J. R. VORA, J. A charge-sheet came to be filed against in all six accused for the offences punishable under Secs. 306, 498A, 201 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Those six accused are viz., (I) Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia; (2) Rakesh Ghusabhai Chorasia; (3) Bakuben W/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia; (4) Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai; (5) Sangitaben W/o. Vijaybhai,. and (6) Vijay Ghusabhai Chorasia. Thereafter, 7 accused-Kailash being juvenile was not charge-sheeted along with these accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar. The said criminal case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Jamnagar and was registered as Sessions Case No. 62 of 2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar vide his judgment and order dated 15th February, 2005 convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the above-said charges and acquitted above accused Nos. 5 and 6. Accused Nos. I and 2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years each and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo one month imprisonment; accused No.2-Rakesh Ghusabhai was sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo imprisonment of two years; accused No. 3-Bakuben was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo one month imprisonment; accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to undergo further imprisonment of one month. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 above also were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. As stated above, original accused Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted by the learned trial Judge of all the charges. 3. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 has been preferred by original accused Nos. As stated above, original accused Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted by the learned trial Judge of all the charges. 3. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 has been preferred by original accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 is preferred by the State under Sec. 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for enhancement of sentences awarded to each of the accused. S. Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 is also preferred by the State against original accused Nos. 5 and 6 under Sec. 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal in respect of accused Nos. 5 and 6 as stated above. 6. As per the brief facts of the case, victim-Biniben-deceased in the incident was wife of accused No.2-Rakesh Ghusabhai. Accused No. I-Ghusabhai is father-in-law; accused No. 3-Bakuben is mother-in-law of the deceased-Biniben; accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben is the accused against whom it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.2-Rakesh Gusabhai had illicit relation and that was the cause to execute cruelty upon the deceased and the status of Jasuben was, as kept of accused N.2. .Accused No. 6- Vijaybhai Ghusabhai Chorasia is elder brother of accused No.2 and accused No. 5-Sangitaben is wife of accused No. 6- Vijaybhai Ghusabhai Chorasia. 7. As per the prosecution case, stating in brief, before the incident which occurred at about 4 March, 2004 22-30 hours, about more than seven years deceased-Biniben had married to accused No.2-Rakesh according to caste custom. When she joined her in-laws house, all the five accused were staying together and accused No. 2 was doing miscellaneous work. Her husband i. e. accused No. 2 then started quarreling and was not doing thereafter any work and was in habit of taking liquor and was a gambler. According to prosecution case, when accused No.2 was bachelor, he had illicit relation with accused No.4, who had married to someone, but on account of accused No. 2 had obtained divorce. Accused No.4 freely was moving in society with accused No.2-husband of the deceased. Out of the wedlock, Biniben had two children. Accused Nos. I and 3 parents-in-law of Biniben were residing with accused Nos. Accused No.4 freely was moving in society with accused No.2-husband of the deceased. Out of the wedlock, Biniben had two children. Accused Nos. I and 3 parents-in-law of Biniben were residing with accused Nos. 2 and 4 and were executing cruelty upon deceased. In-laws of Biniben belong to a village situated in Uttar Pradesh; while her in-laws were residing in Jamnagar district in Gujarat. Once, when elder child of Biniben was three months of age, she was driven out by accused, and she was staying with her parents, but leaders of the caste and other relatives executed writing, and thereafter, she resumed her in-law house. Thus, the compromise had taken place, but thereafter also, accused No. 4 and accused No. 2 did not refrain from co-habitation and on account of that cruelty was executed upon Biniben. In one public fare at Tarnetar, accused No.4 openly threatened deceased that accused No.4 was going to stay with accused No. 2 and that deceased-Biniben would be driven out after giving her divorce. According to allegation, accused No. 3 was offering kerosene to the deceased for committing suicide. Even when deceased was doing some labour work and was earning for her kids, her in-laws robbed her of meagre amount of labour. Ultimately, on 14th March, 2004 accused No. I-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai declared