S. S. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THE Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 1983 have been preferred in respect of the selfsame judgment delivered by Shri B. P. Bose, the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of May, 1983. The appellant Shyama Devi and her son, the opposite party, Bijay stood their trial before the learned Judge u/s 306 of the I. P. C. The learned Judge has convicted the appellant in the criminal appeal and acquitted the opposite party in criminal revision. Hence, the appeal from the side of the convicted mother and the Revisional Application from the side of the de facto complainant Smt. Usha Gupta against the acquitted son. The facts of the case leading to the present Appeal and Revision may be summarised as follows : - ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY Rina, the youngest daughter of Gauri Shankar and Usha Gupta (P. W. 3 and the petitioner in the Criminal Revision) of Salkia, Howrah was married to Bijay, son of Babulal Gupta and Shyama Devi (accused appellant) of Hanspukuria Lane under Police Station-Burrabazar on 31-1-81. It is not disputed that after her marriage Rina started living with her husband at her father-in-law's place. It is also admitted that Usha and Mira Gupta went there on 15-7-81 when it was decided that Rina would go back to her father's place on 17-7-81 for spending there two months as per custom and that she committed suicide by hanging at her father-in-law's place in the afternoon of 16-7-81. On FIR (Ext. 6) lodged by Usha Devi (P. W. 3) that very day alleging that tortures mounted by Shyama Devi and Bijay on Rina on her parents' inability to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and give a two-in-one tape-recorder on their demand led her to commit suicide, a case was started by the police against both of them and both were arrested. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Judge both Bijay and Shyama Devi stood charged u/s 306 IPC for abetting Rina to commit suicide by torturing her physically and/or mentally. ( 4 ) IN the trial that followed the prosecution examined Kannan Behari Chakraborty (P. W. 1 Police Photographer), Asoke Kumar Bhattacharya (P. W. 2 Official plan Maker), Dr. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Judge both Bijay and Shyama Devi stood charged u/s 306 IPC for abetting Rina to commit suicide by torturing her physically and/or mentally. ( 4 ) IN the trial that followed the prosecution examined Kannan Behari Chakraborty (P. W. 1 Police Photographer), Asoke Kumar Bhattacharya (P. W. 2 Official plan Maker), Dr. D. Marjit (P. W. 6, Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta), Asoke Kumar Nandy (P. W. 7) Junior Assistant Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta), Dr. Bhupal Chandra Mujumder (P. W. 9, the doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rina) to establish the death of Rina, by hanging. The prosecution also examined Usha Gupta (P. W. 3, Rina's mother), Janaki Gupta (P. W. 4, Rina's elder sister), Mira Gupta, (P. W. 5, Usha Gupta's younger sister), Gyan Shankar Gupta (P. W. 8, Rina's elder brother), Lal Chand Gupta (P. W. 10 husband of Mira Gupta, P. W. 5) and Asoke Kumar Gupta (P. W. 11) Rina's elder brother) to establish that demands were made from Rina's parents by Bijay and Shyama Deyi directly as well as through Rina for money and materials and that since their demands could not be satisfied by Rina's parents, Bijay and Shyama Devi mounted unbearable tortures on Rina which led her to commit suicide. ( 5 ) THE defence as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statements made by the two accused u/s 313 Cr. P. C. seems to be that Rina was treated quite well at their house. They never made any demand for money or material directly or through her to her parents nor did they mount any torture on her as alleged. On 10-7-81 Bijay and Rina attended the marriage of one Asoke Jaiswal at Salkia, Howrah. At that time Rina told Bijay that there was a talk of her being married to Asoke before she was actually married to Bijay. After that day Rina became very much moody, stopped talking freely and laughing and was absent-minded most of the times. On 16-7-81 Rina hanged herself in the afternoon in her bedroom bolting the door from inside. Bijay was out at that time and his parents were sleeping. After that day Rina became very much moody, stopped talking freely and laughing and was absent-minded most of the times. On 16-7-81 Rina hanged herself in the afternoon in her bedroom bolting the door from inside. Bijay was out at that time and his parents were sleeping. The mishap was discovered when Bijay came back home and getting no response in spite of knocking at the door repeatedly, forced his way into the bed room. Neither Bijay nor his mother knew why Rina had committed suicide. