This appeal arises out of the judgment rendered in Sessions Trial No.38 (ST/U) of 1988 on 10th day of November. 1989 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judges. South Tripura convicted the appellants viz Subhash Chandra Debnath. Nepal Chandra Debnath. Shri Bhagaban Chandra Debnath. Smti Shaila Bala Debnath and Smti Sobha Rani Debnath for commission of the offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the first four appellants to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default of which to suffer a further period of six months. The appellant No.5 Smti Sobha Rani Debnath was however, sentenced to suffer detention till rising of the Court. 2. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2. namely Subhash Chandra Debnalh and Nepal Chandra Debnath are the sons of appellant No.3 Bhagaban Chandra Debnath and appellant No.4 Smti Shaila Bala Debnath is the wife of the appellant No.3 and appellant No.5 is the daughter of appellant No.3. The appellant No. 1 Subhash Chandra Debnath was married to Manju Rani Debnath. The marriage took place on 14th Falgun. 1392 BS and it was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs. 3. The facts of the case as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses are that at the time of marriage the appellant No. 1 was given a dowry of Rs.2.001/- in cash and certain other articles. But this dowry did not satisfy the appellant No. 1 and his parents. It was alleged that since the marriage they were dissatisfied and started pestering Manju Rani on this account. She was harassed and was told that she was neither good looking having black complexion nor did her parents give sufficient down and hence appellant No. 1 and other in-laws of Manju Rani demanded a further sum of Rs.3,000/- and also told her that she would be sent back to the house of her father in case this demand was not met. 4. Alter "Biragaman" Manju Rani went back to the house of her husband in the month of Chaitra. But in the month of Baishak next Manju Rani sent a letter to her brother Dhananjoy Debnath through her friend Smti Rekha Rani Baishnab intimating her brother that not only her parents-in-law but her husband also caused harassment and torture to her clue to her black complexion. But in the month of Baishak next Manju Rani sent a letter to her brother Dhananjoy Debnath through her friend Smti Rekha Rani Baishnab intimating her brother that not only her parents-in-law but her husband also caused harassment and torture to her clue to her black complexion. Rekha Rani Baishnab while handing over this letter also informed Dhananjoy (PW 1) that Manju also told her that she was being tortured by her parents-in-law and husband for her black complexion. On receipt of this letter Dhananjoy Debnath went to the house of the accused-appellants in the village Holakhet and met Manju who told him that her life would not be saved unless a further sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid to the appellants as dowry. Thereupon, he met the accused-appellants who also told him that his daughter would be sent back to his house unless he would pay a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. Dhananjoy, however, told them that it would not be possible on his part to pay them a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. However, he asked the parents-in-law of Manju to tell Subhash to meet him. 5. Accordingly, in the last part of Baishak husband of Manju, namely, Subhash came to the house of Dhananjoy and demanded a further sum of Rs.3,000/- in presence of Nandalal Saha in whose shop Dhananjoy was working. Dhananjoy however expressed his inability to pay the amount. Thereafter, in the month of Jaistha Manju came back to the house of Dhananjoy and informed him that she was assaulted and driven out of the house by the accused-appellants. She also informed Dhananjoy that she would be killed if the sum of Rs.3,000/- was not paid to the accused-appellants. 6. On hearing this Dhananjoy met some village elders about the demand of the accused-appellants. The village elders advised him to meet Gaon Pradhan of the village Holakhet and requrested him to settle up the matter. Accordingly, Dhananjoy met the Gaon Pradhan of Holakhet but the Gaon Pradhan also asked to settle up the matter by paying Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter, Dhananjoy again went to the house of the accused-appellants and informed them that he would not be able to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/-. On saying this he came back to his house. But as the demand was not met the accused-appellants did not stop the harassment and ultimately Manju Rani committed suicide on 22nd Jaistha 1393 BS. Thereafter, Dhananjoy again went to the house of the accused-appellants and informed them that he would not be able to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/-. On saying this he came back to his house. But as the demand was not met the accused-appellants did not stop the harassment and ultimately Manju Rani committed suicide on 22nd Jaistha 1393 BS. On that date around 2/3 PM an unknown person came to the house of Dhananjoy and passed him the information that Manju Rani had been admitted to Udaipur Hospital in a state of unconsciousness. On receipt of this information Dhananjoy along with his mother, brother and others rushed to the Udaipur Hospital. By that time Manju expired and Dhananjoy came to know from the Doctor that the death was caused on account of her having taken poison. 