cannot be scope of doubt that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence in concluding that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus recording the order of acquittal in their favour.

(11.) Even otherwise as stated above, there is a delay of 12 days in lodging the report with the police, which remains-un-explained by the prosecution. The only explanation furnished by the prosecution is the shock which deceased PawanTs family was undergoing during this period. To our mind such an explanation cannot be taken at its face value. It will not be out of place to mention the fact that at the time of preparation of the inquest the accused and other members of the family were present and they were equally shocked at the death of Pawna. Her dead body was cremated by the accused Bhawani Singh. This fact has been admitted by the Investigating Officer. Even Smt. Chin Devi (P.W.1) admits her presence when the dead body was taken out from the bowli only after the arrival of the police. The conduct of the accused on the death of Pawn a fails to show any semblance of their guilt. Rather at the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that it points towards their innocence. The inordinate delay in lodging the report was sufficient for the complainant party to consult and hold deliberations to implicate the accused person because in case the complainant party had any suspicion as to the foul play, they could have taken legal steps to report the matter at the very inception of the police having visited the spot. Thus, delay in our opinion, is also fatal to the prosecution case.

(12.) From whatsoever angle the appeal may be viewed, it points out that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment which may call for interference at our hands. Thus there being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.