JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 3.8.1991 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 107/90, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondents were prosecuted for the said offences on the ground that as a result of the demand of dowry between 5.7.1989 and 19.7.1990 and consequent harassment, the deceased Kishori, who was wife of accused Moorat Singh, was driven to commit suicide on 17.9.1990 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Vasova by hanging herself. It was not disputed before the Trial Court that the deceased Kishori had been married to accused Moorat Singh about two years prior to the commission of suicide by her, accused Raggi was father-in-law, Sarjubai her mother-in-law and Gyan Singh her Jeth (husband's elder brother). It was also not disputed that Kishori had committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, was that marriage of Kishori with Moorat Singh had taken place on 1.7.1989. At the time of departure of Barat from the house of Sitaram (P.W. 1), father of the deceased Kishori, the accused Raggi and Gyan Singh had demanded from him television, fan as also bus-fare for the Barat and on Sitaram's pleading his inability, they had expressed strong resentment. Later, on 14.7.1989, a letter was received by Sitaram from his son-in-law Moorat Singh, in which he was informed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was due towards fare for bringing Barat and when he comes to fetch his daughter, he should arrange to bring the amount along with other articles, otherwise she would not be sent back. It was alleged that Sitaram then proceeded to bring Kishori and the accused Raggi and his wife repeated the demand for dowry and on Sitaram's telling that he was not then in a position to give them the same, they had told that whenever he comes next, he should bring the articles and the cash. It is alleged that on being brought back to the house, Kishori also complained to them that the respondents were demanding dowry and harassing her. It is alleged that on being brought back to the house, Kishori also complained to them that the respondents were demanding dowry and harassing her. On the next occasion also when Sitaram had gone to bring back his daughter, the demand was repeated by the accused and on Sitaram's assuring that he would arrange to give them these articles soon, they had allowed Kishori to accompany him to his house. Kishori had again informed her parents that she was being ill-treated and the accused were persisting in their demand. It is alleged that about three months prior to the commission of suicide by Kishori, Kishori had sent a message through Mansingh that her father should come to fetch her, which was conveyed by Mansingh to Sitaram, but since Sitaram was busy in sowing crop, he could not go to the house of the respondents to bring her. On 18.7.1990, Kishori committed suicide. After holding inquest and recording statements of witnesses, on finding that Kishori had committed suicide as a result of demand of dowry by the respondents and her continuous harassment by them in persistence of the said demand, the respondents were prosecuted. 4. The respondents denied having committed any offence. According to their defence, they had never made any demand of dowry but because they were poor agriculturists and Kishori had been brought up in urban atmosphere, she did not like rural atmosphere and may be that for that reason she had committed suicide. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents had made any demand of dowry and had ill-treated or otherwise committed any act which constituted abetment of the suicide and acquitted the accused. 6. Learned Government Advocate has referred to the testimony of Sitaram (P.W. 1), father of the deceased, Rahipal Singh (P.W. 7), brother of Sitaram, Ramjanki (P.W. 6), mother of the deceased and other witnesses and has pointed out that in view of the consistent evidence of the witnesses, each corroborating the other, and the letter Ex. 6. Learned Government Advocate has referred to the testimony of Sitaram (P.W. 1), father of the deceased, Rahipal Singh (P.W. 7), brother of Sitaram, Ramjanki (P.W. 6), mother of the deceased and other witnesses and has pointed out that in view of the consistent evidence of the witnesses, each corroborating the other, and the letter Ex. P-6 written by accused Moorat Singh, there was no room to doubt that the respondents had demanded dowry, persisted in it and had with that motive, harassed and ill-treated the deceased, as a result whereof she was driven to commit suicide and, therefore, the respondents ought not to have been acquitted of the charges against them. 7. None has appeared for the respondents. 8. From the prosecution evidence, it is seen that while the prosecution has alleged, as projected through Rahipal Singh (P.W. 7) and Shivshankar (P.W. 3), that at the time of the departure of Barat from the house of Sitaram (P.W. 1) itself, accused Raggi and Gyan singh had made demand of bus fare and other articles, Sitaram (P.W. 1) had not stated so in his deposition. Even Ramjanki (P.W. 6), mother of the deceased, has not made any such statement. Thus the very foundation of the case of the prosecution has been rendered unreliable and shaky. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that Sitaram (P.W. 1) had admitted that when for the first time he had gone to fetch his daughter, she had not made any complaint with regard to any harassment for dowry although, according to the prosecution, by that time, letter Ex. P-6 had already been received. Even with regard to letter Ex. P-6 said to have been written by respondent Moorat Singh, there was no evidence to suggest that the letter was in his hand-writing and though his specimen writing had been sent along with the letter for comparison by Hand-writing Expert, no such report was brought on record to confirm that it was in the hand-writing of the accused Moorat Singh. It is further seen that though Sitaram claims to have made report at Narai Police Out-post within four days of the incident and that he had also made a report at the Police Station Orchha, these reports were not produced by the prosecution. It is further seen that though Sitaram claims to have made report at Narai Police Out-post within four days of the incident and that he had also made a report at the Police Station Orchha, these reports were not produced by the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the above infirmities in the prosecution story apart, the prosecution had not produced the statements of witnesses recorded on 30.7.1990 nor examined the Investigating Officer N.L. Pathak, which indicated that material documents had been deliberately suppressed, thus, prejudicially affecting the case of the defence. 9. As is clear from the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had relied mainly on document Ex. P-6, the letter said to have been written by respondent Moorat Singh to Sitaram (P.W. 1) in support of the case that there was a demand of dowry and consequent harassment of Kishori to pressurise her parents to meet the said demand. This letter was read over first by Ramprasad, son of Sitaram (P.W. 1), but Ramprasad was not examined nor any other witness deposed that the letter was in the hand-writing of Mooratsingh. Even receipt of letter had become suspicious on account of its delayed production after month and half of the death of Kishori. The failure of the prosecution to'place on record the opinion of the Hand-writing Expert further added to the doubt about the letter having been written by accused Moorat Singh. Evidence of Sitaram (P.W. 1) and also wife Ramjanki (P.W. 6) also did not satisfactorily establish the demand of dowry and in view of the significant contradictions between the statements of witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge has extended benefit of doubt to the accused. Before presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised, it is necessary to show that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This onus having not been discharged by the prosecution, presumption under the said provision was not attracted. The view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and even assuming that another view is also possible, no interference is warranted in the order of acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken due note of the entire evidence and has arrived at the conclusions which appear reasonable and proper. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken due note of the entire evidence and has arrived at the conclusions which appear reasonable and proper. 10. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed.