Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Rajendra Kumar has been convicted under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years respectively. He has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 306, IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 498-A, IPC. Rampyare and Rambai who are parents of Rajendra Kumar were also prosecuted for these offences but they have been acquitted and the State has filed the appeal with the leave of this Court challenging their acquittal. It must be stated at the outset that the incident relating to the present case took place on 25-6-1986 and Section 304-B, IPC has been brought in the statute book by Amendment Act No. 43 of 1986 with effect from 19-10-1986 and therefore, there could be no charge under Section 304-B, IPC in this case. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that deceased Shakun alias Munnibai was married to Rajendra Kumar in the year 1981 and the Gauna was performed in the year 1984. Accused Rampyare and Rambai are parents of Rajendra kumar. Shivnarain (P. W. 1) and Vimla (P. W. 4) are parents of the deceased. Devendra (P. W. 5) is her brother. Shakun alias Munnibai committed suicide on 25-6-1986 by hanging herself. The cause of death was asphyxia. Thus, her death took place within seven years of marriage. ( 3. ) THE prosecution case is that the accused persons were treating munnibai with cruelty because of the non-fulfilment of their demand for dowry. It is said that accused Rajendra Kumar was demanding a motorcycle and the other two accused persons were demanding an amount of Rs. 2500/-as dowry. The deceased was being subjected to physical torture. The dowry was being demanded repeatedly and that amounted to mental cruelty. For these reasons Shakun alias Munni committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging herself. ( 4. ) THE Trial Court has held that accused Rajendra Kumar was subjecting his wife to cruelty to meet his unlawful demand for motorcycle as a dowry and thus he abetted the commission of suicide by her. On these findings he has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. The Trial Court found that the charges against accused Rampyare and Rambai are not proved and therefore, they have been acquitted. ( 5. On these findings he has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. The Trial Court found that the charges against accused Rampyare and Rambai are not proved and therefore, they have been acquitted. ( 5. ) IN this appeal it has been argued that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Rajendra Kumar abetted the commission of suicide by his wife. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the conviction of appellant Rajendra Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC is well founded and the acquittal of his parents is not proper. ( 6. ) THE evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised by us. Shivnarain (P. W. 1), father of the deceased has deposed that accused Rajendra kumar had demanded motorcycle at the time of marriage. According to him he repeated this demandat the time of Gauna in the year 1984. He has further deposed that his daughter used to complain to him when she came to his house that he should give the motorcycle as promised by him so that her life is saved. She also complained that she was being subjected to harassment. She also disclosed to him that accused Rajendra Kumar is threatening to remarry if the motorcycle is not given as a dowry. In May, 1986 accused Rajendra Kumar came to his house and demanded an amount of Rs. 5000/-but he could not pay this amount. Rajendra Kumar did not take his wife with him and left her there and asked to send her to his house with someone else. In the middle of May, 1986 he took his daughter to the house of Purshottam in Village Pali and asked him that he should take her to the house of her husband. He took her there on 22nd and 23rd May, 1986. He went to the house of accused Rajendra Kumar on 16-6-1986 and at that time accused Rajendra demanded Rs. 5000/ -. He expressed his inability to pay this amount and then Rajendra Kumar uttered the words- "his wife does not listen to him and it appears that her end is quite near". The witness has further stated that he wanted to bring his daughter with him but her husband did not send her. 5000/ -. He expressed his inability to pay this amount and then Rajendra Kumar uttered the words- "his wife does not listen to him and it appears that her end is quite near". The witness has further stated that he wanted to bring his daughter with him but her husband did not send her. Then he got the message on 25-6-1986 that his daughter has died. In cross-examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by the Police under Section 161, Cr. PC. That has been marked as Ex. D- l. Certain portions of this statement have been confronted to this witness. There does not appear to be any material discrepancy. ( 7. ) VIMLA (P. W. 4) has deposed that her daughter disclosed to her that she was being harassed because the motorcycle has not been given to her husband as per promise made by her father at the time of her marriage. She also told her that she was being beaten by her husband. Devendra (P. W. 5) is brother of the deceased. He has deposed that he went to the house of his sister to bring her to his own house and at that time accused Rambai misbehaved with him and did not send his sister with