JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. This appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 28-8-1990 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehora, Camp Katni, in S.T. No. 286/88 whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years and 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and 200/-respectively and in default to further undergo R.I. for 3 months and one month respectively. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. Deceased Urmila Bai was the wife of appellant Satyabhan. The marriage was performed about ten years prior to the date of incident (28-7-1988) but Gauna ceremony was performed three years prior to the date of incident. Achchhe Lal (PW 4) and Tulsa Bai (PW 2) are respectively father and mother of the deceased while Gulab Bai (PW 3) is her sister-in-law (Bhabhi). It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant being the husband of the deceased subjected her to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet his unlawful demand for a wrist watch and a television. Whenever Urmila used to go to her parental home, she used to narrate to her mother and sister-in-law about this ill-treatment. It is further alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 28-7-1988 the deceased was beaten by the appellant for not cooking the meals. After the incident of beating, the appellant and other members of the family went to their field for agricultural operations leaving behind the deceased alone in the house. In the afternoon when Laichi Bai (PW 1) sister-in-law of appellant returned back to the home she found that Urmila Bai was lying on the cot without speaking a word. Laichi Bai (PW 1) felt that the deceased is sick, therefore, she went to the field to inform the members of her family regarding the same. Thereafter, all the members of the family returned back to the home and thereafter they along with Urmila left for Katni hospital for her treatment but on way she expired. However, her dead body was taken to the hospital. The hospital authorities informed the Station Officer of P.S. Katni vide Ex.P-9 that Urmila Bai died due to poisoning. A Marg was registered as per Ex.P-10. The deadbody was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. However, her dead body was taken to the hospital. The hospital authorities informed the Station Officer of P.S. Katni vide Ex.P-9 that Urmila Bai died due to poisoning. A Marg was registered as per Ex.P-10. The deadbody was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. R.H. Asrani (PW 7) conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Urmila Bai and found a lenier contusion 8" x 1" over back, left side. On dissection a blood clot was found beneath the skin. The injury was reported to be anti mortem in nature. The doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, therefore, preserved the viscera of the deceased and the same was sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. As the alleged offence was committed within the jurisdiction of P.S. Badwara, the case diary along with concerned papers was transferred to that police station for further investigation. On preliminary enquiry, Arvind Uike, (PW.9), Station Officer of P.S. Badwara, found that Urmila Bai committed suicide and the same was abetted by the appellant who harassed her with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand of dowry, therefore, a crime under sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, dated 28-11-1988 revealed that viscera of the deceased contained aluminium phosphide (sulphas). After investigation a challan for the offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code was filed in the Court of Additional C.J.M., Kami. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. A charge for offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code was framed by the trial Court against the accused/appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. After concluding the trial, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty and as such convicted him for the offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above. I have heard Shri S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, and gone through the record of the case. 8 Shri Sinha led me through the record and contended that the learned trial Judge erred in holding the appellant guilty for offence u/s 304 and 498A Indian Penal Code. I have heard Shri S.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, and gone through the record of the case. 8 Shri Sinha led me through the record and contended that the learned trial Judge erred in holding the appellant guilty for offence u/s 304 and 498A Indian Penal Code. He submits that the conviction and sentence of appellant are bad, improper and illegal. His first submission is that presumption as to abetment of suicide as envisaged u/s 113A of the Evidence Act, is not available in this case as the incident did not occur within a period of seven years from the date of the marriage of Urmila Bai and that there is no evidence to show that the husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the suicide has been abetted by her husband- PW.2 Tulsai Bai who is the mother of the deceased has clearly stated that the incident had occurred 10 years after the marriage. Though she stated that Gouna ceremony was performed three years prior to the date of the incident but for the purpose of presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act, the date of marriage is the material date and not the date of Gouna. Where the death did not occur within a period of 7 years from the date of the marriage, the presumption regarding abetment of suicide cannot be raised invoking the provisions of section 113A of the Evidence Act. Therefore, I shall proceed to examine the evidence available on record independent of presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act as to abetment of suicide by married women. PW.2 Tulsai Bai has stated that whenever deceased Urmila Bai used to visit her parental home, she used to complain that her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with a demand of dowry and used to ask for a watch, TV and a bicycle. Gulab Bai (PW.3) has also stated that when Urmila Bai visited them in the month of Chait she informed them that- her husband beats her. Gulab Bai (PW.3) has also stated that when Urmila Bai visited them in the month of Chait she informed them that- her husband beats her. P.W.4 Achchhelal, the father of the deceased has also stated that his wife (i.e. the mother of the deceased) informed him regarding the complaint by the deceased against her husband about cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.3 Gulab Bai has admitted that her statement u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code was not recorded. She spoke about the alleged incident of cruelty and harassment by the accused on deceased for the first time in the Court during her examination. She did not narrate this fact to any person in the village. Therefore, her evidence on this point is not worthy of reliance. