money from the Applicant and the Applicant had realised his money from him and as a result of which his financial condition had become poor. It is not mentioned in the suicidal note that on which dates, at which places and how much money the deceased had borrowed from the Applicant and when did he refund the money to the Applicant is also not mentioned in the said suicidal note. Kamal Yadav and Itwari, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have only stated that few days before the Applicant had come to the deceased and had asked him that when he had taken money from him why is he not refunding the same to him and if he is unable to refund his money, he should hang himself. From the above, it is established that the Applicant had pressurised the deceased only for taking his money back and that too this had taken place many days before the date of incident. From the material available, it is also established that on 30.8.2004, i.e., about 12 days prior to the date of incident, the deceased had closed his account opened in the post office and thereby withdrawn his money of Rs.42,385/-. But, there is nothing on record to show that he had given this money to the Applicant. Even if it is accepted that he had given this money to the Applicant, it is established that he had refunded money to the Applicant which he had taken from him as loan. There is nothing on record to establish that the Applicant had been continuously torturing and harassing the deceased physically or mentally. Any of the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above, does not constitute the offence alleged against the Applicant.