before A.S.1. of Rajsitapur Outpost situated in Surendranagar district that on the terrace of their house, Biniben had consumed poison and had died. This was entered in Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station in diary at Entry No. 15 of 2004 at 13-30 hours. Rajsitapur was the native of accused and the incident occurred in Jamnagar District, and therefore, this entry was forwarded to Jamnagar where it was registered as Accidental Death Entry. Mr. R. P. Rana of Dhrangadhra recorded the statement of accused No. 1 in this respect. Ultimately, this A. D. was received by A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar, which was registered as A. D. No. 28 of 2004 and P.S.I., Mr. Balvantrav Jivaji Mohite was in-charge of the inquiry. In inquiry, none of the relative of the deceased could be found by the Police Officer because after the incident had happened at Jamnagar, the dead body of Biniben was brought to Rajsitapur and was cremated at Rajsitapur without informing the parents of the deceased who were residing at Uttar Pradesh at the relevant juncture. In inquiry, none of the relative of the deceased could be found by the Police Officer because after the incident had happened at Jamnagar, the dead body of Biniben was brought to Rajsitapur and was cremated at Rajsitapur without informing the parents of the deceased who were residing at Uttar Pradesh at the relevant juncture. Ultimately, on 17th March, 2004, Champaben-mother of the deceased having come to know about the death of her daughter, came to Jamnagar and offered her complaint in writing which is at Exh. 92. A crime came to be registered against these accused and Police Sub-Inspector, Mr. G. K. Yank was entrusted with the investigation along with inquiry of accidental death who then as stated above after investigation submitted a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.9 at Jamnagar framed charges against the accused on 16 August, 2004 stating that all the accused in abetment of each other taunting deceased and executing physical as well as mental cruelty and kept suspicion on character of Biniben committed offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code by which deceased-Biniben committed suicide, and therefore, all the accused had committed offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged that all the accused in abetment of each other disposed of dead body of Biniben hurriedly at Rajsitapur, and therefore, each of the accused was responsible for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. All the six accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and hence, they were tried by learned Sessions Judge. 10. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses as under : P.W. 1 Dr. Subhashchandra Shivshankar Bhatt Exh. 49 P.W.2 Hitendrasinh Batubha Exh. 54 P.W.3 Bipinbhai Valjibhai Exh. 55 P.W.4 Samuben Va]jibhai Exh. 56 P.W.5 Shankarlal Parkhiya Kutchhi Exh. 57 P.W.6 Kanchanben Sureshbhai Exh. 58 P.W.7 Dudhibine W/o. Shantibhai Exh. 59 P.W.8 Shantaben W/o. Kashiram Exh. 60 P.W.9 Daxaben Shantilal Exh. 62 P.W. l0 Jagjivan Mathurdas Exh. 64 P.W. 11 Sahdevsinh Mulubha Exh. 69 P.W.12 Dinubhai Nagjibhai Exh. 70 P.W. 13 Hansraj Gordhanbhai Exh. 71 P.W.14 Sureshbhai Dhusabhai Exh. 72 P.W.15 Sanjay Bhavanbhai Exh. 73 P.W.16 Savitaben W/o. Bhavanbhai Exh. 74 P.W.17 Natubha Hirabhai Exh. 59 P.W.8 Shantaben W/o. Kashiram Exh. 60 P.W.9 Daxaben Shantilal Exh. 62 P.W. l0 Jagjivan Mathurdas Exh. 64 P.W. 11 Sahdevsinh Mulubha Exh. 69 P.W.12 Dinubhai Nagjibhai Exh. 70 P.W. 13 Hansraj Gordhanbhai Exh. 71 P.W.14 Sureshbhai Dhusabhai Exh. 72 P.W.15 Sanjay Bhavanbhai Exh. 73 P.W.16 Savitaben W/o. Bhavanbhai Exh. 74 P.W.17 Natubha Hirabhai Exh. 75 P.W.18 Champaben W/o. Devshibhai Exh. 78 P.W. 19 Kanaiyabhai Devshibhai Exh. 79 P.W.20 Vaijantiben W/o. Devshibhai Exh. 80 P.W.21 Miraben Devshibhai Exh. 83 P.W.22 Kiritsinh Jasubha Exh. 85 P.W.23 Surjibhai Jivaji Exh. 87 P.W.24 Balvantrao Bhikhajirao Mohite Exh.91 P.W.25 Jekubhai Kathadbhai Exh. 95 The prosecution also submitted documentary evidence as under Sr.No. Exhs. Contents 1 Exh. 50 Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Subhash Bhatt of deceased Biniben 2 Exh.51 Medical case papers of the treatment given by Dr. Subhash Bhatt to deceased-Biniben 3. Exh.52 The panchnama of scene of offence drawn in presence of the Panchas. 4. Exh.63 Application dated 16-9-2002 of deceased-Biniben sent to the Secretary, Vikas Vidhyalay, Wadhvan. 5. Exh.65 An agreement dated 20-1-2004 executed by Biniben on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. 6. Exh.66 An agreement executed by Jasuben Karna on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. 7. Exh.67 A document of divorce executed by accused NO.2-Rakesh Ghusabhai with deceased-Biniben. Devsinhbhai on the stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. 8. Exh 68 A xerox copy of the Register of Stamp Vendor-Panelia. 9. Exh.86 A true copy of the Station Diary Entry No. 16 whereby the offence was registered against the accused being C.R.No 1-83 of 2004. 10. Exh.88 A report of the City A-Division Police Station with regard in connection to the record came for registration of offence vide Zero Number of Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station. 11 Exh.92 Original Complaint (F. I. R.) 12. Exh.93 A yadi written for registration of offence. 