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that P.W.4 Achchhelal cannot be believed on the point of harassment because the fact of harassing Urmila Bai for and in connection with demand of dowry has not been stated in his statement u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Achchhelal has admitted that his wife told him about the harassment or cruelty after recording his statement before the police u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, his evidence should also be rejected. The contentions cannot be accepted. Normally a daughter complains to her mother about the harassment meted out to her in her marital home and the mother usually advises the daughter to tolerate minor wear and tear of the family life. Deposition of the mother cannot be discarded simply on a score of absence of corroboration. A woman of the Indian folk is not expected to make her fortunes public. Normally she tells such things to her mother only. The absence of complaint to other family members cannot raise doubt about the prosecution case. Complaint to father in such circumstances is neither expected nor necessary. It is true that the mother Tulsai Bai and sister-in-law Gulab Bai did not tell anybody regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased but usually the mother and other near relatives are not expected to make such things public. Complaint to father in such circumstances is neither expected nor necessary. It is true that the mother Tulsai Bai and sister-in-law Gulab Bai did not tell anybody regarding the harassment meted out to the deceased but usually the mother and other near relatives are not expected to make such things public. Therefore, the evidence of mother PW.4 Tulsai Bai cannot be discarded only on the ground that Tulsai Bai did not inform her husband regarding the harassment and cruelty prior to recording of his statement before the police u/s 161 of the Code. I do not find any cogent reason to disbelive the evidence of Tulsai Bai on this count. Tulsai Bai has also stated that she complained to the accused regarding the harassment and cruelty meted out to Urmila Bai and the accused assured her that he will not harass Urmila in future, therefore, there was no reason for her to inform her husband regarding the same. It was quite natural for her to believe the honesty of the words of her son-in-law. Thus, there is sufficient material to believe that Urmila Bai was subjected to curelty and harassment. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that no person of the locality has been produced to prove the harassment. Doubt about genuineness of the physical torture and harassment made by the husband cannot be raised only on the ground that the same is not corroborated by the independent evidence of neighbours. It is not expected that physical torture or the harassment of the wife by the husband should be made in such a way as to be noticed by the neighbours. Therefore, the evidence of Tulsai Bai, Gulab Bai and Achchhelal cannot be discarded only on the ground that no person of the locality has been produced to further corroborate the same. Now, we shall examine as to whether the cruelty was of such a nature as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In the foregoing paragraphs I have discussed in detail how the appellant has subjected Urmila Bai to cruelty and harassment. From the evidence of P.M. 7 Dr. R.H. Asrani it is established that a lenior contusion 8" x 1" over back of the deceased was found. This injury was anti-mortem. In the foregoing paragraphs I have discussed in detail how the appellant has subjected Urmila Bai to cruelty and harassment. From the evidence of P.M. 7 Dr. R.H. Asrani it is established that a lenior contusion 8" x 1" over back of the deceased was found. This injury was anti-mortem. It is true that there is no direct evidence to establish that it was the accused who caused this anti-mortem injury but the deceased was living with the accused and he was the best person to know how this injury was sustained by the deceased. The accused has not given any explanation regarding this injury. In the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused the only inference that would be drawn be that the injury was caused by him. The presence of injury which was inflicted soon before the suicide suggests that the conduct of the appellant did not remain only at the stage of threatening or raising demands from Urmila but she was assaulted also. In this connection, Urmila must have felt fed up of the treatment meted out to her at the hands of the appellant and consequently, she committed suicide. Thus, the appellant abetted the commission of suicide. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the accused/appellant treated the deceased Urmila with cruelty and harassment for bringing insufficient dowry and on the date of the incident itself the deceased was assaulted by the appellant as a result of which she took the extreme step of consuming sulphas. The learned sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the accused abetted Urmila bai to commit suicide. Where the married life was not happy and it led to dejection and on the date of commission of suicide itself the wife was beaten, the only conclusion should be that the husband abetted the wife to commit suicide. The deceased would not have acted in the manner unless she felt instigated to commit suicide. Therefore, the conviction of appellant on both the counts is proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is quite reasonable and does not require any interference by this Court. Offence against women are increasing, therefore, in such cases sentence must always be deterrent. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is quite reasonable and does not require any interference by this Court. Offence against women are increasing, therefore, in such cases sentence must always be deterrent. It must be an eye opener to the offender so that he may realise that he cannot get away merely by paying some amount as fine or by remaining in jail for sometime. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused is neither a criminal nor does he had any criminal antecedents is hardly a ground for leniency available while dealing with matrimonial cruelty and abetment of suicide. Therefore, no interference in the sentence is called for. In view of what has been discussed above I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are hereby confirmed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the C.J.M., Katni on 15-5-2003 to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Final Result : Dismissed