Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the State of m. P. under Section 378 (i) and (iii) of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 07. 08. 1999 passed by Additional sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S. T. No. 147/98, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of I. P. C. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that the marriage of Rubi @ Anita was performed with Dharmendra Rajput according to hindu Rites prior to 18 months of this incident. The appellants used to demand gold and motorcycle in dowry and subjected her to cruelty for not fulfilling such demand. Once she was driven out from her matrimonial house and remained in her maternal house for about 6 months. Thereafter respondent Ram Singh took her back to matrimonial house assuring that no harassment be done in future. But after sometime she committed suicide by hanging. On 10. 02. 1998 Rupram Kotwar of village Siregaon reported the matter at Police Station Gadarwara. On its basis marg intimation No. 6/98 under Section 174 of Cr. P. C. was registered. During the course of inquiry the Panchnama of dead body was prepared. Postmortem examination was done by Dr. Virendra Kumar Patel. According to his opinion the death of deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. However, he preserved viscera to confirm the additional poisoning. The viscera was sent to F. S. L. Sagar for chemical analysis fromwhere the report received. Accordingly the articles A, B and C were found containing zinc phosphide. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Gadarwara who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS were charged under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of I. P. C. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Respondent Ram Singh took the plea of alibi that he was at Bhopal at the time of incident and other respondents have also taken the plea that they had gone to attend a marriage and on returning therefrom came to know that Rubi @ Anita has committed suicide. Respondent Ram Singh took the plea of alibi that he was at Bhopal at the time of incident and other respondents have also taken the plea that they had gone to attend a marriage and on returning therefrom came to know that Rubi @ Anita has committed suicide. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and the accused persons also examined 4 witnesses in their defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court acquitted them from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment State of Madhya Pradesh preferred this appeal after taking leave from this Court. ( 4. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, Dy Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant/state submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is sufficient evidence that respondents used to demand gold, motorcycle etc in dowry and on account of not fulfilling such demand they used to harass her as a consequence thereof she committed suicide. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has committed an illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them hence the appeal be allowed and respondents be punished. ( 5. ) SHRI H. S. Dubey, Advocate was engaged by the respondents as their counsel but he did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 07. 07. 2009. The appeal was pending since 2000. Therefore, Ku. Mamta Dubey, advocate has been appointed from the panel of the High Court legal Aid Services Committee to argue the case on behalf of the respondents so that the appeal may be disposed of expeditiously. ( 6. ) KU. Mamta Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents hence the court below has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents. The finding is proper hence does not call for any interference. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the court below has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charge under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of I. P. C. ? ( 8. ) RAMSEVAK (PW-2) and Mithila Bai (PW-4) are the parents of deceased Rubi @ Anita. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the court below has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charge under Sections 498-A and 306/34 of I. P. C. ? ( 8. ) RAMSEVAK (PW-2) and Mithila Bai (PW-4) are the parents of deceased Rubi @ Anita. From their evidence it is established that the marriage of their daughter was performed with respondent Dharmendra Rajput prior to 1 years of this incident. These witnesses have clearly stated that their daughter used to tell that respondents demand gold and motor cycle in dowry and for not fulfilling the same they used to harass her. Once she was driven out from her matrimonial house and sent to the maternal house where she stayed for 6 months. Thereafter respondent Ram Singh came there to take her back and on assurance given by him that the respondents will not harass her she was sent back to the matrimonial house. Thereafter on 10. 02. 1998 she committed suicide by hanging. Its intimation was given by Rupram Kotwar (PW-1) to p. S. Gadarwara where the marg intimation was written by u. P. Tiwari (PW-5 ). After preparing the Panchnama the dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Virendra Kumar Patel (PW-7) who opined that the death of Rubi @ Anita was on account of asphyxia as a result of hanging. He preserved viscera which was sent for chemical analysis from where the report received. Accordingly articles A, B, C were found containing zinc phosphide. Thus it is proved that Rubi @ Anita died in abnormal circumstances. ( 9. ) THE evidence of Ramsevak Rajput (PW-2) and Mithila bai (PW-4) is further supported by Sunil (PW-6) and Prem Bai (PW-3) regarding the demand of dowry articles and causing harassment for not fulfilling such demand. ( 10. ) THUS the prosecution has adduced the evidence that the respondents used to demand dowry articles and subject her to cruelty on account of not fulfilling the same and being harassed she committed suicide. ( 11. ) THE contention of the learned counsel of the respondents is that respondent Ram