JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 31.10.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby he sentenced the accused/appellants Sat Pal, Baljit Kaur and Charanjit to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, or in its default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Shortly put the facts of the prosecution case, are that Jagdev Singh son of Krishan Chand resident of Village Bahadurpur, made a complaint containing the allegations that they are four brothers and they had one sister, namely, Jaspal Kaur (deceased), who was married to Charanjit, accused about 7 years back. Satpal accused is the father and Baljit Kaur accused is the mother of Charanjit accused. The marriage of Jaspal Kaur was solemnized with Charanjit accused on 21.11.1983. Gurdial Singh acted as a go-between in arranging this marriage. The parents of Jaspal Kaur gave dowry according to their capacity in the marriage. The accused raised the demand of more dowry. They used to treat her with cruelty. Her father was unable to meet their demand. The accused turned her out from their house after giving beatings to her. She went to her parental house. The accused Sat Pal, accompanied by Gurdial Singh mediator, approached Krishan Chand and gave assurance that maltreatment will not be meted out to her. It is on that assurance that he sent his daughter with them. Again she was given beatings and expelled from her matrimonial home by the accused. She was again sent to her father’s house. Satpal, accused in the company of Gurdial Singh, again came to Krishan Chand and on being given guarantee by them in the presence of Sarpanch Chand Singh, Tara Singh, she was again sent to her in laws house. After about 15/20 days, Jagdev Singh went to Jaspal Kaur’s house to inquire about her health where he was told by her that she has been administered poison by the accused. Dr. Satish Bansal of Sangrur was called in the house of accused. After about 15/20 days, Jagdev Singh went to Jaspal Kaur’s house to inquire about her health where he was told by her that she has been administered poison by the accused. Dr. Satish Bansal of Sangrur was called in the house of accused. After checking her by this doctor, it was found that she was suffering from dysentery and vomiting, and he gave one ampicillin injection and dextrose glucose and after some time when again he was called) the condition of Jaspal Kaur was not improving and the said, Doctor advised to take her to the hospital. On receipt of this information, Krishan Chand, along with other respectables, reached the house of the accused and found Jaspal Kaur lying dead. The matter was reported to the Police. Dr. S.R. Goel conducted the post-mortem on her dead body on 15.9.1991. On receipt of Chemical Examiner’s Report, this Doctor gave the opinion that the cause of death was due to aluminium phosphide. Jagdev Singh expressed doubt that his sister has been given some poisonous substance by her husband Charanjit, father-in-law Sat Pal and mother-in-law Baljit Kaur. 3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the Court of the Committing Court. On commitment, the accused were charged under Section 306 of I.P.C to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its allegations, prosecution has examined Jagdev Singh-complainant, PW-l, his father Krishan Chand, PW­ 2, Gurdia1 Singh, PW-3, Inspector Joginder Pal, PW-4, Dr. S.R.Goel, PW-5, Dharminder Singh Draftsman, PW -6, SI Kewal Krishan, PW -7, Dr. Satish Bansal, PW-8, HC Bhim Sen, PW-9 and closed its evidence by tendering the affidavits, Exh. PL of Constable Mohinder Singh and Exh.PM of Constable Surjit Singh. 5. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, Charanjit accused, husband of the deceased stated as under: “My marriage had taken place on 21.11.1983 at village Bahadurpur. After that two sons were born out of our wed lock. One son was born on 3.8.1985 at village Bahadurpur and other son was born on 12.5.1990. I and my parents did not demand any dowry or gifts after our marriage or at the time of marriage. I and my parents never gave her any beating nor maltreated her. She never was turned out from our house. We were having cordial relations with each other. I and my parents did not demand any dowry or gifts after our marriage or at the time of marriage. I and my parents never gave her any beating nor maltreated her. She never was turned out from our house. We were having cordial relations with each other. Jaspal Kaur had pain in her stomach and my brother named Pali, had called our family Doctor PW Satish Bansal. At that time Pali and my younger sister were present at the house and they looked after my wife Jaspal Kaur. She told PW Satish Bansal that she had pain in her stomach and she had taken Hajmola. The Doctor had also administered Glucose and left for his clinic and that after that she felt shivering and her B.P. became low. Glucose had reactioned and again Dr. Satish was called upon and after examining her, he referred her to Civil Hospital and she died her natural death. On the alleged date of occurrence, I and my father and mother were not present in the house and I was present on my duty.” 6. His co-accused have also adopted the same plea. After having examined, Prithipal Singh,DW-1, Amar Nath,DW-2, Daljit Kaur, DW-3, Hans Raj Inspector Food and Supplies, Sunam, DW -4, Kashmira Singh HC, DW-5, Dr. Atul Kumar Singla, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, Patiala, DW -6, Jaspal Kumar DW -7, they closed their defence evidence after tendering Exh. PX, the birth certificate. