JUDGMENT : A.K. Shrivastava, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 56/2001, whereby they have been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI of five years and fine of Rs. 2,500 each, in default of payment of fine, further RI of three months. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 2.9.2000 at 1 p.m. in the afternoon Laxminarayan Kushwah came to Police Sta­tion Madhoganj and informed that in his house the accused persons are tenants and the wife of accused Bala Rao, namely, Kiran (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') has put her life to an end by hanging her­self on the ceiling fan. This he saw by peep­ing from the window. The said report was registered as Marg Intimation Report un­der Section 174, Cr.P.C. The investigating agency came to the spot, opened the door and recovered the dead body of the deceased which was holding a note-book. After pre­paring necessary Panchnama, dead body was sent for post-mortem. The investigat­ing agency prepared spot map and investi­gated the matter. 3. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the compe­tent Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial Court for its trial. 4. Learned trial Judge on the basis of averments made in the charge-sheet, framed charge punishable under Section 304B IPC and in the alternative charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, were framed against the appellants which they denied and requested for trial. 5. In order to prove the charges, prosecu­tion examined as many as 13 witnesses and placed Exs. PI to P27, the documents on record. The defence of accused/appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set-forth in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. However in sup­port of their defence they did not examine any witness. 6. Learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the accused/appellants did not commit the offence punishable under Section 304B and the prosecution has also not proved the of­fence under Section 498A IPC and eventu­ally acquitted them from these charges. 6. Learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the accused/appellants did not commit the offence punishable under Section 304B and the prosecution has also not proved the of­fence under Section 498A IPC and eventu­ally acquitted them from these charges. However, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused/appellants have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, as a result of which con­victed them and passed the sentence which I have mentioned here-in-above. 7. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. By inviting my attention to the state­ment of prosecution witnesses, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that PW1 Lata Jadhav, who is the mother of the deceased though had spoken against the appellants, but, if her evidence is scru­tinized minutely it would reveal that after the death of the father of the deceased, this lady remarried and thereafter she also gave birth to a child soon before the incident. By inviting my attention to the evidence of PW2 Manoj alias Bobby and PW11 Ajay Tegre, who are Mama (maternal uncles) of the de­ceased as well as the statement of PW5 Smt. Babita, who is Mami (maternal aunt), it has been argued that after the death of the fa­ther of the deceased, her mother (PW1 Lata Jadhav) remarried to one Narendra Verma. It has been further argued that the deceased was brought up by abovesaid maternal uncles and indeed they solemnized her mar­riage. By inviting my attention to the testi­mony of PW6 Kamal Singh, who is landlord of the appellants as well as the evidence of PW7 Laxminarayan, it has been argued that behaviour of the appellants towards the deceased was cordial and, therefore, learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appel­lants since no offence under Section 306 IPC has been found to be proved. 9. 9. The further contention of learned coun­sel for the appellants is that though the de­ceased was married, but she was not hav­ing any issue and because her mother sol­emnized second marriage after the death of her father, therefore, she (deceased) lost her mental equilibrium and it can not be ruled out that for these two reasons she commit­ted suicide and if that is the position, according, to the learned counsel, neither any ingredient of Section 113A of the Evidence Act nor any ingredient of Section 306 IPC is made out and, therefore, by allowing this appeal the impugned judgment be set aside and appellants be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, Shri Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. Appellants are husband and mother-in-law, respectively of the deceased. On go­ing through the testimony of mother of the deceased PW1 Lata Jadhav though she has stated that the appellants after marriage were making demand of Rs. 5,000 and scooter and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to cru­elty as hot iron plate (Tawa) was touched to her hand as a result of which she received burn injuries. In para 6 of her testimony she has admitted that two years after the death of her husband, she remarried to one Narendra Verma. Further she has admit­ted in para 7 that 2-3 days earlier to the date of incident she (Lata Jadhav) gave birth to a female child in the hospital from her second husband Narendra Verma and there­after, on the 5th day the deceased died. This witness was cross-examined at length on the point of cruelsome behaviour of the appel­lants in connection with demand of dowry and by confronting her case-diary statement (Ex. D1) the suggestions were put to her that in the police case diary statement she did not narrate all these facts. Indeed, the learned trial Court in para 23 of its judg­ment categorically held that no demand of dowry was made by the appellants nor their behaviour was cruelsome towards the de­ceased. The trial Court further came to hold in para 25 of its judgment that factum of causing burn injury to the deceased by ap­pellant Sharda Bai is also not found to be proved. The trial Court further came to hold in para 25 of its judgment that factum of causing burn injury to the deceased by ap­pellant Sharda Bai is also not found to be proved. The statement of PW3 Sonia Jadhav, the sister of the deceased, was also taken into consideration by the trial Court and gave categorical finding that neither the offence under Section 304B IPC nor the of­fence under Section 498A IPC has been found to be proven. 