JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The convict has come in appeal against judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Shubh Lata, now deceased, daughter of PW-1 Som Nath and sister of PW-11 Savita Devi was married to appellant on 22.1.1999. The deceased after marriage visited her parent’s house and stayed there till 27.2.1999. The appellant used to visit his in-laws house during this period. The deceased told PW-11 Savita Devi, her elder sister that appellant was demanding scooter and in case it was not given, she would not be sent to her parents house. PW-11 Savita Devi told this fact to her aunt PW-12 Smt. Naresh Rani. 3. On 2.3.1999 at about 12.30 p.m. brother of the appellant came to PW-1 Som Nath alongwith 3-4 persons and informed them that Shubh Lata was ill and hospitalized at Nangal in some clinic. PW-1 Som Nath visited the house of appellant and found many people gathered there and his daughter Shubh Lata had died due to burns. The statement Ex.PA of PW-1 Som Nath was recorded and thereafter FIR Ex.PG was registered. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW-8 Dr. N.K.Sankhyan, postmortem report Ex.PM was obtained. The doctor opined the death due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem burn injuries. 4. PW-14 Moti Ram conducted the investigation. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant and his brother Balvinder Singh. They were charged for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 120-B IPC. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and produced some documents. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case. The accused led no evidence in defence. Balvinder Singh, brother of the appellant was acquitted. The appellant was acquitted under Section 304 –B IPC but convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC, as noticed above, hence appeal. 5. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the evidence. Balvinder Singh, brother of the appellant was acquitted. The appellant was acquitted under Section 304 –B IPC but convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC, as noticed above, hence appeal. 5. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the prosecution story and has acquitted Balvinder Singh completely and appellant under Section 304-B IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant, the sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He has submitted that deceased was married on 22.1.1999, she died on 2.3.1999. A newly married woman would not take extreme step to end her life unless compelled by circumstances. He has submitted that no fault can be found with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to evidence. PW-1 Som Nath is the father of deceased Shubh Lata. He has stated that deceased was married to appellant on 22.1.1999. He has stated that after 15 days of marriage, Yash Pal and deceased had come to his house. His daughter stayed in the house for 15 days, Yash Pal had gone to Mehatpur for his job. 7. PW-1 continued that on 2.3.1999 at about 12.30 p.m. brother of Yash Pal alongwith 3-4 persons came in his house and told that Shubh Lata was ill and hospitalized in some clinic. He and his younger daughter Sabita went to Nangal, the brother of Yash Pal went to some clinic and told let him verify whether Shubh Lata was admitted in the clinic or had been discharged. He came after ten minutes and told that Shubh Lata might have discharged from the clinic. He then reached the house of Yash Pal, many people were gathered there. He saw his daughter Shubh Lata lying dead due to burns. Some articles were also burnt in the room. 8. PW-1 further stated that Shubh Lata had left his house on 27.2.1999. He enquired from Shubh Lata whether appellant knew driving and whether scooter belonged to him. He then reached the house of Yash Pal, many people were gathered there. He saw his daughter Shubh Lata lying dead due to burns. Some articles were also burnt in the room. 8. PW-1 further stated that Shubh Lata had left his house on 27.2.1999. He enquired from Shubh Lata whether appellant knew driving and whether scooter belonged to him. On this, the eyes of his daughter were full of tears which shows that there was demand of scooter, but she has not stated anything about the scooter. The police recorded his statement Ex.PA. In cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter stayed in his house from 14.2.1999 to 27.2.1999. During the stay with him, his daughter had not stated anything about the behaviour of appellant. Rajinder younger brother of appellant came to his house. After some time, his brother Phuman Singh, who is a doctor also reached there from Ludhiana. He denied that he performed the marriage of his daughter against her wish at Bhakra. 9. PW-2 Mohinder Nath has proved recovery memos Ex.PC and Ex.PD. He has proved the taking into possession of articles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. PW-3 Bishan Singh, Constable has proved rapat No. 11 dated 2.3.1999, Ex.PE, rapat No. 28 dated 2.3.1999 Ex.PF. PW-4 Shankar Singh is a witness of depositing articles with MHC, Police Station, Kot. PW-5 Shiv Ram, Constable is a witness of depositing the case property in F.S.L., Junga. 