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a prolix length. 8. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate, counsel for the accused-appellants, has strenuously urged that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the deceased was mentally tortured or humiliated or compelled by the accused-appellants to commit suicide. He further pressed into service that only the relation witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and their evidence does not find corroboration from any independent source and to add further to it no injury was found on the dead body of the deceased by Dr.S.R. Goel, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He further canvassed at the Bar that the marriage took place on 21.11.1983 whereas the death of Jaspal Kaur occurred on 14.9.1991 which is obviously beyond 7 years and the FIR was registered on 11.2.1992 i.e. after about 5 months and there is no dying declaration by the deceased. He further canvassed at the Bar that the marriage took place on 21.11.1983 whereas the death of Jaspal Kaur occurred on 14.9.1991 which is obviously beyond 7 years and the FIR was registered on 11.2.1992 i.e. after about 5 months and there is no dying declaration by the deceased. He further puts that the statement of the prosecution witnesses are replete with material discrepancies, as according to Jagdev Singh, complainant-PW-l, vomiting material was lying near the cot of the deceased whereas Inspector Joginder Pal, PW-4, who recorded DDR No. 16 dated 14.9.1991, has testified that he did not observe any vomiting material at the spot and these circumstances cumulatively go to show that the accused have been falsely roped in this case, and sequelly, this appeal may be accepted. 9. To overcome these submissions, Mr. A.S. Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has maintained that on evaluating the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the deceased has been subjected to cruelty persistently. He further urged that the accused had brought about the situation to such a boil that she was forced to commit suicide. 10. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 11. Primarily, the legal ground requires to be cleared. In re: Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3359] : 2007 (4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 750, the Apex Court has observed that Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act relates to offences under Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. whereas Section 113-B ibid relates to Section 304-B thereof. Further, in case, Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, 2004 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 58, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:­ “Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Even if these facts are established the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty, it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regarding to the meaning of the word, ‘cruelty’ in Section 498-A, IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.” 12­ To be determined here in this case is whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty? If so, of what nature it was? The FIR came to be registered after about 5 months. SI Kewal Krishan, PW-7 has stated that the case was registered under the orders of Shri R. S. Bhullar, the then DSP, Sangrur and that I identify his signatures on Exh. PK/1. On the front page of this document, the District Attorney has recorded his opinion in the terms that “there is mere doubt and no evidence that she (referring to Jaspal Kaur, deceased) had been administered poison. It is just possible’ that she might have taken some poisonous substance herself.” Jagdev Singh, PW-1, complainant is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that after about one year and four months back, I had come to see my sister at Sangrur at her house in Govindpura Basti but she was being administered glucose at that time at the house. I wanted to talk to my sister but she could not talk to me being unable to speak. She was unconscious. I went to my village to report to my father Krishan Chand. My father brought the matter to the knowledge of Panchayat. I wanted to talk to my sister but she could not talk to me being unable to speak. She was unconscious. I went to my village to report to my father Krishan Chand. My father brought the matter to the knowledge of Panchayat. Chand Singh, Jagar Singh, Tara Singh, Joginder Singh, my father himself came to the house of my sister at Sangrur and by that time she had expired. He has further stated that I was married and I was given a scooter and ornaments of gold in my marriage. The accused were compelling my sister to bring more dowry. At the fag end of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that my sister Jaspal Kaur died due to administering of poison by Charanjit accused, though in his cross examination, he has stated that Charanjit had not administered poison in my presence. The substance of his deposition is that when in his marriage a scooter and gold ornaments were given to him, it was thereafter that the accused started compelling his sister to bring more dowry. His father, Krishan Chand, PW-2 has also stated that after the marriage of my son, a demand of Scooter and gold ring was raised by the accused but I could not give these articles to my daughter and she was turned out of the house and she came to my house and lived with me. This is being alleged as cruelty. 