JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) - Respondents were charged with and tried for offences of treating with cruelty and abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Raj Kumari, wife of respondent Ramesh Kumar, daughter-in-law of respondents Chhaju Ram and Roshni Devi and sister-in-law of respondent Surinder, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Court. On conclusion of the trial all of them were acquitted. State has appealed against the judgment of acquittal. 2.Allegations on which the respondents were sent up for trial may be noticed. Deceased Raj Kumari was married to respondent Ramesh Kumar in the year 1983 or 1984. For five-six months, after the marriage, the deceased was looked-after and kept well. Thereafter the respondents started ill-treating her for her having not brought any dowry in the marriage. She was deserted and left at the place of her parents, when she was sick. Her father got her treated by spending a sum of rupees three thousand. During this period of treatment she remained admitted in the hospital for about twenty days. Respondent Ramesh Kumar, her husband visited her once but did not even talk to her. A few days later respondents Chhaju Ram and Roshni Devi also visited her. They too did not have any talk with her. After sometime Ramesh Kumar, respondent made an application to the Panchayat of Luthan that the father of the deceased was not allowing her to return to the matrimonial home. The Panchayat got the matter settled on 4.5.1986 and the deceased returned to her matrimonial home. Five-six months later she was again thrown out of the matrimonial home. During this period of five-six months of stay at in-laws place, she was subjected to cruelty. The deceased filed a petition claiming maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judicial Magistrate awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- against respondent Ramesh Kumar. Revision petition was filed by Ramesh Kumar, respondent in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, who brought about a compromise between the deceased and respondent Ramesh Kumar some-time in the year 1988 and the deceased went with respondent Ramesh Kumar and started living with him. After that she never visited her parents nor did not parents or anybody from her parents’ family visit her. On 21.8.1990 the deceased went to the fields to do some agricultural job where she fainted. After that she never visited her parents nor did not parents or anybody from her parents’ family visit her. On 21.8.1990 the deceased went to the fields to do some agricultural job where she fainted. She was brought to the home of the respondents. A doctor was called. The same day she died. Her father PW-1 Chimnu reached her in-laws house on the next morning. He lodged a report with the police that the deceased used to be subjected to cruelty and was driven to commit suicide by the respondents. 3.Police conducted inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The doctor did not find any apparent sign suggestive of the cause of death. He opined that there was cardiac respiratory failure, but the exact cause of death could be given only after getting the viscera analyzed from the Chemical Examiner. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who analyzed it and submitted his report. On the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner, doctor gave the opinion that the cause of death was poisoning by carbonate group of insecticide. Police recorded the statements of PW-2 Prem Chand, brother of the deceased and PW-4 Promodh Singh, Pardhan of the Panchayat and challaned the respondents. 4.During the course of the investigation two letters Exts. PB and PC, allegedly written by the deceased - one to her father Chimnu (PW-1) and the other to her brother Prem Chand (PW-2) - were produced by the father and the said brother of the deceased. Two note books Exts. PE and PF, allegedly containing the writings of the deceased, were also seized by the police. The letters Exts. PB and PC and the note books Exs. PE and PF, were sent to the hand-writing expert for seeking his opinion. The handwriting expert PW-6 Santokh Singh, vide opinion Ext.PU, reported that the author of the two letters Exts.PB and PC and the writings in the note books Ext.PE and PF was the same person. 5.Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution story. It has observed that PW-1 Chimnu, father of the deceased, PW-2 Prem Chand, brother of the deceased and PW-4 Promodh Singh, Pardhan of the Panchayat have made material improvements over their statements made to the police, while testifying in the Court and that the writing in the two note books Exts. 5.Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution story. It has observed that PW-1 Chimnu, father of the deceased, PW-2 Prem Chand, brother of the deceased and PW-4 Promodh Singh, Pardhan of the Panchayat have made material improvements over their statements made to the police, while testifying in the Court and that the writing in the two note books Exts. PE and PF, with which the writings on two letters Exts.PB and PC were compared by PW-6 Santokh Singh, are not proved to be in the hand of the deceased and, therefore, the opinion evidence is not relevant. Trial Court has observed that the two letters appear to have been manipulated during the investigation of the case to strengthen the prosecution version. 6.We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State as also the learned Counsel representing the respondents and have also gone through the record. 