JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Appellant No. 3 is the.wife of appellant No. 1. Both of them have been convicted Under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in brief 'IPC'). Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 306 of IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 498-A of IPC, the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the some period on both the counts. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants belong to Kiatenduli, a hamlet of Mruganayani under Chandabali police station, Ramakanta Rout is their son who had married Sabita alias Sabitri (hereinafter referred ta as 'the deceased') in the year 1986. At the time of marriage, father of the deceased agreed to give a cow as a dowry, but due to his poverty the promise could not be fulfilled. It is alleged that the appellants misbehaved and ill-treated the deceased from time to time and assaulted her on several occasions for non-fulfilment of the promise. On one occasion, the deceased after being assaulted by the appellants took shelter in the house of Kirtan Rout (PW 2) and after coming to know of such ill-treatment, PW 3, brother of the deceased and some of his villagers came to Kiatenduli and took the deceased to their village Farsibandha. She stayed at her parents' house for about six months when appellant No. 2 came and took the deceased back to Kiatenduuli with an assurance that she would not be ill-treated any further. The deceased gave birth to a male child who could not survive. The ill-treatment on the deceased continued unabated. PW 3 again came to village Kiatenduli and took his sister (deceased) for treatment. After sometime she was brought back and left in the house of the appellants when she gave birth a female child. On 10-11-1990 which was the 'Prathamastami day', PW 3 came to the house of his deceased sister with some articles, sweets and learnt from his sister that she was being assaulted for not fulfilling the promise of giving a cow. On the next day (11-11-1990) PW 3 returned to his village Farsibandha. On 12-11- 1890 he learnt that his sister was dead. On the next day (11-11-1990) PW 3 returned to his village Farsibandha. On 12-11- 1890 he learnt that his sister was dead. Accordingly, he along with some co villagers went to the house of appellants and found that she (deceased) was hanged. He reported the matter in writing in Motto Out-Post. On the basis of the said report, U. D. Case No. 3 of 1990 was registered and the A. S. I. of Motto Out-Post submitted final report in the matter. PW 9 the Officer-in-charge of Chandabali police station on 2-12-1990 took charge of the enquiry of the U. D. case and proceeded to 2Kiatenduli and after coming to know that the deceased committed suicide due to ill-treatment and abetment of the appellants. he drew up a plain paper FIR and toook up investigation in the case. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial to face charges u/s 498-A and 306/34 of IPC. 3. The plea of the appellants was one of complete denial. 4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in this case. PWs 1 and 2 are the co-villagers of the appellants. They turned hostile to the prosecution. PW 2 is the brother and PW 5 is the mother of the deceased. PWs 4, 6 and 7 are co-:villagers of PW 3. PW 8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. PWs 9 and 10 are the police officers who investigated the case. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to hold that Sabitri (deceased) died due to hanging. In paragraph-6 of the judgment after rejecting the evidence of PWs 3 and 6, he, on the basis of letters Exhibit 1 series said to have been written by the deceased found the appellants guilty u/s 498-A of IPC, with regard to the charge u/s 306 of IPC, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in para- graph 10 of the judgment held that none of the witnesses deposed that the appellants abetted the death of Sabitri and there is no direct evidence regarding abatment of suicide. Having held so by invoking the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act he found the appellants guilty u/s 306/34 of IPC. 6. Having held so by invoking the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act he found the appellants guilty u/s 306/34 of IPC. 6. Shri P. K. Dhal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having rejected the oral evidence of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in law in convicting the appellants u/s 498-A of IPC on the basis of the letters Exhibit 1 series which were neither proved in accordance with law nor did they bear the stamp of genuineness. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the finding that there is no evidence of abetment of suicide by the appellants, there is no scope to raise presumption u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellants. Learned Standing Counsel argued that prosecution has been able to establish the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and' the conviction recorded against them is well-founded. 7. As per Exhibit 4, the FIR lodged by the Officer-in-charge, Chandabali police station (PW 9), the death of the deceased was 11/12, November, 1990. PW 8 is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination on the deceased on 14th November. 1990. He found a legature mark obliquely placed from left to right knot mark towards right below the right ear labule between the chin and thyroid cartilage. According to him the cause of death was suicidal hanging of ant? mortem nature. 