13. Exh.96 A yadi sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar for addition of Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 14 Exh.97 A yadi sent to Police Inspector, Jamnagar from P.S.O. , Dhrangadhra with regard to sending of papers of the incident in question. 15 Exh.98 A report submitted by A.S.I., Rajsitapur to P.S.I., Dhrangadhra Taluka. 16 Exh.99 A true copy of the contents of Station Diary of Dhrangadhra Police Station. 17 Exh.100 A true copy of the complaint lodged by Kanaiyalal Devsinh against the accused. 18 Exh.101 Entry of Register of Accidental Death of Dhrangadhra Police Station. 15 Exh.98 A report submitted by A.S.I., Rajsitapur to P.S.I., Dhrangadhra Taluka. 16 Exh.99 A true copy of the contents of Station Diary of Dhrangadhra Police Station. 17 Exh.100 A true copy of the complaint lodged by Kanaiyalal Devsinh against the accused. 18 Exh.101 Entry of Register of Accidental Death of Dhrangadhra Police Station. 19 Exh.102 A yadi sent to Medical Officer for knowing the age of the accused. 20 Exh.103 Original case papers of accused Kailash @ Gado. 21 Exh.104 A yadi sent for arrest of the accused. 22 Exh.105 A copy of the application sought for sanction of arrest of the accused. 23 Exh.106 A copy of the sanction for arrest of the accused. 24 Exh.107 A yadi sent for making entry of arrest of the accused. 25 Exh.108 A copy of the application for filing of the charge-sheet. 26 Exh.109 A copy of the sanction given for filing of the charge-sheet. Thereafter, further statement was recorded of each of the accused and after denying the allegation in toto, it was explained by the accused that in-fact relatives of Biniben were informed about her death, though Biniben was divorced by accused No.2. Her cremation was performed at Rajsitapur in the presence of relatives and Sarpanch and as per the say of caste leaders that they had nor committed any offence. In defence accused examined defence witness-Amrutlal Harjivanbhai Sachania, who produced on record B.P.L. Registered Card of 1997 denoting that all the accused except accused No. 2 were staying separately and that accused Nos. 5 and 6 also was staying separately. Learned trial Judge thereafter heard the arguments of prosecution and defence in length and came to above-referred conclusion, and hence, the above-mentioned three appeals.Hence, all the three appeals have arisen from same judgment and order and are heard together and is being decided by this common judgment. 11. We have heard Mr. P. M. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 extensively and he has placed on record written argument as well which we have considered. We have also heard Mr. P. M. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005. Mr. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard for the appellant-State in Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005. We have also heard Mr. P. M. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005. Mr. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard for the appellant-State in Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005. Learned A.P.P., was also extensively heard on behalf of the respondents-State in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005. 12. We have undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital feature of the case. We have scanned through the entire evidence documentary as well as oral recorded during trial. We have carefully re-appreciated the evidence on record. Entire circumstances appearing on record have been considered threadbare by us with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities arising out of the appreciation of evidence recorded during trial. We have evaluated the contention extensively raised by appellants and respondent in all the three appeals. 13. While re-appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion in respect of Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005, it becomes clear that we have w take into account following three circumstances and we have to examine whether these circumstances are proved beyond doubt by prosecution. (i) Whether death of Biniben is proved to be unnatural death and, if so, whether all or any of the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide in abetment. (ii) Whether Biniben was subjected to cruelty by the accused as envisaged by Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Whether knowing fully well that Biniben had committed suicide on account of cruelty executed by them, accused cremated dead body hurriedly without informing relative of the deceased, and thereby caused the vital evidence to disappear. 14. So far as the death of Biniben is concerned, first and foremost evidence trustworthy and unimpeachable is the evidence in the set of documentary evidence which is placed on record at Exh. 99, whereby accused No. 1 himself declared before Dhrangadhra Police Station on 14th March, 2004 that Biniben W/o. Rakesh Kumar consumed poison at the terrace of his house and committed suicide. From this declaration an entry in Station Diary was made which is at Exh. 99. Not only that Exh. 97 denotes that Dhrangadhra Police Station Official, A.S.l., Mr. R. P. Rana had recorded statement of accused No. 1 which was forwarded to Police Inspector, City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar. From this declaration an entry in Station Diary was made which is at Exh. 99. Not only that Exh. 97 denotes that Dhrangadhra Police Station Official, A.S.l., Mr. R. P. Rana had