13. Though the suggestion made to PW1 Lata Jadhav in her cross-examination that on account of her second marriage, the de­ceased committed suicide, has been denied by her, but on going through the testimony of PW3 Sonia Jadhav, who is real sister of the deceased and younger daughter of Lata Jadhav, it is gathered that since the de­ceased did not give birth to any child even after 4 years of her marriage as such she lost her mental equilibrium and always re­mains in tension. In this regard para 6 of the testimony of this witness may be seen. Thus, on close scrutiny of the evidence of PW3 it can be inferred that since deceased did not give birth to any child even after 4 years of her marriage she was always liv­ing in tension and lost her mental equilib­rium. 14. On going through the testimony of PW5 Babita, who is the maternal aunt (Mami) of the deceased, it is gathered that deceased and this witness were colleagues in the school and were good friends. This witness got married three years earlier to the marriage of the deceased. She has spe­cifically stated that the behaviour of the appellants was cordial with the deceased and the deceased never complained against them. Though this witness was declared hostile, but since it is borne out from her testimony that deceased was known to her earlier to the marriage and indeed they were friends, therefore, merely this witness was declared hostile, her evidence which is in favour of the accused persons can not be sweeped off. PW2 Manoj alias Bobby and PW11 Ajay Tegre are the maternal uncles of the deceased and both of them in singu­lar voice have stated that after the death of the father of the deceased who was their brother-in-law, the deceased was brought up by them and indeed, they solemnized the marriage of the deceased. PW2 Manoj alias Bobby and PW11 Ajay Tegre are the maternal uncles of the deceased and both of them in singu­lar voice have stated that after the death of the father of the deceased who was their brother-in-law, the deceased was brought up by them and indeed, they solemnized the marriage of the deceased. According to PW2 Manoj alias Bobby the behaviour of the ap­pellants towards the deceased was cordial and no dowry demand was ever made by them. In para 2 of his testimony, PW2 has specifically stated that deceased lost her mental equilibrium because his sister (Lata Jadhav) solemnized second marriage. This witness was also declared hostile, but since the deceased was brought up by this wit­ness and indeed he solemnized her mar­riage, his evidence is having great weightage. The other maternal uncle PW11 Ajay Tegre has also stated that deceased was not in favour of the second marriage of her mother Lalta Jadhav and despite it, as his sister solemnized a second marriage, the deceased did not like the act of second mar­riage solemnized by her mother, perhaps for this reason she committed suicide. This wit­ness was also declared hostile, but since he is thickly related to the deceased as well as to her mother, the testimony of this witness is also having great weightage. 15. Apart from the evidence of above-said witnesses, PW7 Premnarayan has also not stated that appellants were cruelsome to­wards the deceased. PW6 Komal Singh is the landlord of the appellants and he has specifically stated that behaviour of the ap­pellants was cordial towards the deceased. This witness was also declared hostile. 16. After appreciating and marshalling the evidence of abovesaid prosecution witnesses it is gathered that deceased lost her mental equilibrium for two reasons; firstly despite 4 years of her marriage she did not give birth to any child and secondly she was totally against the second marriage of her mother. Giving birth to a child by her mother 3-4 days earlier to the incident ap­pears to be one more circumstance to com­mit suicide. According to PW 3 Sonia Jadhav deceased always living in tension and, therefore, this can be inferred that these circumstances made a cause to the deceased to commit suicide. 17. Much reliance has been placed by Shri Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor on the di­ary of the deceased (Ex. According to PW 3 Sonia Jadhav deceased always living in tension and, therefore, this can be inferred that these circumstances made a cause to the deceased to commit suicide. 17. Much reliance has been placed by Shri Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor on the di­ary of the deceased (Ex. P4) and has argued that the said diary was found in the hand of the deceased. Learned trial Court has also put emphasis on certain dates of this diary. However, on going through the said diary I find that appellant Bala Rao was having cordial relation with the deceased and she also loved him. True the deceased has nar­rated that sometime Bala Rao happened to consume liquor which she did not like. But, this alone would not be sufficient in order to hold that any ingredient of Section 113A of the Evidence Act or Section 306 IPC is made out. 18. Even for the sake of arguments if the evidence of maternal uncles, aunt and other witnesses who have turned hostile is ig­nored, the evidence of PW3 Sonia Jadhav, who is the real sister of the deceased indi­cates that the deceased lost her mental equi­librium since she did not give birth to any child even after four years of her marriage (See: Para 6 of the testimony of PW3 Sonia Jadhav) and, therefore, it appears that on account of abovesaid circumstances, de­ceased committed suicide. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257 has held that presumption under Section 113A of the Evi­dence Act, when suicide has been commit­ted by married woman, cannot be drawn merely on the basis that the woman com­mitted suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she has been subjected to cruelty by the husband According to the Apex Court automatically this will not give rise to the presumption that suicide had been abetted by the husband. The Supreme Court further came to hold that the Court is required to look into all other circum­stances of the case. I have hereinabove con­sidered the other circumstances which I have dealt on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appellant under Sec­tion 306 IPC. 20. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. I have hereinabove con­sidered the other circumstances which I have dealt on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appellant under Sec­tion 306 IPC. 20. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Judge convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside and they are hereby acquitted. They are on bail, their bail-bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if de­posited, be refunded to them. Appeal allowed.