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the materials on record and relying on the evidence of Usha Gupta, Janaki Gupta, Mira Gupta, Gyan Shankar Gupta, Lal Chand Gupta and Asoke Kr. Gupta (P. Ws. 3,4,5,8,10,11) the learned Judge finding the prosecution case fully established against the accused Shyama Devi alone, sentenced her to three years' R. I. and he passed an order of acquittal in favour of the accused Bijay Gupta finding the prosecution case not established against him. Hence, this Appeal and Revision. ( 7 ) THE Appeal and the Revision were fixed up for hearing together. On the day they were taken up for hearing Mr. Bhose, the learned Advocate for the State-petitioner produced and filed a Death Certificate showing that the opposite party Bijay Gupta had died on 2-3-85. The Revision having thus become infructuous the learned Advocate did not press it and only the appeal was taken up for hearing on merits. ( 8 ) IT is urged from the side of the appellant Shyama Devi that the evidence of demand for money and articles and subsequent tortures is coming from the close relatives of Rina and further that even that evidence falls far short of establishing tortures which could have led Rina to commit suicide. ( 9 ) THE only point which arises for decision in this Appeal is as to whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified on the evidence on record to conclude that the prosecution case was conclusively established against the present appellant. ( 10 ) BEFORE entering into the evidence it should be pointed out that all the witnesses of fact barring the official witnesses are close relations of Rina. Usha Devi (P. W. 3) is her mother, Janaki Gupta (P. W. 4) is her elder sister and Gyan Shankar and Asoke (P. Ws. 8 and 11) are her elder brothers. ( 10 ) BEFORE entering into the evidence it should be pointed out that all the witnesses of fact barring the official witnesses are close relations of Rina. Usha Devi (P. W. 3) is her mother, Janaki Gupta (P. W. 4) is her elder sister and Gyan Shankar and Asoke (P. Ws. 8 and 11) are her elder brothers. Mira Gupta (P. W. 5) is her aunt being the youngest sister of Usha Devi (P. W. 3) and Lal Chand Gupta (P. W. 10) is Mira's husband. There is not even a single witness outside the family pale. The witnesses all say that they did not tell others about the demand and tortures out of a sense of shame. This is a very convenient explanation, no doubt, but the fact remains that there is no corroboration from any person outside the family. ( 11 ) THEN the prosecution has not also examined a single witness living in the neighbourhood of the appellant. Not that the appellant's house is situated at an isolated spot. Her house is situated in fact within Burrabazar Police Station in Calcutta. S. I. , Sanjeeb Ghosh, the Investigating Officer, (P. W. 12) actually interrogated three persons namely. Bhabani Sharma, Dr. Jagadish Sharma and Parameswar Lal Das of premises No. 3, Hanspukuria Lane, the same house in which the appellant herself has been living with the other members of her family and in which Rina committed suicide. He also interrogated Basudeb Shaw, Golap Das and other residents of premises No. 6, Hanspukuria Lane situated opposite premises No. 3. None of them was cited as a witness. ( 12 ) WHAT is more there is also not even a scrap of paper from the hand of Rina or anybody else having bearing on the facts in issue excepting a letter (Ext. C) which according to Asoke (P. W. 11) seemed to have been written by Rina. This letter written in Hindi in Devnagari script was read over and explained to us by the learned Public Prosecutor himself and appears to contain a newly wed young girl's sincere outburst of affection for her husband and her intense longing for his company. The letter is not dated and it helps if it helps at all the defence rather than the prosecution. The letter is not dated and it helps if it helps at all the defence rather than the prosecution. ( 13 ) ALL this makes the burden of decisionmaking rather difficult in this case, since all the evidence available here is coming from the near and dear ones of Rina and there is not a single piece of disinterested evidence against which their evidence could be tested. There is no presumption in law that the relatives are bound to make false statements. But then as it has been observed in Dalip Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 364 and Sharad v. State, AIR 1984 SC 1622 at P. 1636, such persons although they would not protect the real culprit still would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts even unconsciously making it absolutely necessary for the court to examine their evidence with very great care and caution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this case should, be accepted, therefore, only if it stands scrutiny with more than ordinary care; R, Kondaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 216 : 1975 Cri LJ 262. ( 14 ) WE should also like to add here that Usha Devi's family and the appellant's family had been very intimately known to each other since long before the marriage. Rina's father- in-law Babulal's first wife happened to be Usha Devi's (P. W. 3) cousin and Rina's husband Bijay used to visit Usha Devi's house since before the marriage. That Rina was a beautiful girl is also admitted though Usha Devi and the other witnesses did not agree to the defence suggestions that there was no pressure for dowry as she was selected for her beauty. ( 15 ) THE prosecution case as per the FIR and the versions of the witnesses, named above is that at the first instance demand was made by the present appellant and her son Bijay i. e. the husband of Rina for a washing machine. This evidence is coming from all the witnesses named above. From their versions it appears that this demand came about three months after the marriage i. e. in or about May, 1981. Usha Devi (P. W. 3) says that both Bijay and the present appellant personally requested her for the washing machine. This evidence is coming from all the witnesses named above. From their versions it appears that this demand came about three months after the marriage i. e. in or about May, 1981. Usha Devi (P. W. 3) says that both Bijay and the present appellant personally requested her for the washing machine. Her married daughter, Janaki (P. W. 4) who lives near her house says that both the appellant and Bijay made requests for the washing machine in her presence. That is also the evidence of Gyan Shankar (P. W. 8) eldest brother of Rina. Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4 and 10) also say that Rina and Bijay visited their house in Calcutta at the end of May, 1981 for attending a religious function when Rina told them about the demand for washing machine. That such a washing machine was purchased on 12-6-81 (Ext. 4) and delivered at the house of the appellant is not disputed. It was of course the case of the appellant and her son before the learned Sessions Judge that the relations of Rina had given this washing machine to Rina of their own accord and that they had never made any demand for it. Considering, however, that the evidence of all the witnesses is quite consistent on this point and further that their evidence is factually corroborated by the purchase and delivery of a Washing machine, we are of the view that the prosecution allegation in this regard may be accepted. ( 16 ) IN this connection it may be added that it also seems to be the case of Janki, Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4, 5, and 8) that on the occasion when Rina told them about the demand for the washing machine coming from the side of her husband and mother-in-law, she also told them that the latter was subjecting her to harsh treatment as the washing machine was not being supplied to them in spite of their demand. Considering that Usha Devi and Gyan Shankar were absolutely silent on the most vital point and further that the F. I. R. lodged by Usha Devi mentions nothing like that, we are of the view that this part of the evidence of Janki, Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4, 5 and 8) may be disregarded. Considering that Usha Devi and Gyan Shankar were absolutely silent on the most vital point and further that the F. I. R. lodged by Usha Devi mentions nothing like that, we are of the view that this part of the evidence of Janki, Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4, 5 and 8) may be disregarded. We consider it as highly improbable that if Rina had really been subjected to ill treatment for not supplying the washing machine she would not have stated that to her mother and elder brother and that they would not have stated that before the learned Sessions Judge. The omission in the F. I. R. also must be treated as very relevant for the purpose of this case, Ram Kumar v. State of Madaya Pradesh, 1975 0 Crlj 870 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1026 ). The Emperor v. Kampu Kuki, 11 Cal WN 554. Besides it appears that the value of the washing machine was only Rs. 2,750/- which Rina's relations who are established businessman could very certainly 00000 and Janaki (P. W. 4) says that it was supplied 2/3 days after demand. Where therefore, was any scope of getting sore for not getting the washing machine and subjecting Rina to harsh treatment on that account? ( 17 ) ON a consideration of all the evidence we hold, therefore, that the appellant and her son actually demanded a washing machine from the parents of Rina in or about May, 1981 and that a washing machine was actually purchased and delivered at their house on or about 12-6-1981. We must add, however, that on the materials on record we are not satisfied to hold that the present appellant and Bijay subjected Rina to harsh treatment over the washing machine as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses. ( 18 ) NOW we pass on to the second phase of facts. According to Janaki (P. W. 4) the demand for Rs. 20,000/- in cash and the two-in-one tape recorder came about two weeks after the delivery of the washing machine. She is corroborated by Mira Gupta (P. W. 5) who says that Usha Devi (P. W. 4) told her about these fresh demands about 15/20 days after she had told her that the washing machine had been delivered. 20,000/- in cash and the two-in-one tape recorder came about two weeks after the delivery of the washing machine. She is corroborated by Mira Gupta (P. W. 5) who says that Usha Devi (P. W. 4) told her about these fresh demands about 15/20 days after she had told her that the washing machine had been delivered. It may be held, therefore, that the demands for money and the tape-recorder were made, if at all, on or about 26/27th of June, 1981. ( 19 ) ACCORDING to Usha Devi (P. W. 3) both the present appellant and Bijay visited their house and demanded Rs. 20,000/- in cash for the Ghee and Oil business of Bijay started after his marriage. Bijay personally asked for the tape-recorder and the appellant also did the same through Rina. She could not comply with these demands for want of fund. She is corroborated to some extent by Janaki (P. W. 4) who says that