JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 26.02.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges. The facts of the present case, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, are that the Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Batala, has sent up the case for trial of accused Surinder Singh. Accused Jatinderjit Singh and Nirmaljit Kaur were found innocent during investigation and their names were kept in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. However, the said accused were summoned to face trial by the Court of Shri J.P. Mehmi, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide Order dated 21.02.2006. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that Surinder Kaur-deceased was a teacher and she was married to accused Surinder Singh about two years ago before her death. As per the allegations, in spite of sufficient dowry having been given, all the accused used to harass the deceased for bringing less dowry. Twice the deceased was sent back to her parental house and twice she came back to her matrimonial home after the assurance given by the accused in the presence of the Panchayat that they will not repeat the same mistake. On 11.03.2005 at 7.30 a.m., the complainant received a telephonic message from the accused that the deceased is seriously ill and she is admitted in Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar. On reaching the hospital, they found that she had died. 3. The accused were acquitted of the charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide Order dated 26.02.2008 by holding as under :- “ The deceased had not committed suicide on account of harassment by accused and on account of demand of dowry. The accused are successful in causing a dent in the prosecution story. So, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been successfully rebutted by the accused. Accused have bee successful in proving that there are chances that the deceased had committed suicide being depressed on account of her illness. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the said findings submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court were contrary to the evidence. It was stated that the trial Court had twisted the cross-examination of the petitioner. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the said findings submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court were contrary to the evidence. It was stated that the trial Court had twisted the cross-examination of the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner, in his cross-examination has stated that “...It is incorrect to say that Surinder Singh accused was having a cordial relations with deceased Surinder Kaur and he also spent lacs of rupees on her treatment....” As per law, the whole document/statement be read in toto and not a line from here and there. Hence, the findings recorded by trial Court are contrary to law and result of mis-reading and mis-interpretation of law and evidence. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Ananda Mohan Sen and anr. vs. State of W.B. 2007 Crl. L.J. 2770. 5. Accordingly, the records were summoned and the statement of PW-4 Paramjit Singh was read out. Nothing from the statement was read out which was contrary to the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. In fact, in the cross-examination, Paramjit Singh, PW-4, who is the petitioner in this case, stated as under :- “ I did not mention in my statement Ex.PG dated 11.03.2005 that on 02.03.2005, I received a telephonic message from my deceased sister who told me that her husband and the sister of her husband and his brother-in-law Jatinderjit Singh were teasing, taunting and torturing her. I did not mention in my statement Ex.PH that on 03.03.2005, I alongwith Gurpreet Singh visited the house of the accused and advised the accused and other members of the family not to torture my sister. I also did not disclose to the police in my statement Ex.PH that the accused Surinder Singh and his mother assured us on 03.03.2005 that they would not repeat such things.”......... ............. ............ “ However, after the solemnization of the marriage she was treated by Dr. Bansal who referred her to Mittal Liver and Gastro Antrology Centre, Patiala. It is incorrect to suggest that Surinder Singh used to take my sister Surinder Kaur at Patiala for treatment (volunteered; in fact we used to take her to Patiala for treatment). Surinder Singh never took my sister to Patiala for treatment. Bansal who referred her to Mittal Liver and Gastro Antrology Centre, Patiala. It is incorrect to suggest that Surinder Singh used to take my sister Surinder Kaur at Patiala for treatment (volunteered; in fact we used to take her to Patiala for treatment). Surinder Singh never took my sister to Patiala for treatment. I am not in possession of any receipt or treatment slip of my deceased sister. To my knowledge my sister was not treated by any other doctor except the above said doctors. I do not know if my sister remained under treatment with Dr. Harpreet Singh at Amritsar or that she used to visit her regularly for treatment. I cannot say if mark `D.5' and mark `D.6' are the treatment slips of Patiala and Amritsar. Mark `D.7' is not within my knowledge. It is correct that my sister has developed an ulcer in her stomach because of the acidity.”........ ........ “ It is correct that Surinder Singh accused was having a cordial relations with deceased Surinder Kaur and he also spent lacs of rupees on her treatment.” 6. Some other facts have come to light in the statement were that the deceased was suffering from illness. She was suffering from Duodenal ulcer and anxiety nevrosis. The case being of suicide, it was required to be proved as to whether there was presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act or not. The first incident pointed out is of the year 2003, the second incident is alleged to be of 2004 and the third incident is stated to be of 02.03.2005 pointing to cruelty towards the deceased. As per the third incident which is supposed to be close to the date of the death, Gurpreet Singh, the other brother of the complainant stated to have accompanied the petitioner to the house of the accused, where the accused assured that he will not commit any mistake in future. However, this fact is not mentioned either in the FIR nor the brother Gurpreet Singh was produced or cited as a witness. Thus, the said incident is not proved. No dying declaration was suffered by her. Even though, as per the statement of Dr. Jasmine Sachdeva, she was conscious and aware of her surroundings. Thus, the complainant has not been able to prove the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. Thus, the said incident is not proved. No dying declaration was suffered by her. Even though, as per the statement of Dr. Jasmine Sachdeva, she was conscious and aware of her surroundings. Thus, the complainant has not been able to prove the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. No other family member, nor the father, mother or the brother have been cited as witness, except the petitioner, who also stated that the relations between the deceased and her husband were cordial. While acquitting the accused, the benefit of doubt has been granted. Each case is required to be determined on its own facts. Thus, the judgment cited does not help the petitioner in this case. In the present case, the ingredients under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, immediately before the death, have not been proved to show presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. --------------