recorded statement of accused No. 1 which was forwarded to Police Inspector, City A-Division Police Station, Jamnagar. This fact is amply proved by Prosecution Witness No. 25-Jevkubhai Kathadbhai examined at Exh. 95. Exh. 88 is the Station Diary entry of City A-Division Police Station of Jamnagar in respect of accidental death No. 28 of 2004 wherein also it is mentioned that accused No. 1 informed Police about unnatural death of Biniben. From this A. D., Prosecution Witness No. 24-Balvantrav Bhikhajirao Mohite examined at Exh. 91 lodged an inquiry and on 17th March, 2004, mother of the deceased offered a complaint. Accidental death has recorded at Dhrangadhra, and thereafter, forwarded to Jamnagar City A-Division Police Station proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 himself informed Police that Biniben had consumed poison at the terrace of their residence, and hence, when this fact is amply proved that deceased-Biniben met with unnatural death and that too consuming poison at the terrace of residential house of accused at Hanuman Tekri, Jamnagar. This fact is not controverted by the defence but this is an admitted fact that deceased-Biniben died having consumed poison and was staying at the terrace of residential house of the accused. Further evidence in this respect is panchnama Exh. 52 of the scene of offence. This panchnama is admitted by the defence and proved beyond doubt along with the contents. In the said panchnama, the scene of offence has been shown by accused No. l-Ghusabhai Raising and that scene of offence is the terrace of the residential house of the accused. Panchnama denotes that through the stair there is terrace of 12' x 10' and all around the terrace there is a parafit of about 3'. At the northern side. one iron cot was placed. There were utensils and other materials for cooking and in the presence of panchas accused No. 1 declared that deceased-Biniben consumed poison at that place. Now, there cannot be any better evidence to prove that deceased-Biniben died unnatural death and by consuming poison. This fact is not controverted by the defence. 15. one iron cot was placed. There were utensils and other materials for cooking and in the presence of panchas accused No. 1 declared that deceased-Biniben consumed poison at that place. Now, there cannot be any better evidence to prove that deceased-Biniben died unnatural death and by consuming poison. This fact is not controverted by the defence. 15. So far as, therefore, point No. 1 is concerned, we have no hesitation at all to come to the conclusion that Biniben died on account of consuming poison and she was residing at the terrace of the residential house of the accused. 16. So far as point No. 2 about cruelty is concerned, cruelty as envisaged by Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code could be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. True, it is that cruelty means will full conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. We have scanned the evidence in this respect and crystal clear evidence which could not be thrown or ignored is the evidence of witness-Daxaben Shantilal Shah examined as Prosecution Witness No.9 at Exh. 62. She stated that she was working as social worker at Vikas Vidhyalay (Wadhvan) Surendranagar and was doing counselling work in family disputes. On 16 September, 2002, deceased-Biniben visited her and had given one written application. That application is at Exh. 63. Witness further stated that in pursuance of application containing allegation of harassment against the husband and in-laws of Biniben, a post card was written to accused No.2. He identified the signature of Biniben at Exh. 63 and contents. Exh. 63 therefore stands proved in all respect. Allegation of cruelty about harassment by her husband and instigation by parents-in-law of the deceased transpires effortlessly. Allegation that accused No. 2 had illicit relation with accused No. 4 is also deposed by this witness and as contents of Exh. 63 is proved beyond doubt. Not only that she also deposed that on 28th October, 2002 Biniben and her husband i.e. accused No. 2 both visited her and stated that a compromise had arrived at between them. This witness is extensively cross-examined by the defence, but nothing is brought about to disbelieve that Exh. 63 was not preferred by the deceased and that in Exh. Not only that she also deposed that on 28th October, 2002 Biniben and her husband i.e. accused No. 2 both visited her and stated that a compromise had arrived at between them. This witness is extensively cross-examined by the defence, but nothing is brought about to disbelieve that Exh. 63 was not preferred by the deceased and that in Exh. 63 there were no allegations of harassment and cruelty. Therefore, what is proved beyond doubt by this deposition is cruelty mentally as well as physically executed by accused No. 2 upon the deceased and accused No. 2 had illicit relation with other woman. Necessary, it is to note that in Exh. 63 application, deceased stated in unequivocal terms that in fair held at Tarnetar accused No. 4 who had illicit relation with accused No. 2 threatened her to the extent that accused No. 4 would remain attached to accused No.2 in any circumstances and would be staying with them only. A statement of the deceased in the said Exh. 63 that she was threatened that accused No. 2 shall divorce the deceased. This is not a circumstantial evidence denoting cruelty executed upon the deceased by accused Nos. 1 to 4, but direct and reliable evidence. 