JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.93 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused- appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Dalip alongwith his mother Smt. Seeto, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangar (Camp Suratgarh) for the offences under Section 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution is that Smt. Jeet Kaur was married to accused- appellant Dalip six-seven years before the date of the incident in village Goluwala. Her husband and mother-in-law Smt. Seeto used to harass her. On 4.11.87, Jeeto's brother Nanak Singh had gone to village Goluwala to attend the marriage in his relation. At that time he was informed by Smt. Jeet Kaur that her husband and mother-in-law had harassed her and have given beatings to her about two-three days before that day. His maternal-uncle Prema advised the accused not to do so. On 5.11.87, at about 6.00 a.m., Dalip informed him that Jeet Kaur has committed suicide by burning herself. According to the prosecution, she was cruelly treated by her husband as well as her mother-in-law and she committed suicide on being abetted by the husband and her mother-in-law. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses and placed reliance over sixteen documents. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence. PW 1 Nanak Singh is the brother of the deceased, PW 2 Prem is the maternal uncle of the deceased while PW 3 Krishna Ram is the another brother of the deceased. PW 4 Dr. Surendra Singh Chouhan was the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Pilibanga, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jeet Kaur. PW 1 Nanak Singh is the brother of the deceased, PW 2 Prem is the maternal uncle of the deceased while PW 3 Krishna Ram is the another brother of the deceased. PW 4 Dr. Surendra Singh Chouhan was the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Pilibanga, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jeet Kaur. PW 5 Manohar Lal Arora is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body of Jeet Kaur while PW 7 Rameshwar Singh is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who conducted the investigation at the initial stage but on his being transferred, handed-over the investigation to Ram Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pilibanga, on 4.2.88, who, after completion of the investigation, presented the challan against the accused. 3. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the statements of three witnesses, viz., the two brothers of the deceased. PW 1 Nanak Singh and PW 3 Krishna Ram and the evidence of PW 2 Prem the maternal-uncle of the deceased. PW 1 Nanak Singh has stated that Jeet Kaur was married to the accused-appellant Dalip about five-six years before the date of the incident and after her marriage, she was living with her husband at her in-laws house in village Goluwala. According to him, whenever she used to come to her parents' house, she used to inform that her in-laws are harassing and giving beatings to her. Jeet Kaur's in-laws were advised by them not to treat her in such a way but all fell to the deaf ears. On 1.11.87, the marriage of Prem's son was solemnised in village Goluwala. Jeet Kaur and accused Dalip, also, came to attend the marriage. At that time, also, Jeet Kaur informed him that her husband still used to harass her and requested him to pacify him or curb his activities. Next day he went to his brother- in-law's house and tried to pacify the matter, whereupon they stated that in future they will not do so. At that time he met Jeet Kaur, who had some injuries on her person. He, therefore, called his maternal-uncle Prem and asked her in-law's members to send his sister Jeet Kaur with him. They, also, called the Panchayat and the Panchayat asked the accused whey they were giving beating to her. At that time he met Jeet Kaur, who had some injuries on her person. He, therefore, called his maternal-uncle Prem and asked her in-law's members to send his sister Jeet Kaur with him. They, also, called the Panchayat and the Panchayat asked the accused whey they were giving beating to her. In the Panchayat, accused Dalip and other members of his family admitted that they will not give beating to Jeet Kaur in future. Thereafter, he went to Hakam Singh's house and slept there, where, in the next morning, he was informed by his brother-in-law accused Dalip that his sister has put fire to herself. He went to his sister's house, where he found his sister Jeet Kaur dead due to burn injuries. From there he went to the Police Station and lodged the report. In the cross-examination he has admitted that for the first three years after the marriage, his brother-in-law did not demand any dowry from them and even after three years of the marriage he made a demand for the amount to purchase a tape-recorder only. He has, also, admitted that 11/2 years before the marriage of his maternal-uncle's son, his mother informed him that Jeet Kaur's in-laws are harassing her and a complaint regarding harassing her was made to her by the deceased. In his earlier statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the demand of the tape-recorder by the accused has not been mentioned. When the witness was confronted with this statement he stated that he narrated this fact to the police but why it has not been written, he cannot say. When he was confronted regarding the injuries on the person of his sister deceased Jeet Kaur which he saw on 4.2.88 but the same