JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal of the State and revision petition of Shri Prem Chand, father of deceased Sumna Devi, are directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 21st May, 1996. Bimla Devi and Sushila Devi, wife and daughter of Prabhu Ram, respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were tried and acquitted for offences publishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Code). 2. It appears that Sumna Devi daughter of Prem Chand resident of Village Sauri, Tappa Naunghi, in Police Station Nadaun, of District Hamirpur was married to Sanjeevan Singh alias Pappu son of Prabhu Ram resident of Village Jatehri in the year 1992. She committed suicide on the evening of 4th of October, 1993 by immolating herself. 3. Prosectuion case is that accused monther-in-law and sister of the husband used to taunt Sumna Devi that she did not know cooking, sewing or tailoring and that her mother has not taught her the household work. Sumna Devi was driven to commit suicide by this cruel behaviour of the accused. She immolated herself by pouring kerosene oil on her body and lining herself on fire. Both the accused were charged, as noticed earlier, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Code. Both the accused claimed trial. The learned Trial Judge acquitted both the accused for want of evidence. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal State has filed this appeal. Prem Chand father of deceased Sumna has also filed a Criminal Revision (No. 64 of 1996) against the judgment of acquittal. 4. We have heard Mr. R.M. Bisht, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellant, Pt. Om Parkash, learned Counsel for the respondents and Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, vice learned Counsel for the petitioner Prem Chand in Criminal Revision and gone through the record. We find there is no acceptable and dependable evidence to interfere with the acquittal of the accused. 5. In this case the First Information was lodged by Kehar Singh son of Kali Dass brother of Prem Chand (father of deceased Sumna Devi). In this report (Ex. PA) Kehar Singh merely expresses doubt in the death of Sumna Devi and he requests the police to investigate this unnatural death. 5. In this case the First Information was lodged by Kehar Singh son of Kali Dass brother of Prem Chand (father of deceased Sumna Devi). In this report (Ex. PA) Kehar Singh merely expresses doubt in the death of Sumna Devi and he requests the police to investigate this unnatural death. This report was recorded in the daily diary of the Police Station, Hamirpur, in terms of entry No. 27 (Ex. PA) Subsequently, the then Inspector S.H.O. Anand Kumar (PW-11) visited the spot and after inspecting the spot recorded statement (Ex. PC) of Kali Dass grand-father of Sumna Devi, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which forms basis for the formal FIR (Ex. PE). According to (Ex. PC) Sumna visited her parental house alongwith her father-in-law about a week before the unfortunate incident, but did not complain of any suffering or harassment. Though before this visit whenever she visited his parental house she used to complain that her mother-in-law Bimla Devi (Al) and husbands sister Sushila Devi (A-2) harassed her. It is the allegation of Kali Dass that he fears that his granddaughter committed suicide by burning herself due to harassment and mis-behaviour of the accused. 6. Section 498-A of the Code provides punishment to a person who, being the husband or relative of husband, subjects a woman to cruelty with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine. Section 498-A is reproduced for convenience: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— 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. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section cruelty means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) 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 is on account of failure by her on any person related to her to meet such demand." The case of the prosecution would fall under explanation (a) above. Explanation (b) is not attracted as it is not the case of the prosecution that Sumna Devi was harassed with a view to coerce her or her family members to meet any unlawful demand or dowry. 7. It may be noticed that the expression "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498-A of the Code means deliberate conduct on the part of the accused which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. In the present case the prosecution, in order to secure conviction, is obliged to prove: (a) wilful or deliberate taunting of the deceased by the accused; (b) such taunts would drive in ordinary course of nature any normal woman to commit suicide. 8. It is admitted position that husband of Sumna Devi was employed at Hoshiarpur at the relevant time and she was living with her father-in-law, Bimla Devi, mother-in-law (A-l) and Sushila Devi, sister of her husband (A-2). It is also not in dispute that when Sumna Devi immolated herself nobody was in the house except perhaps A-2 who was taking bath in the lower portion of the house. The entire prosecution case rests on the taunts which were hurled on Sumna Devi by A-l and A-2 i.e. Sumna Devi did not know cooking, sewing or tailoring and that her mother had not taught her any household work. These taunts, according to prosecution, would amount to cruelty for the purposes of Section 498-A and 306 of the Code. Kehar Singh (PW-1) is elder brother of the father of Sumna Devi. It is his evidence that on 4th October, 1992, at about 5.30 p.m. he was ploughing his field in village Balhi when Tarlok Chand his nephew informed him that Sumna Devi had died due to the bursting of the stove as intimated to him by one Kanta Devi. It is his evidence that he immediately went to village Jatehri where in-laws of Sumna Devi live. This village is about 1-1/2 kilometers from the parental house of Sumna Devi. He found that body of Sumna Devi was totally charred. He also found that Prabhu Ram, father-in-law of Sumna Devi, was lying in the bed. On inquiry he was informed by A-l that Sumna Devi died due to the bursting of the stove. He did not find the answer to be satisfactory and therefore, reported the matter to the police. He found that body of Sumna Devi was totally charred. He also found that Prabhu Ram, father-in-law of Sumna Devi, was lying in the bed. On inquiry he was informed by A-l that Sumna Devi died due to the bursting of the stove. He did not find the answer to be satisfactory and