him. Purshottam (P. W. 13) is closely related to Shivnarain (P. W. 1 ). But he has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. Parwati (P. W. 11) is a neighbour of the deceased. She has also turned hostile. Amasiyabai (P. W. 10) has stated in the examination-in-chief that she saw deceased Shakun alias Munnibai weeping in her house. After sometime she heard that she has died. She does not say in examination-in-chief that her husband had beaten her in her presence. She was declared hostile and then she was cross-examined with reference to her statement made to the police. Then she stated in Para 3 that it is correct that she had seen accused Rajendra Kumar beating his wife in the room on the same day. It appears that this answer was put in her mouth in cross-examination and she affirmed it. It is well settled that the testimony of the hostile witness is not completely effaced merely because he has been declared hostile. It appears that this answer was put in her mouth in cross-examination and she affirmed it. It is well settled that the testimony of the hostile witness is not completely effaced merely because he has been declared hostile. But the probative value of the evidence of such a witness is highly impaired because at one stage he does not support the prosecution and when leading questions are put to him he answers them in the affirmative. So is the case of Amasiyabai (P. W. 10) in the present case. The Trial Court could not place reliance on the testimony of this witness for arriving at the finding that the deceased was beaten by her husband on the date of the incident. It is not disputed that on medical examination of the body of the deceased no external injury was found to suggest that she was beaten before she proceeded to hang herself. ( 8. ) AFTER careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution we are of the opinion that the deceased was being harassed by her husband in connection with his demand for motorcycle and thus he subjected her to cruelty within the meaning given in Explanation to Section 498-A, IPC. Accused Rajendra Kumar has been rightly convicted under Section 498-A, ipc. ( 9. ) SO far as conviction under Section 306, IPC is concerned, it is not sustainable The prosecution could not lead any satisfactory evidence to establish that the deceased was assaulted by her husband either on the date of the incident or a few days before that date. There was no doubt demand of motorcycle by him and at the subsequent stage he started demanding an amount of Rs. 5000/- from the father of his wife and then made certain utterances suggesting that he was not happy with his wife. But there is no definite evidence that he subjected his wife to physical torture. It is also not proved that accused Rajendra Kumar was harassing his wife to such an extent which could lead her to take the step of bringing an end to her life. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act provides for the statutory presumption in such a case. But before the presumption is raised it has to be established that there is "cause and effect relationship between cruelty and the suicide". In Ramesh kumar Vs. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act provides for the statutory presumption in such a case. But before the presumption is raised it has to be established that there is "cause and effect relationship between cruelty and the suicide". In Ramesh kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , the Supreme Court has observed that "to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression- "the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. ( 10. ) IN view of the above legal position, the finding of the Trial Court that accused Rajendra Kumar abetted the commission of suicide by his wife is not correct. Therefore, conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC are to be set aside. As mentioned above, conviction under Section 304-B, IPC is legally untenable as this Section did not find place in the Indian Penal Code on the date of the commission of offence in the present case. ( 11. Therefore, conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC are to be set aside. As mentioned above, conviction under Section 304-B, IPC is legally untenable as this Section did not find place in the Indian Penal Code on the date of the commission of offence in the present case. ( 11. ) SO far as the appeal filed by the State against acquittal of rampyare and Rambai is concerned, the finding of the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Shivnarain (P. W. 1) has himself stated that accused rampyare had taken the amount of Rs. 2500/- from him for construction of temple. This could not be a case of demand of dowry. The prosecution allegations against accused Rampyare and Rambai are very vague and the evidence which has been adduced against them is inadequate to establish the charges framed against them. ( 12. ) IN the result the appeal of appellant Rajendra Kumar is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 306, IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of these charges. His conviction under Section 498-A, IPC and the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court for this offence are upheld. He has already served out the sentence. The State appeal filed against acquittal of respondents Rampyare and Rambai is dismissed. Cr. A. No. 561/90partly allowed. Cr. A. No. 143/91 dismissed.