circumstantial evidence and largely on the allegation that Kuldeep Kaur was maintaining illicit relations with Raj Kumar @ Raju. The Court observed that the evidence led by the complainant was, at best, founded upon suspicion and assumption and that there was no connecting evidence on record to substantiate or establish the aforesaid allegations. The trial Court further noticed that although the respondents had been charged under Section 306 IPC, there was no material available on record which could satisfy the essential ingredients constituting “abetment” within the meaning of Section 107 IPC to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. It was also observed that even the dead body of the deceased had not been recovered and, therefore, there was no definitive basis to conclusively presume or establish his death. The Court further held that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deceased had died, the actual cause of death could still not be ascertained, in the absence of a postmortem examination report and other foundational evidence necessary to establish the nature and circumstances of death.
