JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) - State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby the respondents, who were put on trial on the charge of abetting the commission of suicide by Smt. Sunita Devi (daughter-in-law of respondent No.1 Smt. Sandhi Devi, sister-in-law of respondent No. 3 Gurbachan and wife of respondent No. 2 Surjit) and subjecting her to cruelty, have been acquitted. 2.Facts, on which the respondents were charged with the aforesaid offences, may be noticed. Deceased Sunita Devi, daughter of PW-2 Bidhi Chand and PW-6 Shalo Devi, was married to respondent Surjit, about four years prior to her death. (She died on 20.1.1991). For about a year or so, after the marriage, the deceased was treated nicely, but thereafter the respondents allegedly started subjecting her to physical torture. Once the deceased made a complaint to the Panchayat about an incident of beating given to her by respondent Sandhi Devi and Gurbachan, on 9.1.1991. Dhani Ram, husband of respondent Sandhi Devi, also made a complaint to the Panchayat that PW-3 Ajit Ram, pardhan of the Panchayat, who happened to be the husband of the sister of the mother of the deceased, was not allowing the deceased to settle down at her in-laws’ place, for the reasons best known to him. PW3 Ajit Ram advised the deceased to lodge a report with the police. It appears that the report was lodged on 10.1.1991 and the deceased was got medically examined on the same day. Three simple injuries were noticed on her person by PW-14 Dr. S.K. Mahajan, who conducted the medico legal examination on 10.1.1991 at 7 PM. About the time of infliction of the injures, the doctor gave the opinion that the same had been sustained in less than 12 hours. 3.Marriage of the sister of the deceased was to take place on 19.2.1991. Her father PW-2 Bidhi Chand visited her in-laws’ place, a few days before the marriage and extended invitation to respondent Sandhi Devi. Sandhi Devi told PW-2 Bidhi Chand, the father of the deceased, that she had no concern with the marriage and that it was for the deceased and her husband respondent Surjit to decide whether to attend the marriage or not. Invitation was sent to respondent Surjit also, who during those days was employed at Sonipat in Haryana. Second respondent Gurbachan was employed, those days, at jallandhar. Invitation was sent to respondent Surjit also, who during those days was employed at Sonipat in Haryana. Second respondent Gurbachan was employed, those days, at jallandhar. Neither the deceased nor anybody else from her in-laws’ side, including her husband, attended the marriage, which took place on 19.2.1991. 4.On 20.2.1991, the deceased consumed aluminium phosphide. Respondent Sandhi Devi noticed her vomitting around 8 a.m. She went to DW-1 Bhagi Ram, a Member of Gram Panchayat, and informed him that the deceased had been vomitting and it appeared that she had consumed some poisonous substance. DW-1 Bhagi Ram visited the house of respondent Sandhi Devi. Deceased told him, on inquiry, that she had swallowed something wrong by mistaking the same for medicine and that she be saved. The deceased was then carried to a hospital at Nagrota Bagwan, where she was declared ‘brought dead’, around 11.30 A.M. by the doctor. Intimation of the death was given to one Sher Singh, a maternal uncle of the deceased, who had his shop at Nagrota Bagwan where the deceased was taken for treatment. Said Sher Singh informed the parents of the deceased. PW-2 Bidhi Chand, father of the deceased, reached the place of the respondents, the same evening. On the way, he went to the Police Post and informed the police about the death of his daughter. Police also reached the spot the same evening around 9 PM. On 21.2.1992, the police recorded the statement of PW-2 Bidhi Chand, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Inquest was conducted. The dead body was sent to Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala, where postmortem examination was conducted by PW-1 Dr. B.C. Khanna. Viscera were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who noticed aluminium phosphide therein. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, PW-1 Dr. B.C. Khanna gave the opinion that the cause of death was poisoning by aluminium phosphide. On completion of the investigation, police challaned all the three respondents. 5.Trial Court has acquitted all the respondents holding that there is no evidence of cruelty as also the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased. 6.We have perused the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned Counsel representing the respondents. On completion of the investigation, police challaned all the three respondents. 