therefore, reported the matter to the police. It is his evidence that whenever Sumna Devi, after marriage, visited her parental house she complained that she is not liked by her in-laws and both the accused abused her and taunted her that she did not know cooking, sewing or tailoring and that her mother had not taught her any household work. Now, this witness has considerably improved from the earlier version given to the police vide his report Ex. PA. In this report he merely expresses his doubt in the death of Sumna Devi and requests the police to investigate the case. He does not say a word about any harassment of Sumna Devi in the hands of accused. He does not say anything about the taunts hurled on Sumna Devi by the accused. In cross-examination this witness was unable to give any detail about the visits of Sumna Devi to their house. His statement is based on suspicion and surmises. According to him, in case Sumna Devi had committed suicide she would have left a suicide note as she was a matriculate. He suspects foul play because the accused did not inform the police nor Sumna Devi was removed to the hospital. He suspects that Sumna Devi was beaten and killed. His emphasis certainly is not on any cruelty or harassment. Presently we need not go into the details; suffices it to say that it is not the case of the prosecution that Sumna Devi was killed. The definite case of the prosecution is that Sumna Devi committed suicide because of the cruelty of the accused. 9. Kali Dass (PW-2) also states that Sumna Devi used to complain against the accused Bimla and Sushila. She used to complain that Bimla (A-l) and Sushila (A-2) maltreat her. However, it is his evidence that Sumna Devi did not complain about any harassment when she visited their house one week prior to the incident. On that visit she was accompanied by her father-in-law. This witness does not say what precise maltreatment was meted to Sumna Devi. She used to complain that Bimla (A-l) and Sushila (A-2) maltreat her. However, it is his evidence that Sumna Devi did not complain about any harassment when she visited their house one week prior to the incident. On that visit she was accompanied by her father-in-law. This witness does not say what precise maltreatment was meted to Sumna Devi. He does not speak a word about any taunts. Rcshni Devi (PW-4) is mother of deceased Sumna Devi. It is her evidence that Sumna Devi was her second child. She was married to Sanjeevan Singh within one year of her death. After marriage Sumna used to visit her parental house, but she would be called next morning by her mother-in-law It is her further evidence that Sumna used to complain that her mother-in-law Bimla Devi (A-l) and sister-in-law (A-2) used to torture her by taunting that she has not been taught cooking, tailoring and other household work by her mother, though, claims this witness, Sumna Devi knew everything. It is her evidence that Sumna Devi was unhappy in the house of the accused. In cross-examination this witness is unable to give details of the visit of Sumna to the house. She admits that neither accused nor Prabhu Ram, father-in-law, ever demanded any dowry. She admits that she did not take up the matter regarding the taunts given to Sumna Devi with any person except mediator Pritam Singh who settled the marriage. Significantly, Pritam Singh has not been examined. According to her when Sumna Devi visited their house alongwith her father-in-law Prabhu Ram one week prior to her death she did inform Prabhu Ram that accused torture Sumna by passing sarcastic remarks but Prabhu Ram told her not to worry and he would make them understand. She was confronted with her statement before the police where she has not told anything about this allegation. 10. To similar effect is the statement of Kanta Devi who also states that Sumna used to complain that accused used to taunt her that she did not know cooking, tailoring, brooming etc. In cross examination she admits that when Prabhu Ram visited their house none of the family member took-up this matter with him except her mother. Tarlok Singh (PW-6) is brother of Sumna Devi. It is his evidence that he visited house of his sister twice or thrice. In cross examination she admits that when Prabhu Ram visited their house none of the family member took-up this matter with him except her mother. Tarlok Singh (PW-6) is brother of Sumna Devi. It is his evidence that he visited house of his sister twice or thrice. On one occasion Bimla Devi and Sushila Devi told him that his sister Sumna Devi does not cook food and she did not know cooking or sewing or how to clean utensils. According to him he informed his parents about this. But mother of Sumna (Roshni Devi) does not say anything about this. 11. On the other hand (PW-3) Roshni Devi, who is immediate neighbour of the accused, where Sumna lived. It is her evidence that relations between the accused and Sumna were normal. She used to meet them daily. She denies the suggestion of the public prosecutor that Sushila Devi was harsh in nature. She also denies the suggestion that Sumna used to be depressed due to sarcastic remarks of the accused. She is categorical in her cross examination that Sumna Devi never made any complaint. Bhola Singh (DW-1) is Chairman of Block Samiti, Hamirpur. Village Jatehri where accused and Sumna used to live falls in the jurisdiction of his Panchayat. It is the evidence of Bhola Singh that his village adjoins the village of the accused. He had accompanied the police in the investigation of this case. When they visited the house of the accused, it is his evidence, nobody complained about any ill treatment or harassment of Sumna Devi. It is his further evidence that when he visited the spot with the police, the dead body had already been removed and there was water in the room where she allegedly died due to burns. In cross examination this witness admits that his house is about one kilometer from the house of the accused. 