10. PW-6 Nanak Ram, H.C. has stated that on the basis of statement Ex.PA, he has recorded FIR Ex.PG. The case property was handed over to him. On 15.3.1999, nine sealed packets were sent to F.S.L., Junga. The case property was not tampered by anyone, it remained with him. 11. PW-7 Shamsher Singh, H.C. has stated that he filled inquest forms Ex.PH and Ex.PJ, which bears his signatures. PW-8 Dr. N.K.Sankhyan on 4.3.1999 conducted postmortem of deceased Shubh Lata on applications Ex.PK and Ex.PL. He has proved postmortem report Ex.PM, after receiving Chemical Examiner reports Ex.PN and Ex.PO, he gave final opinion Ex.PP which is same as was given in Ex.PM. 12. PW-9 Dalip Singh, Dy.S.P. was SHO, Police Station, Kot in the year 1999 and prepared the challan. PW-10 Kashmiru Ram has stated that he recorded the statement of Naresh Rani under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per her version. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Moti Ram, Additional SHO, Police Station, Kot. 12. PW-9 Dalip Singh, Dy.S.P. was SHO, Police Station, Kot in the year 1999 and prepared the challan. PW-10 Kashmiru Ram has stated that he recorded the statement of Naresh Rani under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per her version. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Moti Ram, Additional SHO, Police Station, Kot. In cross-examination, he has stated that Naresh Rani is wife of doctor Phuman Singh. Shubh Lata was niece of Naresh Rani. 13. PW-11 Savita Devi is the sister of deceased Shubh Lata. She has stated that on 15.2.1999 Shubh Lata and her husband came to their house. The deceased stayed in their house upto 28.2.1999. The husband of deceased used to come to their house during those days. On 2.3.1999 Billu brother of appellant came to their house, she and her father went to Nangal alongwith Billu. Then they went to the house of appellant, they saw dead body of Shubh Lata in the room in a burnt condition. 14. PW-11 further stated that during her stay in their house Shubh Lata told that appellant demanded scooter. The deceased further told that if scooter was not given then she would not be sent to her parents house. She told Shubh Lata that she would relate this fact to the father. Shubh Lata died as the demand of the appellant regarding scooter was not fulfilled. She disclosed this fact to the police. She did not tell to her father since her sister had asked her not to tell to the father. In between 14.2.1999 to 28.2.1999 she did not tell anybody about the demand of scooter by appellant. She stated that deceased burnt herself and died. 15. PW-12 Naresh Rani has stated that in February, 1999 Shubh Lata told her that appellant had demanded scooter, thereafter she left for Ludhiana. Shubh Lata was her niece. On 2.3.1999 a telephonic message was received that Shubh Lata had died. She reached during night but was not shown dead body and the dead body was shown next morning. In cross-examination, she has stated that she stayed in the village around 17.2.1989 onwards. She has not stated the demand of scooter to anybody except her husband. 16. PW-13 Naresh Kumar has proved photographs Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-24 and negatives Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-41. She reached during night but was not shown dead body and the dead body was shown next morning. In cross-examination, she has stated that she stayed in the village around 17.2.1989 onwards. She has not stated the demand of scooter to anybody except her husband. 16. PW-13 Naresh Kumar has proved photographs Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-24 and negatives Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-41. PW-14 Moti Ram has stated that on 2.3.1999 at about 9.30 p.m. wireless message came from Golthai that Yash Pal had reported that his wife had committed suicide. The police reached the spot, Shamsher Singh, H.C. was already on the spot. The statement Ex.PA of Som Nath under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 17. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. He has stated that he is innocent. He came to his house alongwith deceased from the house of deceased on 28.2.1999. On 2.3.1999 he and his two brothers had breakfast with Shubh Lata at 9.10 a.m. He went towards Satluj River to graze the cattle and his two brothers went towards Jungle to bring fodder. Their mother had gone to her parents house on 1.3.1999, Shubh Lata was alone in the house. At about 10.15 a.m. he heard the noise that there had been a fire. He rushed towards his house and found Shubh Lata had died due to burns and has committed suicide. He reported the matter to Police Post, Golthai. 18. Ex.PA is the statement of PW-1 Som Nath recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PE is rapat No. 11 dated 2.3.1999, Police Post, Golthai entered on the information of appellant at 5.30 P.M. informing that Shubh Lata committed suicide and died due to burns. Ex.PF, is rapat No. 23 dated 2.3.1999 Police Station, Kot Kehloor entered at 9.35 p.m. on the information given by Additional SHO, Moti Ram. Ex.PG is FIR, Ex.PM is the postmortem report, Ex.PN and Ex.PO are the FSL reports. Ex. PP is the final opinion given by doctor after Chemical Examiner reports. 