13. Admittedly, the deceased gave birth to two sons, out of whom one was aged about 5 years and the other one was 1-1/4 years of age at the time of her death. Jagdev Singh and his father Krishan Chand have gone to the extent to deny that the marriage was solemnized on 21.11.1983, though initially it was their own case. This date has been categorically denied with an end in view to bring the occurrence within 7 years of marriage and to attract the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. It is deducible from the evidence on record that the occurrence took place beyond 7 years of marriage. Jagdev Singh, PW has deposed that I was married on 9.10.1992 and Jaspal Kaur was married about 7 years back prior to my marriage. He has also stated that she gave birth to male children and they are now 6 years and 3 years old respectively. Jagdev Singh, PW has deposed that I was married on 9.10.1992 and Jaspal Kaur was married about 7 years back prior to my marriage. He has also stated that she gave birth to male children and they are now 6 years and 3 years old respectively. In his cross-examination, he has stated that I have stated to the Police that in my marriage I was given a ring and a Scooter. When he was confronted with his statement, Exh.PA, it was not found so recorded therein. It is inferable from this evidence that the story regarding demand of Scooter and gold ring has been coined. This witness has also stated that now both the sons of his sister are residing with the accused. His father, Krishan Chand, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that after about 15-20 days my son Jagdev Singh went to my daughter’s house to inquire about her welfare. There my daughter told him that she had been administered some poison and he came to infom us and when we went there, she was dead, whereas Jagdev Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has testified that I wanted to talk to my sister but she could not talk to me being unable to speak and that she was unconscious. Obviously, the versions given out by both these PWs run counter to each other. Taking the version of Jagdev Singh, PW, if his sister Jaspal Kaur, being unconscious, was unable to speak then how the version of Krishan Chand that his daughter had told him (Jagdev Singh) that she had been administered some poison, ‘can be believed. Either of the two is telling a lie. As the contents of Exh. PA (DDR) proceed “today (referring to 14.9.1991) as usual I (Jagdev Singh) went to meet my sister Jaspal Kaur alias Guddi at about 4.00 P.M. in her house and found that glucose was being administered to her and I inquired from her as to what was the problem and she made all endeavour to speak, but I sensed that she wanted to say that they have given her something and soon thereafter I came to Bahadurpur.” This is again a guess work of Jagdev Singh that she wanted to say that they have made her to eat some thing. Again, there is no indication that some poisonous substance had been administered to her. Thus, Exh. Again, there is no indication that some poisonous substance had been administered to her. Thus, Exh. PA is also not in consonance with the oral testimony of Jagdev Singh PW. This witness as well as his father are absolutely silent about the incidence, if any, occurred in the house of the deceased before her death. The tenor of his father’s statement is that on 2-3 occasions, the deceased was given beatings by the accused and expelled her from the house and all the times she was sent back on the assurances given by the accused but Jagdev Singh PW is silent about these facts. Exh. P A which is the first version is also silent about such facts. Had the deceased been given beatings by the accused on any occasion or she had been turned out of her matrimonial home, these facts might have been to the pointed, knowledge of Jagdev Singh PW, being her real brother and he might have got incorporated the same in Exh. PA. To me it appears that the alleged incidences of giving beatings by the accused to the deceased and expelling her from matrimonial home or raising of the demand of Scooter or gold ring by the accused after more than 7 years of her marriage, is an afterthought. It is unworthy of credence that on being given a Scooter and gold ring to Jagdev Singh, PW in his marriage, the accused would have started clamoring for similar articles after the lapse of sufficient period of marriage of the deceased. As emanates from evidence, both the sons of the deceased are being brought up by their father Charanjit accused. So, in this indicia, it is impossible to believe that the accused would have planned to take the life of the deceased who had been blessed with two sons. If the accused had been persistent in their alleged demand, they would have not ever persuaded father of the deceased to send her to their house until their demand was met. 14. As alleged by Krishan Chand, PW-2, he sent his daughter with the accused on being given surety of good conduct in the presence of Sarpanch Chand Singh and his neighbour Tara Singh. Firstly, as