the appellant visited her father's place along with Rina and that in her presence the appellant told her mother to supply Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a tape-recorder. Her mother expressed her inability to supply the same. Both Mira Gupta and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4 and 10) say that Usha Devi told them about these fresh demands for money and tape-recorder Gyan Shankar (P. W. 8) also says about these demands. ( 20 ) THEN comes the evidence of torture for not supplying the money and the taperecorder. This evidence is coming from Usha Devi P. W. 3 ). She says that as they could not supply the demanded money and the taperecorder the appellant discharged all three servants of her house and Rina had to wash the utensils and clothes and cleanse the floors. She saw that with her own eyes and Rina also showed her the erosion of skin on her fingers caused by washing and cleansing. She met Rina some days in the afternoon when she found her still washing utensils and clothes. Rina told her that though it was 4 o'clock and other members had finished their meals she was not given her food as yet. Rina also told her that the appellant and Bijay compelled her to work till 5 p. m. , gave her rotten chappatis for food and then again compelled her to work till mid-night. Rina told her that though it was 4 o'clock and other members had finished their meals she was not given her food as yet. Rina also told her that the appellant and Bijay compelled her to work till 5 p. m. , gave her rotten chappatis for food and then again compelled her to work till mid-night. Rina also told her that unless the money and the tape-recorder were supplied, there was no possibility of her survival and further that the appellant and Bijay told her that she should commit suicide by taking poison or hanging herself or jumping from the building. ( 21 ) JANAKI, Mira, Gyan Shankar and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 4, 5, 8 and 10) also say about the tortures, but it appears from their evidence that they had no direct knowledge in this respect. Thus Janaki (P. W. 4) merely says that the appellant use to maltreat Rina as they were unable to supply the money and the tape-recorder. Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 5 and 10) heard from Usha Devi (P. W. 3) that Bijay and the appellant were torturing her. Only Gyan Shankar says that he heard from Rina when she visited their house that unless they supplied the money and the tape-recorder she would be in difficulty, assaulted and not given sufficient food. She was not allowed to sleep during night and Bijay and the appellant kept telling her to take poison and die. ( 22 ) NOW the evidence of Janaki (P. W. 4) as stated above may be disregarded since she does not reveal the source of her knowledge. The same also applies to the evidence of Mira and Lal Chand (P. Ws. 5 and 10) whose source of knowledge was Usha Devi (P. W. 3 ). There remains therefore only the evidence of Usha Devi and Gyan Shankar (P. Ws. 3 and 8 ). ( 23 ) SO far as the evidence of Usha Devi is concerned it comprises partly of what she allegedly saw with her own eyes and partly of what she allegedly heard from Rina. Must we accept her evidence in toto as the learned Sessions Judge has done? It is true there is apparently no reason why she should make false statements. Must we accept her evidence in toto as the learned Sessions Judge has done? It is true there is apparently no reason why she should make false statements. But since the fate of another person hangs and depends to a great extent upon her evidence we are of the view that her statement should not be accepted on its face value and that only that portion of her statement should be accepted which stands a close scrutiny. But how are we to test her evidence since there is no other independent evidence in this case. How to find out if she was giving a truthful account of what she had actually seen with her own eyes or had actually heard from her daughter (?) We are of the view that in such circumstances the statement of a witness should be tested against his/her previous statement made before the police whether treated as h F. I. R. or a statement under Section 162, Cr. P. C. Considering from this angle we find that almost all the statements on the point of torture as made by Usha Devi in her evidence before the learned Sessions Judge were absent in her statement before the police which was treated as the F. I. R. in this case (Ext. 6 ). S. I. Sanjeeb Ghosh (P. W. 12) the I. O. who recorded the F. I. R. says that Usha Devi (P. W. 3) did not tell him that due to inability on her part to supply the money and the tape-recorder (wrongly recorded as washing machine in the evidence), the accused persons released the servants and asked Rina to do all sorts of work, or that unless she supplied the machine there was no chance for survival of Rina or that Rina was compelled to work till 5 p. m. and she was not supplied with sufficient food or that she was given rotten food and asked to work till mid-night or that she was told to end her life by hanging or jumping from roof or that she saw Rina not being supplied with food till 4 p. m. while other members has finished their meals or that she saw Rina washing utensils without taking food. ( 24 ) THUS it appears that