8. To establish the charge u/s 498-A of 1PC prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7. PWs 1 and 2 who are the co-villagers of the appellants did not support the prosecution for which they were put questions by the Public Prosecutor u/s 154 of the Evidence Act and have been fully discredited. PW 3 being the brother of the deceased! is a star witness of the prosecution, It has been brought out in his cross- examination that he had not stated to the Investigating Officer' PW 9 about the appellants' demanding dowry. He had also not stated before him that his sister was assaulted by the appellants three to four months after the marriage. He had not stated before the police that Kalandi (not examined) informed him that his sister (deceased) was assaulted. He had also not stated before him that his sister was assaulted by the appellants three to four months after the marriage. He had not stated before the police that Kalandi (not examined) informed him that his sister (deceased) was assaulted. He had not stated to the Investigating Officer that PWs 4 and 1, Rabin Nayak and Padma Biswal went with him to the village of the appellants where his sister told them about the demand of cow in the house of Kirtan. He had also not stated before the police that appellant No. 2 went to their house and begged apology and brought her daughter-in-law (deceased)' to her house. He even did not say to the police that the appellants drove the deceased out of their house. These omissions to state before the police by PW 2 are of very serious nature and have to be viewed seriously against PW 2. PWs 4 and 6 are the co-villagers of the deceased. It has been brought out in their evidence that they had not stated before the police that the deceased told them that she was tortured and assaulted by the appellants and was driven out from the house. It appears from the evidence of PW 5(the mother of the deceased) that she had not stated to the police that after four months of the marriage, the appellants abused the deceased and assaulted her for not giving cow which she learnt from the letters of her daughter. She had also not stated before the police that when her daughter was first assaulted she took shelter in the house of Kirtan Rout. In view of such unsatisfactory evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly did not rely on the oral evidence. On the basis of Exhibit 1 series he has, however, held the appellants guilty u/s 498-A of IPC. Exhibit 2 series are letters which were proved by PW 8. PW 3 has stated that Exhibits 1 to 1/4 are the letters written by his sister. It is doubtful if she could have written such letter in her own hand as according to her mother PW 5, the (deceased) had read upto Class II only Exhibit 1 was written on a plain paper which does not bear any date Exhibit 1/1 is a post card which bears postal stamp dated 27-6-1989. It is doubtful if she could have written such letter in her own hand as according to her mother PW 5, the (deceased) had read upto Class II only Exhibit 1 was written on a plain paper which does not bear any date Exhibit 1/1 is a post card which bears postal stamp dated 27-6-1989. exhibit 1/2 is also a post card Although it bears a postal stamp the date is not clearly visible. EXhibit 1/3 is also a post card which bears the postal stamp dated 6-11-87. Exhibit 1/4 is an in inland letter which bears postal stamp date 6-11 but the year is not visible. In non of the aforesaid lettters there is mention of the date on which they were written. PW 3 had not produced those letters when he lodged written report at Motto Out post. One Bhaktahari Das, ASI of police was conducting enquiry of the U. D. case from 12-11-1990 to 2-12-1990 (on which day PW 9 the Investigating from took up investigation). But he was not examined in the case. He could have thrown light as to why the letters Exhibit 1 series were not seized during his enquiry. PW 7 has stated that the letters were produced PW 3 at Chandabali Police Station which were seized as per Exhibit 2 which is dated 7-12-1990. The manner and circumstances in which Exhibit 1 series came to light on 7-12-1990 cast doubt as to their authenticity and genuineness. In the circumstances no reliance can be Placed on Exhibit 1 series. There is no other evidence to connect the appellants in the crime. Accordingly, the conviction recorded u/s 498-A of IPC against the appellants cannot be supported which is hereby set aside. supported which is 9. As mentioned above, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has held that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the appellants abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In order to raise presumption as to abetment of suicide u/s 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, it has to be primarily established that woman had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. On proof of such facts, Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by husband or by such relative of her huband. On proof of such facts, Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by husband or by such relative of her huband. In the present case, the first primary fact i.e. the deceased died within seven years of her marriage has been proved but the second ingredient i.e. the deceased was subjected to the cruelty by the appellants has not been established. In absence of such proof, presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against the appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the appellants u/s 306/34 of IPC cannot be sustained in law which is hereby set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The appellants are acquitted of the charges.