7. Since death of Manju was caused on account of her having taken poison, Dhananjoy submitted a written complaint to ASI Shri Satya Ranjan Das. But no case was registered on the basis of that complaint. So, on 25.6.1986 Dhananjoy filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur narrating the above facts. The case was however transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class who after perusal of the complaint made an enquiry under proviso to section 202 of CrPC. During enquiry he recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and as a prima facie case for commission of the offence under section 302 IPC was made out he took cognizance of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and issued warrant against all the accused-appellants. The accused persons were however, enlarged on bail and the case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and accordingly the accused persons also appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case records/named two district charges, namely, one under section 304B of IPC and another under section 498A of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained in Bengali to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The charges were read over and explained in Bengali to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however examined Dr. Deb Prasad Chakraborty as Court Witness No.1. Accused persons examined no witness in their behalf in support of their defence however, their defence as would appear from the cross-examination as well as the statements they gave at the time of their examination under section 313 of CrPC is that the allegations against them are absolutely false and a false case has been foisted against them. Accused persons thus pleaded their innocence. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, after appreciation of the evidence on record acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under section 304B of IPC but convicted them as stated above. It was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Manju Rani committed suicide by taking poison on account of torture and cruelty. 10. That Manju Rani died on account of her having taken poison is not denied. Dr. Deba Prasad Chakrabortv. who has been examined as Court Witness No. 1 deposed that on 7.6.86 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Manju Rani Debnath and according to him the cause of the death of Manju Rani was due to failure of cardiac arrest which was caused by toxic effect of organs phosphorus. It was stated by the Doctor that this organs phospherus was taken by the deceased with suicidal intention. This part of the prosecution case being proved it has now to be carefully scrutinised whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the torture and cruelty by the accused-appellants. 11. It is also not disputed that the death of Manju Rani took place within one year of her marriage. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the accused persons of the charge under section 304B of IPC as section 113B of the Evidence Act came into force after the date of occurrence. 12. Now what is required to be examined is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution side is enough to make a finding that Manju Rani was subjected to cruelty 01; harassment by her husband and in-laws, namely, appellants in connection with any demand for dowry. 13. 12. Now what is required to be examined is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution side is enough to make a finding that Manju Rani was subjected to cruelty 01; harassment by her husband and in-laws, namely, appellants in connection with any demand for dowry. 13. PW 1 Dhananjoy Debnath, who is the elder brother of Manju Rani gave the general story of the prosecution case. He deposed that marriage of Manju Rani took place on 14th day of Falgua, 1392 BS and both Manju Rani and appellant No. 1 ie husband of Manju Rani came to their house on the occasion of 'Biragaman' and thereafter they also went back to their house. He further deposed that on the last part of following Chaitra Manju came to his house and informed him that she was subjected to torture and harassment on account of her black complexion and non-payment of sufficient dowry. She informed her brother that the accused-appellants demanded a further sum of Rs.3,000/- and also told her that she would have to leave their house for good in case this amount was not paid. According to him he brought this matter to the notice of the Gaon Pradhan of the village of appellants. It is stated that Gaon Pradhan also told him to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/-. But this Gaon Pradhan has not been examined in the case to prove the fact that PW 1 actually brought it to his notice. 14. PW 2 Smti Rekha Rani Baishnab who is the friend of the deceased Manju Rani and PW 3 Smti Ajanta Sinha, who spoke about the torture did not say anything about the demand of this Rs.3,000/-. PW 4 Shri Kusum Raj Das, who is a resident of the village of PW 1 however deposed that in the last part of Chaitra Dhananjoy came to his house and informed him that Manju Rani was subjected to torture and assault due to her black complexion and that the accused-appellants demanded a further sum of Rs.3,000/- as dowry. But PW 1 Dhananjoy did not state that he brought this matter to the notice of Kusum Raj Das PW 4. But PW 1 Dhananjoy did not state that he brought this matter to the notice of Kusum Raj Das PW 4. What PW 1 deposed in this context was that in the last part of Baishak the appellant No. 1 Subhash came to his house and demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- in presence of Nandalal Saha and thereafter he met the village elders who advised him to meet Gaon Pradhan of Holakhet. So, the version of PW 4 that Dhananjoy came to his house in the last part of Chaitra and informed him that accused-appellants demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- more is not acceptable. Nandalal Saha who has been examined as PW 7 has however deposed that in the month of Baishak Dhananjoy came to his shop and informed him that Manju Rani was subjected to torture and that her in-laws and husband demanded a further sum of Rs.3,000/- as dowry. According to him as per his advice he brought Subhash to his house in the last part of Baishak when he tried to settle up the matter amicably but failed. But it does not transpire from the evidence of PW 1 that in the last part of Baishak he along with appellant No. l came to the house of Nandalal Saha. So, in view of the evidence discussed above the story of the demand of Rs.3,000/- cannot be said to have been affirmatively proved. 