17. In addition to this, very important deposition is the evidence of Miraben Devsinhbhai examined as Prosecution Witness No. 21 at Exh. 83. In her deposition, Miraben categorically stated that whenever "Biniben visited her house, she used to make grievance that her husband was physically beating her, and therefore, she used to go to the house of Miraben Devsinhbhai, who was sister. of the deceased. In an unequivocal terms in Paragraph No.3 of her deposition, this witness-Miraben stated that before Biniben died she had a talk with this witness. According to this witness, deceased-Biniben stated that she was speaking from Rajsitapur and after Holi she would be coming to Sarangpur. Witness stated, that Biniben conveyed to her that she was beaten by her in-laws and driven out of the house and she was given divorce. Witness cross-examined in detail by the defence, but there is nothing in the cross-examination which would shake the testimony of witness-Miraben. Evidence of Champaben Devsinhbhai mother of the deceased examined as Prosecution Witness No. 18 at Exh. 78 and witness-Kanaiyabhai Devsinhbhai examined as Prosecution Witness No. 19 at Exh. 79brother of the deceased is required to be seen. Witness cross-examined in detail by the defence, but there is nothing in the cross-examination which would shake the testimony of witness-Miraben. Evidence of Champaben Devsinhbhai mother of the deceased examined as Prosecution Witness No. 18 at Exh. 78 and witness-Kanaiyabhai Devsinhbhai examined as Prosecution Witness No. 19 at Exh. 79brother of the deceased is required to be seen. From the depositions of these three witnesses, it has been proved beyond doubt that deceased-Biniben was harassed by accused No.2 and remaining three accused. Very strange and curious circumstances have been surfaced in the prosecution that accused No. 4-Jasuben with whom accused No. 2 husband of the deceased had illicit relationship was staying with accused No. 2 while deceased was staying at the roof and terrace of the house having two minor kids. Plight of a woman, belong to very economical poor strata having two kids, can be imagined when she was doing her own labour work was driven out to terrace with two kids and accused No. 2 openly was staying with some other lady. In our humble view, this circumstance alone is sufficient to be labelled the conduct of accused Nos. I to 4 to be cruelty as defined under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code to drive a woman to commit suicide. 18. But, this is not the end. Yet there is evidence on record indicating conduct of the accused establishing cruelty as envisaged by Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. At Exh. 67 a writing alleged to have been executed by deceased is produced denoting that Biniben was giving divorce to accused No. 2 and that she had no objection if accused No. 2 would marry to accused No. 4. This writing is dated 20th January, 2004. One more writing is produced on record of the same date whereby it is a declaration of accused No. 4 that she intended to marry accused No. 2 and whenever such marriage would take place she would inform everybody in advance. While Exh. 67 is the document of divorce wherein according to caste and custom as mentioned in such document divorce took place between accused No.2 and Biniben. Exhs. 65, 66 and 67 are very curious documents and leads us to believe that the conduct of the accused in getting this document executed corroborates the say of prosecution that cruelty was executed upon Biniben. Exhs. 65, 66 and 67 are very curious documents and leads us to believe that the conduct of the accused in getting this document executed corroborates the say of prosecution that cruelty was executed upon Biniben. However, we have also noticed that signature of Biniben in Exh. 63 which is proved by witness-Daxaben defers from signature of Biniben in Exh. 67. There are no witnesses on behalf of Biniben in this document at Exh. 67. During trial, attempt was made by the defence to take shelter of this document (Exh. 67) to take a stand that Biniben was divorced wife of accused No.2, and therefore, there would not be any application of Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of death of deceased-Biniben. True, it is that we cannot consider the legality or illegality and effect of document Exh. 67, but still the fact remains in realm of appreciation of evidence as to whether accused can take such plea that deceased-Biniben was not wife of accused No. 2 when she met with unnatural death. In our humble view, it was for the accused to prove customary divorce to take such plea and we do not find any evidence in this regard. From all the circumstances which we gathered from the evidence as discussed above, we come to inevitable conclusion that Biniben was forced to sign documents and that lends credence to the evidence of prosecution that Biniben was harassed by the accused to the extent that she was driven to the terrace of the house along with children and she was doing her. own cooking at terrace. It is to be noted that in what dire circumstances leaving two minor children-Biniben might have taken the decision to end her life when before her eyes her husband was staying with some other lady who had threatened her about divorce which came true and appears from Exh. 67. Witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution about the procession of cremation stated that they were informed by accused No. 1 that wife of accused No.2 had died and not only that but in declaration before Dhrangadhra Police Station at Outpost before Police accused No. 1 described deceased-Biniben as wife of accused No. 2. These circumstances leads to again only conclusion that documents executed at Exhs. These circumstances leads to again only conclusion that documents executed at Exhs. 65, 66 and 67 were camout1age in case of future difficulty which may arise on account of cruelty executed by accused upon the deceased- Biniben. A circumstance cannot be ignored that the death of Biniben was not informed to the relatives of the deceased staying at Uttar Pradesh. This proved beyond doubt that at Uttar Pradesh relatives of the deceased came to know about the death of Biniben indirectly. Further, brother of the deceased examined at Exh. 79 categorically stated that Biniben was driven out of the house by accused three to four times. After the delivery of a second child, Biniben stayed at Sahranpur, Uttar Pradesh for about twelve months, and thereafter, caste leaders of Rajsitapur Village intervened and took her to her in-laws house. This statement of brother of the deceased could not be controverted by the defence, and there is no reason that why his evidence cannot be believed in corroboration of evidence of witnessDaxaben, Witness-Miraben and complainant-mother of the deceased-witnessChampaben, and therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is proved beyond doubt by the prosecution that deceased-Biniben was treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 with such cruelty as defined under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, with reference to point No.2 we come to conclusion that cruelty IS proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 19. So far as point No. 3 above is concerned, it is an admitted fact that deceased was cremated at Village Rajsitapur situated in district Surendranagar; while she died at Jamnagar. Evidence adduced goes to establish that hurriedly dead body was shifted to Rajsitapur. Attempt on the part of the accused to conceal this fact till they reached at Rajsitapur is obviously surfaces from the evidence recorded during trial. We have noticed that some of the witnesses stated that they had noticed accused taking away dead body at cremation ground. Important witness in this regard is Prosecution Witness No. 17-Natubhai Hirabhai examined at Exh. 75. Necessary, it is to refer to the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2-Hitendrasinh Natubha examined at Exh. 54. He was the taxi driver who brought accused and dead body from Jamnagar to Rajsitapur in his taxi-car. Important witness in this regard is Prosecution Witness No. 17-Natubhai Hirabhai examined at Exh. 75. Necessary, it is to refer to the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2-Hitendrasinh Natubha examined at Exh. 54. He was the taxi driver who brought accused and dead body from Jamnagar to Rajsitapur in his taxi-car. He identified accused No. 1 before the Court and stated that one lady patient was along with accused and other persons in the taxi. This deposition denotes that it was concealed by the accused that it was dead body which they were transporting and the taxi driver was conveyed that she was patient. There are other circumstances in respect of the fact that dead body was cremated and was taken to Rajsitapur, but most of them have turned hostile. However, set of the evidence of other witness as stated above, it stands proved that without informing the relatives of Biniben or without informing the Police Authority, her dead body was hurriedly cremated, after shifting the same from Jamnagar to Rajsitapur which was native place of the accused. Only intention behind this act is proved through the evidence could be to conceal the evidence. On that day at wee hours dead body was shifted to Rajsitapur and was cremated leads to only conclusion that accused are guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted here that accused No. 1 informed the Police about the death only after three days. If all these circumstances are considered along with evidence of Kanaiyabhai, Miraben and Champaben, it becomes clear that conviction of the accused under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code is also proper, and hence, we come to conclusion that point No. 3 is also proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. 20. Learned Advocate, Mr. P. M. Lakhani, vehemently argued and also submitted written arguments along with certain decisions which are noted. Main thrust of his argument was that prosecution case was certain that accused were doubting the character of the deceased, and therefore, executing cruelty and the deceased committed suicide. 