12. From the evidence on record it cannot be said that accused are guilty of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Code. The evidence of the mother and other near relatives of deceased Sumna on her parental side, is suspect and cannot be implicitly relied upon without corroboration, as all the witnesses considerably improved their testimony in the Court and no allegation of any kind of cruelty or taunts was made in the first report lodged with the police. The evidence of the mother and other near relatives of deceased Sumna on her parental side, is suspect and cannot be implicitly relied upon without corroboration, as all the witnesses considerably improved their testimony in the Court and no allegation of any kind of cruelty or taunts was made in the first report lodged with the police. No witness except Roshani Devi (PW-3), who does not support the prosecution, has been produced from the neighbourhood of the accused who naturally would have known about relations between the accused and Sumna Devi. 13. Assuming that taunts, attributed to the accused, were hurled on Sumna Devi even then such taunts would not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Code. Mere foul language or manners would not amount to cruelty. The question whether particular act or behaviour would amount to cruelty or not largely depends upon the character, way of the life of the parties, their social and economic condition, their status, customs and traditions. (See Sukumar Mukherjee v. Tripti Mukherjee, AIR 1992 Patna 32). It is true that such taunts causes mental agony, but this is not mental agony which ordinarily will drive a normal woman, in the rural background of India, to commit suicide. 14. As observed in Smt. Padmabai v. State of M.P. 1987 Crl. LJ 1573, stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law, to her daughter-in-law in the Indian Society, crude and uncultured behaviour by the in-laws of the husband towards his wife being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families, will not go to form and constitute cruelty unless these acts or conduct singally or cumulatively, are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide..... 15. There is no evidence that Sumna Devi was subjected to taunts within immediate proximity of her committing suicide. In fact there is evidence of the mother and grand-father of Sumna Devi that she did not complain of any taunt when she visited their house one week before the unfortunate incident. There is no evidence, is discussed, to show that Sumna Devi was subjected to cruelty by the accused within the meaning of explanation A to Section 498-A of the Code. 16. There is no evidence, is discussed, to show that Sumna Devi was subjected to cruelty by the accused within the meaning of explanation A to Section 498-A of the Code. 16. So far the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Code is concerned, it provides that if any person commit suicide then the person who abets the commission of such suicide is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Code, contemplates :— A person abets the doing of a thing, who-— (a) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (b) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing. If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in -order to the doing of that thing; or (c) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 17. Now, as pointed out in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh and others, (AIR 1991 SC 1532), the word instigate in the literary sense means to incite, set or urge on, stir up, goad, foment, stimulate, provoke, etc. Mr. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General contends that in this case presumption as to the abetment of the suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be legitimately drawn. Section 113-A reads as under:— "113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.— When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she 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, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860)". 18. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860)". 18. The bare reading of this provision shows that if a wife commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative then alone it would be permissible to the Court to presume that such suicide was abetted by her husband or such relative of her husband. Thus, in order to draw presumption, it is necessary for the prosecution to show that Sumna Devi was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Code as discussed earlier. (Emphasis supplied) Prosecution has not been able to establish cruelty on the part of accused towards Sumna. In Padmabai v. State of M.P. (supra) deceased committed suicide by self immolation. Mother-in-law was accused of humiliating and harassing the deceased. In this context it was observed:— "It is of the essence of the crime order of abetment of suicide that the abettor should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide. Instigation, incitement, provocation, encouragement, insinuation, solicitation which words connote different meanings, are no doubt, some of the acts, which may constitute as abetment for commission of suicide. But all such acts or any of them have to be positive and potent in the nature, of such a degree, that the direct result of such acts may be none other, but the commission of suicide.” "Stray domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law, to her daughter-in-law in the Indian Society, crude and un-cultured behaviour by the in-laws or the husband towards his wife being mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families, will not go to form and constitute abetment unless these acts of conduct singally or cumulatively, are found to be of such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide or may facilitate in a singular and prime manner, the commission of the same." 19. This Court in Gurmukh Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1997(1) Sim. This Court in Gurmukh Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1997(1) Sim. LC 61, followed the ratio in Padmabai v. State of M.P. (supra) to hold that stray domestic quarrels, crude and uncultured behaviour towards daughter-in-law, in the context of Indian Society, will not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Code. 20. The prosecution, thus, has not been able to establish any case against the accused. The acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted with. 21. Before parting, we may notice that during the course of investigation it was suspected that Sumna Devi might have been killed by accused as claimed by Kali Dass (PW-2). This is specifically ruled out by Dr. J.R. Gaur, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1 in his report (Ex. PK). Dr. Gaur in response to the queries of the police opined as under:— "From the analysis of the foregoing observations, the observations contained in the post-mortem report and the photographs and the copy of the FIR, the case appears to be of suicidal burning." 22. No other point is raised before us. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.