details of torture given by Usha Devi in her evidence before the learned Sessions Judge were not given by her when she made her statement before the police immediately after the occurrence. All that she said in her F. I. R. (Ext. 6) was that Rina had told her on a few occasions that the present appellant and Bijay had been inflicting various tortures on her for not having received the said tape-recorder and the money. There is not even a whisper throughout the length and breadth of the F. I. R. (Ext. 6) as to what the various tortures were or the nature thereof. Of course, Usha Devi says that at that time she was not in a proper state of mind. That very well may have been the case, but because of that her uncorroborated statements cannot be accepted and acted upon for reasons stated above. ( 25 ) SO far as the evidence of Gyan Shankar (P. W. 8) is concerned his version seems to be very much exaggerated. He says that Rina told him and his mother that she would be assaulted and not given sufficient food if the tape-recorder and the cash money were not supplied. That is not even the evidence of her mother. The witness says that Rina was not permitted to sleep during night. That is also not what his mother says. His statement that the appellant and her son kept telling her to take poison and die, also cannot be accepted since we have disbelieved her mother's version to the same effect for reasons stated above. ( 26 ) BESIDES, what kind of a man is this Gyan Shankar (P. W. 8)? As per his own statement he married three girls, one after another. He has not divorced his first two wives. He cannot show any reason why his first two wives deserted him. But his aunt mire Gupta (P. W. 5) admits that his first wife deserted him as he tortured her. Presumably he is not the kind of man upon whom full reliance or any reliance should be placed. ( 27 ) ON a consideration of all the materials on record it may be held therefore that ever though the appellant and her son demanded a tape-recorder and a sum of Rs. Presumably he is not the kind of man upon whom full reliance or any reliance should be placed. ( 27 ) ON a consideration of all the materials on record it may be held therefore that ever though the appellant and her son demanded a tape-recorder and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash as alleged by the prosecution witnesses there is no satisfactory evidence to show that they tortured Rina and told her to commit suicide for not getting the same as claimed by the prosecution witnesses before the learned Session Judge. ( 28 ) NOW we come to the 3rd phase of the facts, the facts which are alleged to have happened on 15-1-1981. ( 29 ) THERE is no dispute that Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5) visited the house of the appellant in the evening on that day. Usha Devi says that she and Mira went to the appellant's house at about 6 p. m. They found Rina kneading Atta inside the kitchen. The appellant was also in the kitchen at that time. Seeing them Rina wanted to come to them. The appellant curtly told her to keep quiet and wait in the kitchen. Usha Devi told the appellant that they wanted to take Rina back home and requested her to fix a date. The appellant told her to meet her husband. Her husband Babulal was sent for and when he came thy told him the purpose of their visit. He fixed 17-7-81 as the date on which they could take Rina away to their house. Thereafter when they were near the staircase Rina told Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5) that unless they paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash and supplied the tape-recorder they would not be able to see her alive. Mira (P. W. 5) also gives a version, quite the same as given by Usha Devi. She only adds that when Babulal was sent for, the appellant re-entered the kitchen, took away the rolling pin from the hands of Rina and pushed her with some force. It seemed to her that the appellant was much agitated. Mira (P. W. 5) also gives a version, quite the same as given by Usha Devi. She only adds that when Babulal was sent for, the appellant re-entered the kitchen, took away the rolling pin from the hands of Rina and pushed her with some force. It seemed to her that the appellant was much agitated. The rest of her evidence closely follows the evidence of Usha Devi (P. W. 3) excepting that, according to her Rina told them near the staircase that the appellant had told her that as her parents were not able to supply the money or the tape-recorder she should be treated as dead. ( 30 ) NOW the version of Mira (P. W. 5) accusing the appellant of pushing Rina does not find any mention in the version that was given by Usha Devi. Her version in this regard may, therefore, be treated as exaggerated and hence disregarded. Since so far as the statement allegedly made by Rina to them near the staircase is concerned the sisters appear to have given different version. It may be mentioned here that as per the F. L. R. Rina's statement was somewhat different from the version given by Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5 ). The F. I. R. runs in this way "a bit after that my daughter came to us secretively and told us that her mother-in-law occasionally and told us that her jeeringly that a girl whose father could not meet the said demands of her daughter and son-in-law should take poison and die". ( 31 ) ON a consideration of the above evidence it may be held therefore that on 15/7/81 when Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5) went to the house of the appellant at or about 6 p. m. they found Rina and the appellant working in the kitchen and that after the fixation of the date of her going back to her father's place Rina told her mother and aunt something secretively. What did Rina actually say on that occasion. 