20. Learned Advocate, Mr. P. M. Lakhani, vehemently argued and also submitted written arguments along with certain decisions which are noted. Main thrust of his argument was that prosecution case was certain that accused were doubting the character of the deceased, and therefore, executing cruelty and the deceased committed suicide. It has been vehemently argued that in F.I.R., though such contentions are there; in charge framed also this allegation is put to the accused, but there is no evidence in this regard at all, and therefore, since the prosecution has failed to establish specific case put up against the accused, accused are entitled to acquittal. This argument cannot be accepted because along with this allegation, there are other allegations about keeping other woman and physically and mentally beating the deceased by the accused. As aforestated, those allegations are proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. It has also been argued extensively on behalf of the appellants-accused that the cruelty which is envisaged by the criminal law requires higher degree of proof and includes necessarily willful conduct of the accused which postulate an obstinate and deliberate behaviour on the part of the accused. It has been submitted that no such evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove this degree of cruelty. Relying upon certain decisions of various High Courts, it was stated that mere relationship with other woman would not amount to cruelty. It is submitted that usual wear and tear of married life could not be branded as cruelty driving a wife to commit suicide. We simply cannot accept the argument of learned Advocate for the accused because what is proved as discussed above is not usual wear and tear of married life. Beating wife, robbing her of her bread which she earned after labour is not usual wear and tear of life. Keeping other woman before the eyes of the wife and having illicit relation with that woman is not usual wear and tear of life. This is not a case of merely having illicit relation, but this is a case that on account of that illicit relation the wife was forced to abandon and abdicate not only her self-respect but was forcibly driven to execute a document of divorce with physical as well as mental cruelty to the extent that she was driven within the house and was made staying at the roof. In any case, we cannot turn these circumstances to be usual tear and wear of life, but this is undoubtedly an act which is covered as willful conduct on the part of accused to drive a woman to commit suicide. It is true as submitted that the marriage span was more than seven years, and therefore, no presumption under Sec. 113(A) of the Evidence Act could arise. Sec. 1 13(A) of the Evidence Act is enabling provision. Non-application of Sec. 113(A) of the Evidence Act does not lead to necessary conclusion that offence could not be made out in such circumstances. Only that a presumption arises, onus shifts upon the accused to explain certain circumstances. It is not the law that when such presumption is not arising, the prosecution case weakens. In this case, though the presumption does not arise, the prosecution is able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and no onus is shifted to accused to explain circumstances. But, however, with clear and cogent evidence, prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. Circumstances are proved that alone woman whose all relatives staying at distance like in Uttar Pradesh State is put to a formidable position that her dignity and self-respect is gravely insulted. Why a wife having two minor children would commit suicide when she herself after having labour work was maintaining herself and her kids staying all alone at roof. Contact with her relatives was a difficult task. In ordinary circumstances or in ordinary wear and tear of married life, no such woman would commit suicide. When overwhelming evidence of the prosecution is appreciated, inescapable conclusion would be that there was willful conduct on the part of the accused to execute cruelty upon the woman to commit suicide and except that there was no other alternative for her. Where would have she gone. Even to keep her alive, when it has been specifically mentioned in Exh. 67 that accused No. 2 would not have anything to do even with two kids and those kids would be the only responsibility of deceased wife. These are the dire situation proved by the prosecution and the question of whether presumption under Sec. 113(A) of the Evidence Act arises or not is not material at all. 67 that accused No. 2 would not have anything to do even with two kids and those kids would be the only responsibility of deceased wife. These are the dire situation proved by the prosecution and the question of whether presumption under Sec. 113(A) of the Evidence Act arises or not is not material at all. It is not the simple case of illicit relation by a spouse, may not be amounting to cruelty, but it is a case of executing cruelty, driving woman to commit suicide on account of illicit relation. It was, therefore, thereafter argued that even suicidal death of the deceased could not be proved by the prosecution, but. we have discussed this issue at length earlier in this judgment and it is categorically established that deceased died having consumed poison. Therefore, we are not at all impressed by the lengthy and vehement arguments of learned Advocate for the appellants-accused. Though, many decisions are cited by learned Advocate, Mr. Lakhani, but so far as criminal law is concerned, it must be noted that each trial has its own facts. Observation of each case may be with reference to those facts and those observations are not precedent is the law of this land. 21. In view of above, we are unable to interfere in the judgment and order impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. With reference to Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 filed by the State against the