7.At the outset it may be stated that in the FIR Ext.PA there is no allegation of treating the deceased with cruelty on account of demand of dowry. The only thing that finds mention in the FIR is that the respondents appeared before the Panchayat and stated that they did not want to keep the deceased as she had not brought any dowry. Nobody, including the father, the brother of the deceased and the Pardhan of the Panchayat, who have appeared as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, respectively, testified that any of the respondents at any point of time proclaimed either in some meeting of the Panchayat or even at some other place that they were not prepared to keep the deceased because of her having not brought any dowry. 8.No doubt the father and the brother of the deceased, while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, testified that the deceased used to be ill-treated and subjected to cruelty by the respondents on account of her having not brought any dowry, but no such allegation was made by them either in the earliest version Ext.PA or their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with which they were duly confronted. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the testimony of the father, brother of the deceased and the Pardhan of the Panchayat with regard to the allegation of the deceased being harassed and ill-treated on account of her having not being given any dowry by her father at the time of the marriage. 9.Pardhan of the Panchayat Promodh Singh (PW-4) is also not a trustworthy witness, because his statement is contrary to the record of the proceedings kept by the Panchayat, a copy whereof is Ext.PO. The witness has testified that the deceased and her father had complained to the Panchayat that the deceased had been turned out of the matrimonial home after being subjected to physical torture on account of dowry demand and that four-five days thereafter respondent Ramesh Kumar, husband of the deceased also made an application alleging that the deceased was not being allowed to return to the matrimonial home by her father. Ext.PO does no speak of any complaint having been made by he deceased or her father to the Panchayat. It speaks of only the application, which respondent Ramesh Kumar made to the Panchayat on 27.4.1986. The Panchayat called a meeting to take decision on the said application. With the intervention of the Panchayat, the parties amicably settled the matter and the deceased went to the matrimonial home in the company of respondent Ramesh Kumar. This is what is made out from Ext.PO, the record of the Panchayat about the meeting held on 4.5.1986. 10.It has come in the evidence that five-six months after the settlement, evidenced by Ext.PO, the deceased left the matrimonial home and went to her parents’ place. She then filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming monthly maintenance. The concerned Judicial Magistrate passed an order in her favour and, granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month. Ramesh Kumar challenged the order by filing a revision petition in the Sessions Court. That petition was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge called the parties for reconciliation. The parties reconciled and the deceased, in the year 1988, went with respondent Ramesh Kumar to live with him as his wife. She died on 21.8.1990. Ramesh Kumar challenged the order by filing a revision petition in the Sessions Court. That petition was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge called the parties for reconciliation. The parties reconciled and the deceased, in the year 1988, went with respondent Ramesh Kumar to live with him as his wife. She died on 21.8.1990. From 1988, when she went with respondent Ramesh Kumar after reconciliation brought about by the Additional Sessions Judge and before her death on 21.8.1990, neither she visited her parents nor did her parents or any member of her parents family visit her. The deceased and respondent Ramesh Kumar had been living happily. The fact is born out from the testimony of PW-4 Promodh Singh, who stated that five six months prior to the death of Raj Kumari, he had met respondent Ramesh Kumar and deceased Raj Kumari, when they were together and he found them quite happy. Prosecution did not produce any witness to get it testified that after 1988, when the deceased joined the company of her husband on reconciliation of maintenance matter and before her death on 21.8.1990, the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty of any kind by any of the respondents. 11.The prosecution produced two letters Exts.PB and PC, allegedly written by the deceased. One letter purports to be addressed to the father of the deceased (PW-1 Chimnu) and the other to her brother PW-2 Prem Chand. These letters are dated 18.8.1990. PW-2 Prem Chand has testified that he received the letter Ext.PC, a day before the death of his sister Raj Kumari. No explanation has been offered by him for not producing this letter to the police at the time when the FIR was lodged with the police by his father in his presence or having disclosed this fact to the police or to his father when the FIR was being recorded. The letter was produced to the police on 26.8.1990 vide memo. Ext.PD. The other letter Ext.PB is claimed to have been produced to the police by PW-1 Chimnu, father of the deceased, on 25.8.1990 vide memo. Ext.PL. Chimnu (PW-1) while in the witness box stated that he produced the letter to the police but did not say when and against which memo, it was seized by the police, nor did he tell as to when this letter was delivered to him. Ext.PL. Chimnu (PW-1) while in the witness box stated that he produced the letter to the police but did not say when and against which memo, it was seized by the police, nor did he tell as to when this letter was delivered to him. 12.The two letters are alleged to be in the handwriting of the deceased. The evidence that has been adduced to prove his allegation is the opinion of PW-6 Santokh Singh, who compared the writings marked Q-1 to Q-9 on these letters with the writings in the note books Exts.PE and PF. 13.It has not been proved that the writings in the two note books Ext.PE and PF, are in the hand of the deceased. In fact one of the two note books, i.e., Ext.PF, bears the name of some Angraj Kumari Jaswal, Roll No. 32. This name and roll number have been scored out. The name and the roll number give the impression that the note book belongs to some Angraj Kumari Jaswal and not the deceased. 