5.Trial Court has acquitted all the respondents holding that there is no evidence of cruelty as also the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased. 6.We have perused the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned Counsel representing the respondents. It is borne out from the evidence on record that once the deceased had complained to the Panchayat that she had been beaten up by respondent Sandhi Devi, her mother-in-law and Gurbanchan, her brother-in-law, on 9.1.1991. The Panchayat, per testimony of PW-3 Ajit Ram, directed the deceased to report the matter to the police as it was not cognizable by the Panchayat. The deceased then lodged report with the police. She was got medically examined by the police, on 10.1.1991, from PW-14 Dr. S.K. Mahajan. The doctor issued medico legal certificate Ext. PW14/A, per which there were three simple injuries on the person of the deceased, when he examined her at 7 PM on 10.1.1991 and those injuries appeared to have been sustained in less than 12 hours. That means the injuries were sustained by the deceased not on 9.1.1991, as complained by her to the Panchayat, per testimony of PW-3 Ajit Ram, but on 10.1.1991 itself at or after 7 A.M. It needs to be noticed here that PW-3 Ajit Ram is the husband of the sister of the mother of the deceased. It is this witness, who directed the deceased, to lodge report with the police about the alleged incident of 9.1.1991. The witness has admitted, in the cross-examination, that he accompanied the deceased to the police post on 10.1.1991, when she went to lodge the report. The medico legal report Ex. PW14/A, and the testimony of PW-14 Dr. S.K. Mahajan, falsify the allegation of the deceased having been inflicted injuries on 9.1.1991, as demonstrated herein-above. 7.Respondents’ plea is that it is PW3 Ajit Ram, who had been instigating the deceased not to settle down at their place and that they had even complained against him to the Panchayat. The matter was finally settled on 13.1.1991 and a compromise deed Ext. PE was prepared. As per compromise, the deceased started living at her in-laws’ place. Respondent Sandhi Devi and her husband assured that they would see to it that the deceased was not subjected to physical cruelty. The matter was finally settled on 13.1.1991 and a compromise deed Ext. PE was prepared. As per compromise, the deceased started living at her in-laws’ place. Respondent Sandhi Devi and her husband assured that they would see to it that the deceased was not subjected to physical cruelty. 8.There is absolutely no evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental cruelty, after 13.1.1991. As a matter fact, there is no allegation at all about any mental or psychological torture. The allegation is of physical torture only and the alleged physical torture had taken place on 9.1.1991, which allegation is proved to be false by the medico legal evidence, in the form of medical report Ext. PW14/A and testimony of PW-14 Dr. S.K. Mahajan, as demonstrated hereinabove. 9.Admittedly, the deceased did not attend the marriage of her sister, which took place only a day before her committing the suicide. The reason for her not attending the marriage is not forthcoming from the side of the prosecution. The respondents, in their statements, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. have stated that her husband respondent Surjit could not get leave from his employer and because of that he was unable to come from Sonipat to his native village and to accompany his wife to her parents’ place, to participate in the marriage. The respondents have stated that the deceased was persuaded by respondent Sandhi Devi her mother-in-law, to go and attend the marriage, but she refused to go on the plea that she did not want to attend the marriage unaccompanied by her husband. It appears that the deceased was disappointed and depressed because of her having not been able to attend the marriage of her sister. May be that she was angry with her husband and other members of the in-laws’ family because of her husband having not come to take her to her parents’ place in connection with the marriage of her sister and because of this she took the extreme step of ending her life. We have the reason to presume like that because there is no allegation of mental torture against the respondents and no physical torture had taken place on the fateful day, because no mark of violence was found on the dead body. 10.Prosecution has placed on record certain letters written by respondent Surjit to his parents. The same are Ext. We have the reason to presume like that because there is no allegation of mental torture against the respondents and no physical torture had taken place on the fateful day, because no mark of violence was found on the dead body. 10.Prosecution has placed on record certain letters written by respondent Surjit to his parents. The same are Ext. PL, PM, PN, PO, PP, PQ, PR, PS, PT, PV, PV/1, PV/2, PV/3, and PV/4. In some of these letters, respondent Surjit has expressed his annoyance with the deceased. In one letter Ext. PB he has written to his parents not to let the deceased enter matrimonial home and in case she tried to enter forcibly, to break her legs. All these letters were written by respondent Surjit prior to the compromise dated 13.1.1991. Respondent Surjit, in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has explained that he had written all those things because the deceased had not been behaving properly and was also not living with his parents. 11.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court calls for no interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. M.R.B. ———————