noticed supra, these facts do not figure in Exh. PA. Secondly, the prosecution did not have the courage to examine aforesaid Chand Singh and Tara Singh. As alleged by Krishan Chand, PW-2, he sent his daughter with the accused on being given surety of good conduct in the presence of Sarpanch Chand Singh and his neighbour Tara Singh. Firstly, as noticed supra, these facts do not figure in Exh. PA. Secondly, the prosecution did not have the courage to examine aforesaid Chand Singh and Tara Singh. There might be apprehension that if they are examined, they will shed light on the reality which will demolish the prosecution case. 15. Jagdev Singh PW, in his cross-examination, has deposed that I have not stated in DDR No.16 (Copy, Exh. PA) that Charanjit (accused), Sat Pal (accused) and Baljit Kaur (accused) were present at their residence. If the deceased had spoken to the complainant Jagdev Singh that the accused have administered some thing to her, in that eventuality, Jagdev Singh instead of going to his father, would have removed her immediately to the hospital for getting her stomach washed. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that no Doctor was present in the house at that time; that the bottle containing glucose was lying on the cot of her left side and. he remained there for 15 minutes whereas Dr. Satish Bansal, PW-8 has deposed that on 14.9.1991, the son of Sat Pal came to him and called him to his house; that I went to their house and saw that Jaspal Kaur was suffering from dysentery and vomiting; that thereupon I gave her one ampicillin injection and dextrose glucose; after some time son of Sat Pal again came to me and told me that her condition was not improving and again I visited their house and I found that there may be some reaction and I advised them to take her to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when I examined Jaspal Kaur, she was speaking at that time and she told me that she had pain in her stomach. This piece of evidence lets the cat out of bag. If she had been administered some poisonous substance by the accused, she being able to speak, might have disclosed such facts to this Doctor. This piece of evidence nulIifies the testimony of Jagdev Singh PW. This Doctor further deposed in candid terms in his cross-examination that she told that she had taken some type of medicine for relief like Hajmola and other tablet for digestive system. This piece of evidence nulIifies the testimony of Jagdev Singh PW. This Doctor further deposed in candid terms in his cross-examination that she told that she had taken some type of medicine for relief like Hajmola and other tablet for digestive system. This evidence leads to the conclusion that the deceased had mistaken aluminium phosphide tablets treating it to be the tablet of Hajmola as she was suffering from dysentery and vomiting. This Doctor has also stated that sister of Charanjit accused and Palli brothers were there to look after Jaspal Kaur. It implies that she was being looked after by members of the family. If the accused had given poisonous substance to the deceased, they would have not made efforts to save her by calling in the doctor and by leaving the members of the family to take care of her. 16. SI Kewal Krishan, PW-7 has deposed that proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were conducted by SI Joginder Pal. He has denied having recorded the statements of Prithipal, Amar Nath and Inder Singh. He has deposed that he recorded the statement of Nand Singh under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. In his next breath, he has regretted his inability to identify the writings on Exhs. DA, DB and DC. He has stated that the last three lines in the statement of Krishan Chand, PW were added by him later on but on the same day the same were omitted. He further admitted that in the statement of Jagar Singh, the word, ‘Krishan’ is over-written. 17. Dr.Atul Kumar Singla, DW-6, in his report, Exh. DW6/A, has opined that the questioned writing mark 01 to 03 on Exh. DA, DB and DC have been written by the same person whose standard writings are present on the proceedings, Exh. DW5/1 in the summoned file. It is inferable from this opinion evidence that SI Kewal Krishan, PW-7 deliberately denied to identify the writings on Exhs. DA, DB and DC. Obviously, it appears that Kewal Krishan, PW-7 had tried to help the complainant party by adding last three lines in the statement of Krishan Chand, father of the deceased, as also by over-writing the word, ‘Krishan’ in the statement of Jagar Singh. 18. DA, DB and DC. Obviously, it appears that Kewal Krishan, PW-7 had tried to help the complainant party by adding last three lines in the statement of Krishan Chand, father of the deceased, as also by over-writing the word, ‘Krishan’ in the statement of Jagar Singh. 