has not been mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he repeated the same version and stated that this fact was, also, stated to the police but why it has not been written, he cannot say. In his statement Ex.D. 1, the statement of Jeet Kaur to his that Dalip and other members of his family used to harass her and, therefore, either she may be taken with him or he should pacify the accused, has not been mentioned and when confronted in this regard, he stated that he brought this fact to the notice of the police but why the same has not been written in his statement Ex.D. 1, he cannot say. The harassment by in-laws and the cruel treatment by them towards Jeet Kaur have not been mentioned in Ex.D. 1 and when confronted in this regard, he repeated the same story and said that he narrated so to the police but why this has not been mentioned in this statement, he cannot say. This witness has made some improvements from his earlier statement given at the initial stage during the investigation. The improvement during the course of the statement in the Court has been made by this witness in order to fit-in the story which was later-on developed by the prosecution. 4. PW 2 Prem is the maternal-uncle of the deceased. He has stated that he went two days before the incident to village Goluwala in connection with the marriage of his son, where the accused and Jeet Kaur, both, came to his house to attend the marriage of his son. Nanak Singh, Krishna Ram and Sher Singh and their mother (the sister of this witness) had, also, come to attend the marriage. Next day, her nephew Nanak Singh went to the house of Jeet Kaur's in-laws where Jeet Kaur informed Nanak Singh that her in-laws have given beatings to her. Nanak Singh informed him that Jeet Kaur's in-laws have given beatings to her and he should, therefore, go to pacify Dalip and his family members. When he went there and asked them why they had done so, the accused stated that they have committed a mistake, for which they may be excused, and assured that in future they will not repeat the same. Thereafter he came to his house. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that Dalip never demanded any dowry. He has, also, admitted that it was Dalip's father and none else who asked them to be excused. Thereafter he came to his house. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that Dalip never demanded any dowry. He has, also, admitted that it was Dalip's father and none else who asked them to be excused. In the cross-examination, when a question was put to him that why he had not stated so in his statement Ex.D. 2 that Nanak Singh brought Jeeto, he stated that he narrated so in his statement but why it has not been written, he cannot say. His statement regarding making a complaint to him, also, does not find mention in Ex.D. 2 and on being confronted he stated that he stated so to the police but why it has not been written in his statement Ex.D. 2, he cannot say. In the cross-examination he has, also, admitted that Jeet Kaur never made any complaint to him regarding giving beatings to her by his husband. He has, also, admitted in the cross-examination that the victim never informed him about giving beatings to her by her in-laws He has, also, stated that Dalip never asked him to be excused and how it has been mentioned in Ex.D. 2, he cannot say. This witness has, also, tried to make some improvements in his statement from his earlier statement in order to make his statement in the line with the prosecution case developed later-on. 5. PW 3 Krishna Ram is the other brother of the deceased. He has stated that his sister Jeet Kaur was married to accused Dalip and was residing at Goluwala. Jeet Kaur died due to burn injuries. After her marriage, Jeet Kaur used to live with her husband at her in-laws' house and came to them only casually and whenever she used to come, she used to inform them that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her and give beatings to her. About four months before her death when she came to meet him, she informed him regarding the beatings given to her by her husband and mother-in-law and the harassment given to her. He went to attend the marriage of the son of his maternal uncle Premji at village Goluwala and Jeet Kaur and her husband, also, came to attend the marriage. He went to attend the marriage of the son of his maternal uncle Premji at village Goluwala and Jeet Kaur and her husband, also, came to attend the marriage. After the marriage function was over, he went to Jeet Kaur's in-laws' house and in the way he was informed by his sister that her husband and mother-in-law annoyed her and demanded money and said that either she should die or they would kill her. After leaving her in her in-laws' house, he came to his village but his brother Nanak Singh stayed there. He was, later on, informed that Jeet Kaur died due to burn injuries. In the cross-examination he has admitted that for two years after the marriage, there was peace and nothing wrong happened with his sister during these two years and it was only after two years of her marriage that the cruelty and harassment was shown to her for the demand of dowry. He has, also, admitted that all the brothers of deceased Jeet Kaur, during the life-time of their father, started living separately and after these two years of marriage, he was informed by his sister Jeet Kaur that her husband Dalip demanded a tape-recorder but he showed his inability to provide the same. In the cross-examination he has, also, admitted that Jeet Kaur never asked them that her in-laws used to harass her and she would not go to her in-law's house. This statement that the demand of tape-recorder was made by the accused, does not find mention in his statement Ex.D. 3 and when confronted why this thing has not been mentioned in his statement Ex.D. 3 recorded by the police, he said that he stated so to the police by why it has not been written, he cannot say. When he was confronted about the non-mentioning of the fact of demand of dowry by the accused in his police statement, he repeated the same version. 