HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.1081 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted A-1 to A-3 of the offences under Sections 306, 500 r/w 34 IPC by the impugned judgment. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 used to harass the deceased and that A-1 misbehaved with the deceased using filthy language and that about one month prior to the offence A-2 and A-3 abused the deceased and her family members in insulting manner alleging the deceased having illegal contacts with many others and that therefore the deceased on 02.07.2007 at about 05.00 A.M. consumed Endosulphan Pesticide poison and committed suicide leaving a death note. A-3 is mother of A-2. A-1 is their relative. During trial in the lower Court, original death note was not filed in Court. The prosecution marked Ex.P.2 which is Photostat copy of death note. PW.8 handwriting Expert compared writings in Ex.P.2 with Ex.P.3 note book and came to the conclusion that both of them were written by one and the same person. The prosecution could not establish as to how the original death note was collected during investigation. Neither original death note is produced nor there is tracing of death note by way of any seizure muchless in the presence of any mediators. Therefore the lower Court rightly did not place any reliance on Ex.P.2 photostat copy of the death note. In any event, assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution allegations are true, I am of the opinion that they will not attract the offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused. The prosecution has to prove any of the three instances of abetment prescribed in Section 107 IPC. In the absence of any allegations of instigation or intentional aid or conspiracy, resulting in the deceased committing suicide, I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused. The police should not have registered the case for the offence under Section 500 IPC as there is legal bar for the same. There are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 27th July, 2011. PNV