3 and 5) went to the house of the appellant at or about 6 p. m. they found Rina and the appellant working in the kitchen and that after the fixation of the date of her going back to her father's place Rina told her mother and aunt something secretively. What did Rina actually say on that occasion. It is very difficult to guess since Usha Devi and her sister give two different versions neither of which tallies with the versions given in the F. I. R. what is very significant is that the version given by Usha Devi in her evidence does not mention the appellant at all whereas the version given By Mira (P. W. 5) does that though even as per her version the appellant did not tell Rina to commit suicide. Considering the state of evidence all we can say is that it cannot be said for certain that Rina told her mother and aunt near the staircase that evening that the appellant had told her to commit suicide. ( 32 ) THE facts admitted as well as established by evidence may, therefore, be summarised as below : -I. Rina, quite a beautiful girl and only fifteen years of age was married to Bijay on 31-3-81. There two families had been known to each other since before the marriage and Bijay was no stranger to Rina's father's house. II. During the end of May or first part of June, 1981 the present appellant and Bijay demanded a washing machine from Usha Devi (P. W. 3) directly as well as through Rina. A machine was purchased on 12/6/81 and supplied at the house of the appellant. III. Towards the end of June, 1981 i. e. on or about 26/27-6-81 Bijay and the appellant again approached Usha Devi directly as well as through Rina for Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a two-in-one tape-recorded. On a few occasions Rina told Usha Devi that she was being tortured by the present appellant and her husband as the money and the tape-recorder were not being supplied. On 15/7/81 when it was decided at the appellant's house that Rina would go back to her father's place on 17/7/81 for spending two months there, Rina told Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5) secretively that they would not be able to see her alive unless the demanded Rs. On 15/7/81 when it was decided at the appellant's house that Rina would go back to her father's place on 17/7/81 for spending two months there, Rina told Usha Devi and Mira (P. Ws. 3 and 5) secretively that they would not be able to see her alive unless the demanded Rs. 20,000/was paid and the tape-recorder supplied. IV. On 16-7-81 Rina committed suicide sometime in the afternoon by hanging herself. ( 33 ) DO the above (facts?) establish that the present appellant instigated Rina to commit suicide? We do not think that the question can be answered in the affirmative. Admittedly there was no physical torture by assault at any time. That has never been alleged. Torture by compelling her to do domestic chores has not been established. Besides it is also very much doubtful if doing domestic duties in the absence of servants may be considered as torture, let alone torture enough to make a housewife-albeit married recently - to prefer death to get away from it all as suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor. Janaki (P. W. 4) admits that she also does domestic duties though she says that she does that according to her sweet will - whatever that may mean. Mira (P. W. 5) also says unequivocally that Usha Devi's daughters-in-law also do domestic work and that they also wash utensils if necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor argues that discharging servants for the purpose of compelling Rina to do their jobs is what made the whole thing torturous. We have already disbelieved this part of the evidence of Usha Devi as it finds no mention in the F. I. R. we find it also very difficult to believe that the appellant and the members of her family, who according to Janaki (P. W. 4) are rich people, would discharge all their servants merely for the purpose of punishing Rina on her father's inability to deliver the money and the tape-recorder. ( 34 ) WHAT also makes the prosecution case of "cruelty leading to suicide" theory unacceptable is the short span of time during which the cruel treatment was allegedly meted out to Rina. From the demand for the money and the tape-recorder on or about 26/27-6-81 to the death of Rina on 16/7/81 there was not even three weeks' time. ( 34 ) WHAT also makes the prosecution case of "cruelty leading to suicide" theory unacceptable is the short span of time during which the cruel treatment was allegedly meted out to Rina. From the demand for the money and the tape-recorder on or about 26/27-6-81 to the death of Rina on 16/7/81 there was not even three weeks' time. On the facts of this case that appears to be too short a period for a daughter-in-law, even a very young and inexperienced daughter-in-law to come to a