6. This is all the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. Now, it has to be seen : whether from the evidence, produced by the prosecution, any case against the accused for these offences is made-out ? 6. This is all the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. Now, it has to be seen : whether from the evidence, produced by the prosecution, any case against the accused for these offences is made-out ? For proving the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. a person can be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. if he instigaged any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, the other person committed the suicide and the person who abetted the commission of such offence, can be punished under the provisions of Sections 306 I.P.C. for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. A person can be said to have abetted the commission of suicide when either he instigaged his wife to do a thing or he was engaged in the conspiracy with his wife or he intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission to do that thing. The evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not show any of the acts of the appellant in abetting his wife Jeet Kaur to commit suicide. The evidence is lacking on this point. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P. has convicted him with the aid of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act and drew a presumption of abetment to suicide by the accused. But, this Section 113-A of the Evidence Act does not apply in the present case because the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of Jeet Kaur took place within seven years of her marriage. The learned trial Court has not believed the prosecution story about the demand of dowry. There is no evidence, produced by the prosecution, showing any abetment by the appellant in the commission of suicide by his wife Jeet Kaur. The learned lower Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The conviction and sentence, passed by the learned lower Court against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., therefore, deserves to be set-aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted for this offence. 7. The learned lower Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The conviction and sentence, passed by the learned lower Court against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., therefore, deserves to be set-aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted for this offence. 7. So far as the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is concerned, for proving this offence, the prosecution has to prove that the appellant subjected his wife Jeet Kaur to cruelty and for the purpose of this Section, 'cruelty' means : any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or harassment to the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or security or on account of failure of her or any person related to her to meet such demand. So far as the harassment of Jeet Kaur with a view to meet any demand of property or security be concerned, the evidence on this point is absolutely lacking. The prosecution has failed to prove that any demand of dowry was made by the accused, rather it has been stated by the prosecution witnesses that no demand of dowry was by the appellant for the first two years after the marriage and only a demand, which is said to be made was only with respect to a tape-recorder and even with respect to this demand, in the case of prosecution at the earlier stage, there is no mention of even this demand and it is only during the course of statements recorded during the trial that this version has been introduced. Harassment of Jeet Kaur for the demand of property or valuable security could not be proved by the prosecution against the appellant. But so far as the evidence of these witnesses, i.e., PW 1 Nanak Singh, PW 2 Prem and PW 3 Krishna Ram, is concerned, it is clearly proved that the treatment of the husband towards his wife Jeet Kaur was not normal and commendable but she was being cruelty treated by him and was given beatings off and on and a complaint was made by her in this regard to her brothers and mother whenever she used to come her parental house. From the evidence, produced by the prosecution, the case against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. stands proved beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for this offence. 8. In the result, the appeal, filed by appellant Dalip, is partly allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) for the offence under Section 3061.P.C. are quashed and set-aside. However, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. by the learned trial Court, are maintained. The period of detention, undergone by the appellant during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set-off against the, term of imprisonment imposed upon him. *******