P. C. PATHAK, J, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant challenges her conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence, of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. ( 2 ) THE appellant and her two sons Mohd. Yasin and Modh. Akram, were prosecuted under Section 306, I. P. C. for abetting commission of suicide by the deceased Jarina Begum who committed suicide on 21-7-1984 at the Saturday Market, Durg. The deceased was married about 15 years back with Mohd. Yusuf. , Similarly, her real sister Ashiya was married to Mohd. Aslam, who is the younger brother of Mohd. Yusuf. The Gauna ceremony of Jarina Begum took palce six years back. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons very often demended money and persuaded her to bring it from her parents and brothers. On account of her failure to fulfill the demand, the accused persons used to harass and beat her since long. Due to persistent cruelty inflicted on her, she committed suicide on 21. 7-1984 by pouring kerosene oil on her body and putting fire to it. ( 3 ) THE appellant and so also the other two acquitted co-accused denied commission of any offense. The learned Trial Court, relying on the statement of Abdul Gaffar (P. W. 2) and some other witnesses, convicted the appellant for abetting Jarina Begum to commit suicide and sentenced her to imprisonment as aforesaid, ( 4 ) AFTER bearing learned counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. Among others, the learned Trial Court relied on Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to raise a presumption against the appellant and held that the said presumption has been rebutted. Before a presumption on be drawn under the said Section, it is essential to prove that the suicide must have been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. The learned Trial Court calculated the said period from the date of her Gauna, it is an admitted fact that the marriage took place 15 yes before the commission of suicide. The learned Trial Court calculated the said period from the date of her Gauna, it is an admitted fact that the marriage took place 15 yes before the commission of suicide. The presumption is, therefore not available to the prosecution and it was mistake on part be the Trial Court to count the period from her Gauna, which cannot be equated with the word marriage in Section 113-A. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court also relied on the testimony of Abdul Gauna (P. W. 2 ). This witness is related to both the parties. In examination-in-chief he stated that on hearing some wordy quarrels he went to the house of the accused. He saw the accused Mohd. Yasin beating Jarina Begum. Thereafter she started weeping. Two or three minutes thereafter, he again went to their house and heard Jarina Begum complaining to her father-in-law Mohd. Ibrahim that she was very often beaten by the accused persons and it would be better if she died, whereupon the appellant is said to have remarked twice that she should better die. The same evening, the witness learnt that Jarina Begum died due to bum injuries. In cross-examintion he admitted that there was wordy duet between the deceased and the appellant ever meal, which was not left for Mohd. Yasin. The appellant asked her as to why did she not save some -food for Mohd. Yasin, knowing full well that he takes his meals twice. It was replied that because the food was already less, nothing could be left behind. At the same time it was further said that she is always harassed over food and she blamed her fate that she has come after marriage in the house of a pauper. On hearing this comment from the deceased the accused Mohd. Yasin gave her a slap. whereafter she went upstairs and committed suicide. The witness admitted that in the statement before the police he had omitted to mention the material statements which he made for the first time in the Court. He also admitted that on account of fear of his father, he of his own did not give any statement to the police. There is no other witness except Abdul Gaffar to depose the events which took place on the date of her suicide. ( 6 ) MOHD. Bafati is the father of the deceased. He also admitted that on account of fear of his father, he of his own did not give any statement to the police. There is no other witness except Abdul Gaffar to depose the events which took place on the date of her suicide. ( 6 ) MOHD. Bafati is the father of the deceased. He stated that his son-in-law very often brought Jarina Begun back and used to return. Jarina Begum told him that her mother-in-law had been taunting her that she has come from the house of a pauper. Rehmat Begum (P. W. 3) deposed about the incident which took place two months before her suicide. She also stated that there had been a demand of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry. But this does not find place in her statement before the police. It is, not necessary to examine each and every witness in detail since I find that their statement relate to such incidents which have no direct co-relation with the commission of the suicide. ( 7 ) ABDUL Gaffar (P. W. 2), the star witness of the prosecution, cannot be relied on inasmuch as his testimony to the extent of the acquitted co-accused has already been discarded. This apart, there are material omission in his statement before the police, for which there is no satisfactory explanation. I have already held that the prosecution is not entitled to take the aid of Section 115- A of the Evidence Act. If Abdul Gaffars statement is discarded there is no material on, record to prove that the appellant abetted commission of suicide. The dialogues deposed to by Abdul Gaffar do not constitute abetment at all within the meaning of Section 306, I. P. C. ( 8 ) IN view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and she is acquitted of the charge. .