15. The next circumstance relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that Manu Rani was subjected to torture on account of her black complexion. It appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance upon the evidence of PW 2 Rekha Rani Baishnab and PW 3 Ajanta Sinha. PW 2 happened to be a class-mate of Manju Rani in her school. She deposed that in the middle of the month of Baishak about 3 years back she went to the house of her sister at village Holakhet and on her way back to the house she went to the house of Manju Rani. According to her at that time Manju Rani informed her that she was subjected to physical assault and torture and she was also weeping. This witness further stated that while she was coming back to her Manju Rani gave her an Inland Letter to be handed over to her brother Dhananjoy Debnath PW 1. 16. According to her at that time Manju Rani informed her that she was subjected to physical assault and torture and she was also weeping. This witness further stated that while she was coming back to her Manju Rani gave her an Inland Letter to be handed over to her brother Dhananjoy Debnath PW 1. 16. This Inland Letter-written by Manju Rani has been marked as Ext 1.1 have gone through the letter and on going through this letter I find that Manju Rani wrote this letter to her elder brother (PW 1) and informed him that she was subjected to neglect on account of her black complexion. In this letter Manju Rani did not even casually state that she was subjected to torture and harassment for non-payment of a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. So the story that she was subjected to torture and neglecting for non-payment of Rs.3,000/- is not at all supported by this letter Ext 1. Here in this letter Ext 1 she stated that she was being neglected on account of her black complexion. Apart from this, it is also not explained by the prosecution as to why this letter was written in Inland Letter instead of white paper and what was the reason for non-posting of this letter. This aspect has not been clarified. 17. This is the whole evidence about the so called harassment. I have discussed the evidence in details and pointed out the infirmities which have been created for non-examination of some vital witnesses and due to contradictions and inconceivable versons of the witnesses. 18. It was however been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the provisions under section 113 A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act a presumption has to be drawn against the accused-appellants as Manju Rani committed suicide within one year from the date of her marriage. Here it may be remembered that what would constitute in instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Thereafter in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation for commission of an offence or not. the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire case. Here it may be remembered that what would constitute in instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. Thereafter in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation for commission of an offence or not. the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire case. In the instant case, the first part of the prosecution case is that Manju Rani was subjected to torture and harassment by her husband and other in-laws as her brother did not pay a further sum of Rs.3.000/- as dowry. But as discussed above it will appear from the letter Ext 1 that Manju Rani did not even make a whisper in respect of this demand of Rs.3,000/-. What she stated in the letter was that she was being neglected on account of her black complexion. But this is not the factual part of the prosecution case. I am therefore, constrained to hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution side is not enough to make a finding that prosecution could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and on the basis of such evidence one can reach with reasonable certainty that Manju Rani committed suicide due to instigation and torture. 19. A reading of section 498A of I PC shows that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Clause (b) of the explanation to that section shows that the harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand would amount to cruelty for the purpose of section 498A. 20. In the present case, learned Additional Sessions Judge placed much reliance upon the letter Ext 1. But a perusal of the letter will show that Manju Rani never mentioned or gave any indication that she was subjected to harassment or torture on account of non-payment of a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. 21. 20. In the present case, learned Additional Sessions Judge placed much reliance upon the letter Ext 1. But a perusal of the letter will show that Manju Rani never mentioned or gave any indication that she was subjected to harassment or torture on account of non-payment of a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. 21. Therefore, on an overall view of the-evidence discussed above, I am constrained to hold-that the evidence adduced by the prosecution side to prove that Manju Rani committed suicide on account of torture and harassment is not sufficient. I have also mentioned above that prosecution did not assign any reason as to why this Inland Letter was not posted. The discussion of the evidence made above will show that there is lack of evidence to Drove that Manju Rani was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of section 408A of IPC. 22. The result is that this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order awarding conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges and their bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.