acquittal of original accused Nos. 5 and 6, we are of the opinion that going through the record thoroughly and carefully, we find that not an iota of evidence appears against them to connect them with the crime. Accused No. 6 is elder brother of accused No. 2 and accused No. 5 is wife of accused No.6. There are no allegation at all against these accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of trial Court to acquit original accused Nos. 5 and 6 of all the charges. After going through the record and proceedings and evidence recorded and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for the acquittal, we come to conclusion, that part of the judgment and order impugned as to acquittal of accused Nos. 5 and accused No.6 is not exceptional and no interference in acquittal of these accused viz. Nos. After going through the record and proceedings and evidence recorded and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for the acquittal, we come to conclusion, that part of the judgment and order impugned as to acquittal of accused Nos. 5 and accused No.6 is not exceptional and no interference in acquittal of these accused viz. Nos. 5 and 6 is warranted, and therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 preferred by the State against the order of acquittal must fail. 23. Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 is preferred by the State against original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for enhancement of sentence awarded to each of the accused. We may note again hear that all the four accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. I and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code while accused Nos. 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year each for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 2501- in default to undergo one month imprisonment. Accused No.2-Rakesh is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5001- in default to undergo imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 3-Bakuben W/o. Ghusabhai is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2501- in default to undergo one month imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2501- in default to undergo imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable tinder Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has preferred this appeal to enhance the abovesaid sentences. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced by learned trial Judge and the arguments made by the accused in respect of awarding sentences. 2501- in default to undergo imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable tinder Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has preferred this appeal to enhance the abovesaid sentences. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced by learned trial Judge and the arguments made by the accused in respect of awarding sentences. True, it is that the reasons advanced by the learned trial Judge for awarding sentences to each of the accused are not germane. It is established law that punishment should be in proportion to the gravity of the crime so as to cause deterrent effect in society. Therefore, irrespective of the reasons advanced by learned trial Judge, who awarded sentences to each of the accused we are of the opinion that having considered the circumstances in which the crime is committed and overall circumstances and taking into consideration proportionality, no enhancement of sentence to each of the accused as pleaded by the State is required because we notice this that whatever sentence is awarded to each of the accused contains sufficient, potential and deterrent effect and is in proportion to the crime committed. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed, fail and we do not accept the contention of the State that the sentence awarded to each of the accused is required to be enhanced. 24. In the result, following final 'order is passed. FINAL ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2005 filed by the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Sessions Case No. 62 of 2004 stands dismissed. Accused No. I-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia, accused No. 3- Bakuben W/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia and accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai are on bail during pendency of appeal vide order of this Court delivered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2715 of 2005 on 15 March, 2005. Bail Bonds of accused No. I-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia, accused No. 3- Bakuben W/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia and accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender to the trial Court to serve the sentences awarded to each of them within six weeks from today. Criminal Application No. 2715 of 2005 on 15 March, 2005. Bail Bonds of accused No. I-Ghusabhai Raisingbhai Chorasia, accused No. 3- Bakuben W/o. Ghusabhai Chorasia and accused No. 4-Jasuben @ Gaduben Rakeshbhai are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender to the trial Court to serve the sentences awarded to each of them within six weeks from today. Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2005 preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Appeal No. 2410 of 2005 preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial Court, both stands dismissed. (SBS) Appeals dismissed.