18. Jagdev Singh, PW has deposed in his cross-examination that I cannot tell the kind, quantity and packing of poison administered to her nor I noticed any container, label, packing of poison by the side of Jaspal Kaur. He has further stated that I had noticed vomiting there towards her left on the floor which was cemented one and that vomiting was lying in an area of a foot, whereas Inspector Joginder Pal, PW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that I did not observe any vomiting material at the spot and that had it been there, I would have taken the same into possession. Thus, obviously Jagdev Singh PW has made an endeavour to introduce the presence of vomiting material by the side of the cot of his sister. He has deposed that there were no security proceedings between the accused on one side and ours on the other side, whereas according to Daljit Kaur Ahluwalia, DW-3, of office of SDM, the complaint against Charanjit and Sat Pal was decided on 31.3.1992 vide which the S.D.M. discharged the respondents and that the copy of the complaint is Exh. D2. Kashmira Singh, HC-PW5 has also deposed that I had proceeded the parties under Section 107/151 of CriminaI Procedure Code and that complaint under Section 107/151 of .Criminal Procedure Code, Exh. DW5/A is in my hand. This documentary evidence goes to show that after this occurrence, the complainant party also lodged the proceedings against the accused under the aforesaid Section in which they were discharged. The above documentary evidence negates above referred portion of Jagdev Singh’s statement. 19. Krishan Chand PW-2, as surfaces in his cross-examination, has stated that I did not report to the Police regarding maltreatment to my daughter or to the Village Panchayat in writing and that only oral report was made to Panchayat. Towards the end of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Panchayat consisted of Chand Singh, Tara Singh, Gurdial Singh and other villagers. As noted before, Chand Singh and Tara Singh have been given up as won over by the accused. Towards the end of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Panchayat consisted of Chand Singh, Tara Singh, Gurdial Singh and other villagers. As noted before, Chand Singh and Tara Singh have been given up as won over by the accused. He has also deposed that whenever my daughter was turned out from the house of the accused and she came to my house, we had noticed/observed the injuries. If it was so, Krishan Chand being her father, might have left no stone unturned in reporting the matter to the Police. There being no cogent evidence in this behalf, at best, this evidence can be described to be a made up affair. 20. Gurdial Singh, PW-3, who acted .as a mediator in the marriage of the deceased with Charanjit accused, has stated that for 3 years after the marriage, they (referring to the deceased as well as her husband Charanjit) lived happily and thereafter the accused started demanding more dowry. It means that the accused were fully satisfied with the dowry which was given in the marriage of the deceased. This further gives rise to the presumption that the demand of Scooter as well as gold ring is a coined version. 21. Dr. S.R. Goel, PW-5, who, conducted post-mortem on the dead body, has stated that there was no mark of injury any where on the body. If the accused had given beatings to the deceased, some injury might have been found on the body of the deceased. The record is quite barren to show that any incidence occurred soon before death or within the reasonable period preceding the occurrence. In other words, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased had been assaulted soon before the occurrence or a few days prior thereto. Firstly, the alleged cruelty has not been established. Secondly, if the same is assumed to be there, it was not of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased Jaspal Kaur to commit suicide. 22. To sum up, the case was registered after 5 months. Secondly, there is nothing on the record to show that any incidence occurred in the house soon before the death or a few days prior thereto. Thirdly, the deceased had two sons who are admittedly living with accused. 22. To sum up, the case was registered after 5 months. Secondly, there is nothing on the record to show that any incidence occurred in the house soon before the death or a few days prior thereto. Thirdly, the deceased had two sons who are admittedly living with accused. Fourthly, the prosecution evidence falls short of demonstrating cruelty of such a nature as was likely to drive Jaspal Kaur to commit suicide. Fifthly, if the deceased was subjected to cruelty of such a nature as would have goaded her commit suicide, her dying declaration could have been got recorded, as according to Dr. Satish Bansal, PW-8, when he examined her, she was speaking at that time and she had told him that she has pain in her stomach. Sixthly, the marriage between the deceased and Charanjit accused was solemnized more than 7 years before this occurrence and consequently the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable. Seventhly, according to Gurdial Singh, PW-3, who acted as a go-between in the marriage, for 3 years after the marriage, they (referring to the deceased and the accused) lived happily. These circumstances, when put together, go a long way in proving that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 23. In the ultimate analysis, it is found that the learned trial Court was not justified in recording conviction/sentence against the accused-appellants, as the story preffered by the prosecution is too far fetched to believe. Sequelly, this appeal succeeds and is accepted setting aside the impugned judgment. Resultantly, all the accused-appellants are hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of I.P.C. If the accused are in custody, they be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of; ----------------