14.The evidence with respect to the production of this note book to the police is highly suspicious. PW-1 Chimnu father of the deceased testified that he had produced the note book Ext.PF to the police. Chimnu is an illiterate person. He did not say whether any memo., was drawn at the time of its seizure. The Investigating Officer of the case PW-8 Mehar Chand testified that he had taken into possession the note book Ext.PF vide memo. Ext.PL. He stated that the same was produced by Chhaju Ram. Chhaju Ram is one of the respondents. Note book Ext.PF could not have been with him as the same is alleged to be a school note book of the deceased and PW-2 Prem Chand, brother of the deceased, says that it was produced by his father to the police from his own house. Not only this, PW-2 Prem Chand further says that only this note book of the deceased was available at his father’s house. Chimnu PW-1, as per testimony of PW-8 Mehar Chand, produced another note book which is Ext.PE and which he took into possession vide memo. Ext.PL. Trial Court has observed that memo. Ext.PL pertains to the seizure of only a letter dated 18.8.1990 and not to any note book. However, we find that there is a mention of a note book also in this memo. Ext.PL. Trial Court has observed that memo. Ext.PL pertains to the seizure of only a letter dated 18.8.1990 and not to any note book. However, we find that there is a mention of a note book also in this memo. The mention of note book in this memo, appears to have been interpolated. It appears that initially the memo. concluded with the writing that the letter produced by Chimnu had been taken into possession and sealed in a parcel with a seal that produced the impression of English letter ‘B’ and the signature of the witnesses on the memo. had been obtained. Reference to the note book has been made thereafter using the space available between the aforesaid concluding sentence and the signature of witness Promodh Singh. The initial part of the memo, regarding seizure of letter is in large words and the space between the lines of writing is also quite wide, but the size of the words of the writing pertaining to seizure of note book is smaller and the space between the lines is much narrower, as compared to the size of the words and the space between the lines in the writing pertaining to the seizure of letter. The heading of the memo, also suggest that it pertains only to the seizure of a letter and not any other item alongwith the letter. These observations of ours, when seen in the light of the observation of the trial Court that Ext.PL memo, pertain only to the seizure of a letter, suggest that the writing regarding seizure of note book in this memo. Ext.PL has been interpolated after the delivery of the judgment of the trial Court. 15.The second note book Ext.PE is alleged to have been produced by Chhaju Ram, one of the respondents. There is no evidence to this effect. Nobody, except the brother of the deceased, namely PW-2 Prem Chand, says that the writings on the home books Ext.PE and PF are in the hand of the deceased. And how the said witness has identified these writings to be in the hand of the deceased is that these writings are similar to the writings of the two letters Exts.PB and PC, allegedly written by the deceased to her father and brother on 18.8.190. And how the said witness has identified these writings to be in the hand of the deceased is that these writings are similar to the writings of the two letters Exts.PB and PC, allegedly written by the deceased to her father and brother on 18.8.190. He did not identify the writings in the two note books to be in the hand of his deceased sister on the basis of his own knowledge. For proving the writings in the two note books to be the standard writings, someone was required to say that the writings were made in his presence or that he identified the same to be of the deceased because of his being similar with her writings on account of his/her having seen the deceased writing or on account of his/her getting the papers written by the deceased quite often. 16.There is a document, Ext.PQ on record, which the deceased is alleged to have written to the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra during the pendency of the proceedings, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was supposed to be the admitted writing of the deceased. The writings on Exts.PB and PC, the two alleged letters written by the deceased, ought to have been got compared with the writing of letter Ext.PQ. The reason why the police did not get the writings on the two letters compared with the writing on letter Ext.PQ is not too far to seek. From a bare look at Ext.PQ and the two letters Exts.PB and PC it is clear that they are not written by the same person, because the formation of the words and the manner of drawing the MATRAS (of Devnagri scrip) are different. 17.It is there in the evidence on record that the deceased had been suffering from tuberculosis, at least for four years prior to her death and was on medication. It is also in evidence on record that after 1988, when the deceased joined the company of her husband, her parents and other members of the family of her parents stopped visiting her, probably on account of her having joined the company of her husband, against their wishes and not only that they stopped visiting her but even did not invite her to the marriage of her younger sister. May be that because of these facts and circumstances she was in acute depression and that was the cause for taking her life by consuming poison. 18.For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. M.R.B. ———————