Judgment : BANERJEE, J. (1) THE victim Fulkumari was married to Gour Chandra sana in 1981. She was childless. She committed suicide on February 28, 1986. Her father lodged a complaint that she had to commit suicide as she could not sustain torture of her father-in-law Shyamapada Saha and her husband Gour Chandra Saha. It was also complained that she was not given regular meal and she was in starvation. The prosecution started the case under section 498a read with section 306 of the Indian penal Code as against Shyamapada Saha and Gour Chandra Saha. At the time of trial father of the victim Shyamapada Sarkar P. W. 1 deposed that Fulkumari never complained of any torture. He however, deposed that Fulkumari wanted to be separated from her In-laws. He however, advised her not to do that. P. W. 1 however, in his deposition admitted that he did not know the reason behind the assault. He further deposed that In-laws along with the husband were not allowing her to take meal. The villagers being P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 were declared hostile at the time of trial. We do not find any evidence of torture. It further transpires that Fulkumaris brother was married to her sister-in-law being sister of her husband Gour. They were living separately. P. W. 3, a co-villager deposed that he came to know about the incident at about 10-11 A. M. They got the victim down and nursed her, however, such attempt failed as she by that time died. On a query made by him Gour told him that there had been an altercation between them on the issue of being separated from the family. On a query made by the Court the witness deposed that his wife told him that Fulkumari was sorry for not being mother. The other village witnesses deposed almost in the same line. The learned Judge of the Court below relying on section 113a of the Evidence Act held that since Fulkumari died within five years from her marriage, it was presumed that she was compelled to commit suicide because of the torture from her In-laws including the husband. The other village witnesses deposed almost in the same line. The learned Judge of the Court below relying on section 113a of the Evidence Act held that since Fulkumari died within five years from her marriage, it was presumed that she was compelled to commit suicide because of the torture from her In-laws including the husband. Both the accused being Shyamapada and Gour were sentenced for three years under Section 498a as also for ten years under section 306 along with fine, in default further imprisonment for six months. Hence, this appeal. (2) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as prosecution. (3) TO deal with the present controversy we have to first examine the law on this aspect. Section 113a of the Evidence Act, 1972 is quoted below :- "113a. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." (4) ON a combined reading of the aforesaid provision it would appear that to have a presumption of abetment two principal requisites are necessary : (I) Suicide was committed within seven years from the date of marriage. (II) Victim had been subjected to cruelty by her In-laws. (5) THE Explanation to the said section provides that cruelty should be considered as defined in Section 498a of the Indian Penal code. In the Explanation under Section 498a cruelty has been defined which means any willful conduct which ultimately compels the lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or harassment to the lady with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. (6) LET us now examine the present case. On a combined reading of the evidence we would find that Fulkumari never narrated any incident of torture to her father or any villager. (6) LET us now examine the present case. On a combined reading of the evidence we would find that Fulkumari never narrated any incident of torture to her father or any villager. Fulkumaris father only deposed that she was not allowed to take her meal. The reason was unknown to him. The father also admitted that Fulkumari wanted to be separated from the family. One of the co-villagers deposed that she was sorry for being childless. Hence, it cannot be said that evidence that came out in trial unimpeachably shows that she was subjected to cruelty for which the Court could presume that her In-laws were responsible for such suicide. Unfortunately such evidence has not come out as appears on a plain reading of the evidence. (7) THE appeal succeeds. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from charges brought against them. Sureties are discharged from the bail bond. The lower Court records along with the copy of the judgment be sent down to the Court below.