conclusion that she was condemned to a life of unmitigated torture and hardship from which the only escape was death by suicide. In Protima Dutta v. State, 1977 Cal HCN 443 : 81 Cal WN 713 cited from the side of the prosecution the facts were very much different. In that case the marriage took place some time in the early part of 1966 (the date of marriage is not there in the judgment, but it is stated there that the only child of the deceased and her husband was born on 11/7/66 and that they were married a short time before that) and the wife set fire to herself on 7/3/68. The gap between the two dates was considerably more than in this case. What is more there was much evidence in that case documentary as well as oral establishing cruel treatment on the daughter-in-law from the side of the mother- in-law from the very time of the marriage. That is not the case here. ( 35 ) ANOTHER point pressed before us by the learned. Advocate for the appellant also strikes us as rather significant. The learned Advocate argues that whatever the treatment meted out by the appellant to Rina, that certainly could not have led her to commit suicide, for in spite of such treatment, Rina was very much alive in the evening of 15/7/81. Did anything happen so very shattering to her during the few hours in between the departure of her mother and aunt in the evening of 15/7/81 and the early afternoon of 16/7/81 which precipitated matters, frustrated her completely and led her to kill herself having concluded that that was the only way out of the impossible situation as urged by the learned Public Prosecutor? There is no evidence, not even a whisper to show that. There is no evidence, not even a whisper to show that. In that view of the matter the conclusion becomes inescapable that whatever might have led Rina to commit suicide it was not the treatment which she had received from the appellant. ( 36 ) ANOTHER circumstance which strikes us as extremely intriguing is as to why Rina committed suicide on 16/7/81. On the very following day she was going back to her father's place for two months when free from her mother-in-law's restraining influence she could discuss things with an open mind with her near and dear ones for finding a way out of the impossible situation if the situation was really so intolerable. In that view of the matter it becomes difficult to understand why did she choose 16/7/81 for committing suicide. Did not she want to go back to her father's place and meet her near and dear ones without there being a firm commitment on the point of payment of the money? Could it be that she felt herself neglected and deprived as her parent could not provide the money which was to be invested in her husband's business? It may be recalled that her last words to her mother when they parted company in the evening of 15/7/81 were that unless they paid the money and the tape-recorder they would not see her alive. It is significant that she did not say that she would be killed by her mother-in-law or her husband if the money was not paid or the tape-recorder not supplied. One never knows how the mind of a mere fifteen year old girl works and more so when she happens to be somewhat sentimental and imaginative which Rina was as her letter to her husband (Ext. C) shows. We feel, however, that we must leave the matter here since any further speculation is not likely to solve the tangle in this case. ( 37 ) ON a consideration of all the materials on record and the circumstances of the case we are of the view, therefore, that the prosecution case against the appellant has not been established. It will be noted that the evidence against both the appellant and her son was practically the same. Yet the learned trial Judge differentiated the case of the son, from that of the mother and found him not guilty. It will be noted that the evidence against both the appellant and her son was practically the same. Yet the learned trial Judge differentiated the case of the son, from that of the mother and found him not guilty. We feel that the mother should receive the same treatment as the son and that she should also be acquitted. While coming to our conclusion we have also considered the provisions of S. 113-A, Evidence Act. The presumption as to abetment of suicide arises under that section where the woman committing suicide has been subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relations. In the case at hand it has not been established that Rina had been subjected to cruelty by the present appellant. The section, therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. ( 38 ) THIS is an incident which has ended unhappily for both the mothers. Rina has committed suicide and so also has, so we are to told Bijay her husband. The balance is even in a negative way and we feel that the curtain should be allowed to drop finally on this very unhappy real life drama. ( 39 ) IN the circumstances stated above the present appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against the present appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge brought against her and she is hereby discharged from her bail bond. The Criminal Revision No. 2079 of 1983 is also hereby rejected being not pressed as it has become infructuous. ( 40 ) J. N. CHAUDHURI, J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.