Singh and Munni Bai were residing separately from Dharmendra Rajput, therefore, there was no question of demand of dowry and subjecting her to cruelty by them. ( 12. ( 11. ) THE contention of the learned counsel of the respondents is that respondent Ram Singh and Munni Bai were residing separately from Dharmendra Rajput, therefore, there was no question of demand of dowry and subjecting her to cruelty by them. ( 12. ) NO doubt Mithila Bai (PW-4) has herself admitted that dharmendra Rajput and Anita were residing separately. It is also a fact that Ram Singh was constable in police department and was posted at Shahjahanabad, Bhopal. He was not present at village Siregaon on the day of incidence but was on his duty at Bhopal. When he received the information of this incident he applied for leave and came at village Siregaon. There is evidence of Ramlal Dubey (DW-3) and Ramkripal (DW-4) in this regard. Nanhe Singh (DW-1) has also given evidence that Ram Singh and Munni Bai were residing separately at Bhopal. Thus there is ample evidence that Ram singh and Munni Bai were not residing with respondent dharmendra Rajput hence there was no question of demand of dowry articles and the harassment for not fulfilling such demand by them. But so far as respondent Dharmendra Rajput is concerned, it has clearly been established that he used to demand dowry articles and subjecting her to cruelty for not fulfilling such demand. He also used to cause marpeet and harassment of his wife Rubi @ Anita. Being harassed by the conduct of Dharmendra Rajput she ended her life by committing suicide. ( 13. ) ONE of the grounds of the finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court is that one Guddu driver belonging to the village of deceased used to come at village Siregaon and visit deceased frequently. Dharmendra objected and quarreled with him which was not liked by the deceased and consequently she committed suicide. This finding of the trial court is perverse from the record because no witness has admitted that she was having any illicit relation with Guddu and for that count he used to come there. It is evident that the maternal uncle of Guddu resides in that village and he used to come and stay with him and if he visited deceased who was of his village then it can not be presumed that he was having some illicit relationship with deceased and for performing such illegal act he used to go there. It is evident that the maternal uncle of Guddu resides in that village and he used to come and stay with him and if he visited deceased who was of his village then it can not be presumed that he was having some illicit relationship with deceased and for performing such illegal act he used to go there. The trial Court has developed a new case without any basis and gave an erroneous finding. ( 14. ) ANOTHER ground of acquittal is that F. I. R. was registered late. But this finding is not correct because the intimation of death of deceased was given on the day of incidence and after conducting marg inquiry and receiving the postmortem examination report F. I. R. was registered. This ground of acquittal is not proper. ( 15. ) THE other ground of acquittal is that there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No doubt there are some contradictions and omissions. But these contradictions and omissions are not so material as to affect the merits of the case. The trial Court has based its judgment mainly on the basis of surmises and conjectures without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. There is ample evidence in this case regarding demand of dowry articles by Dharmendra rajput and subjecting her to cruelty on account of which she has ended her precious life. ( 16. ) THE cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A, I. P. C. has been explained in the explanation to Section 498-A. It consists of two clauses namely Clauses (a) and (b ). To attract section 498-A, I. P. C. , it must be established that the cruelty or harassment to wife was to force her to cause grave bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide, or the harassment was to compel her to fulfill illegal demand for dowry. In the present case the demand of dowry articles and subjecting deceased to cruelty and causing harassment has been clearly established against respondent Dharmendra Rajput. Hence the offence under Section 498-A of I. P. C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has committed an illegality in acquitting him from the charge under Section 498-A I. P. C. ( 17. Hence the offence under Section 498-A of I. P. C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has committed an illegality in acquitting him from the charge under Section 498-A I. P. C. ( 17. ) SINCE Rubi @ Anita committed suicide within the span of 7 years of her marriage and respondent Dharmendra Rajput subjected her to cruelty, therefore, the presumption under section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act may be drawn against him that he has abetted the commission of suicide of his wife. No evidence has been adduced to rebut this presumption hence the offence under Section 306 of I. P. C. is also proved against respondent Dharmendra Rajput. The finding of acquittal of respondent Dharmendra Rajput from the charge under Section 306 I. P. C. is also erroneous which deserves to be set aside. He is held guilty under Section 306 of Indian penal Code. ( 18. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the court below with respect to respondent Dharmendra Rajput is hereby set aside. He is held guilty under Section 498-A and 306 of I. P. C. and is sentenced to R. I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine S. I. for 15 days and R. I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine S. I. for 1 month respectively. The jail sentences shall run concurrently. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be directed to surrender before C. J. M. Narsinghpur on 17. 09. 2009 for serving out the sentence. ( 19. ) THE appeal with respect to respondents Ram Singh rajput and Munni Bai Rajput is hereby dismissed. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.