https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192084 Concurrent acquittal for abetment of suicide was not disturbed because the prosecution failed to prove instigation, abetment, or any conduct showing that the accused drove the deceased to suicide; the essential ingredients of the offence were therefore not established. The acquittal for cruelty was also upheld because the High Court had rejected one witness for material omissions in the Section 161 CrPC statement, especially on alleged dowry demands, and the remaining evidence was found unreliable or insufficient. In the absence of convincing material showing that these findings were erroneous, both acquittals were maintained. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 May 2017 15:39:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192084 Concurrent acquittal for abetment of suicide was not disturbed because the prosecution failed to prove instigation, abetment, or any conduct showing that the accused drove the deceased to suicide; the essential ingredients of the offence were therefore not established. The acquittal for cruelty was also upheld because the High Court had rejected one witness for material omissions in the Section 161 CrPC statement, especially on alleged dowry demands, and the remaining evidence was found unreliable or insufficient. In the absence of convincing material showing that these findings were erroneous, both acquittals were maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192084