19. The appellant has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 304-B IPC. The Section 113 A Indian Evidence Act is of presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman and Section 113-B is presumption as to dowry death. The Court may draw presumption under Section 113-A if suicide committed by woman within 7 years from the date of her marriage. The Section 113 A Indian Evidence Act is of presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman and Section 113-B is presumption as to dowry death. The Court may draw presumption under Section 113-A if suicide committed by woman within 7 years from the date of her marriage. In Piar Chand vs. State of H.P. Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2003 decided on 7.1.2011, it has been held that question of presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act regarding abetment to suicide arises only if the prosecution has placed some material on record to show that appellant has abetted the suicide of deceased. Once the basic material for recording a finding of abetment against the appellant is not on record then with the aid of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be presumed that appellant has abetted the commission of suicide. The appellant has been acquitted under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, there is no question of presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. The question in the present appeal is whether appellant subjected Shubh Lata to cruelty as provided under Section 498-A IPC. The Section 498-A IPC is as follows:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three yers and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. 21. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of statement of PW-11 Savita Devi and PW-12 Naresh Rani held that demand of scooter by the appellant has been established and, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. 21. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of statement of PW-11 Savita Devi and PW-12 Naresh Rani held that demand of scooter by the appellant has been established and, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. In these circumstances, the close scrutiny of statement of PW-11 Savita Devi and PW-12 Naresh Rani coupled with other relevant evidence on record is necessary. There is no denial that Shubh Lata died on 2.3.1999 due to burns, she ended her life herself. The question is whether under Section 498A IPC appellant is answerable to the act of deceased. 22. Shubh Lata died at about 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. on 2.3.1999. Rajinder younger brother of appellant had gone to the parents house of the deceased alongwith some persons. As per prosecution story, Rajinder pretended that Shubh Lata was ill and admitted in some clinic at Nangal but in fact she had already died. PW-1 Som Nath father of the deceased came to the house of the appellant alongwith brother of appellant and others and then came to know the death of Shubh Lata due to burns. The prosecution intends to convey that from the very beginning the case of appellant is of falsehood. Shubh Lata had already died but a picture was given that she was ill and admitted in some clinic at Nangal. Some times the death of an individual is not disclosed to near and dear all of a sudden to avoid shock, instead near and dear is told about serious illness so as to prepare near and dear to accept ultimate shock of death. It appears Rajinder in order to avoid immediate shock to PW-1 told PW-1 that Shubh Lata was ill though she had actually died. Therefore, it cannot be said that case of the appellant is based upon falsehood. In any case, the appellant had not gone to tell PW-1 etc. that Shubh Lata was ill though she had died. 23. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that appellant in order to create evidence had informed the Police Post, Golthai at about 5.30 p.m. on 2.3.1999 vide rapat No.11 Ex.PE though Shubh Lata had died in the morning at about 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. There was death in the house under unusual circumstance, a brother of appellant had already gone to the house of father of deceased alongwith some persons. The appellant must be waiting for them. The appellant must be under shock on account of death of his wife under unusual circumstance. The Police Station as per FIR is at a distance of 35 KMs from the place of occurrence. The distance of Police Post, Golthai from the place of occurrence is not clear, but rapat No.11 Ex. PE was got entered by appellant himself at Police Post, Golthai. 24. PW-1 father of deceased also reached the house of appellant on 2.3.1999. He did not report the matter to the police on 2.3.1999. The police came into action only on the basis of rapat made by the appellant and thereafter message was given by Additional SHO, Moti Ram which was entered in rapat No. 23 dated 2.3.1999 Ex. PF at 9.35 p.m. at Police Station, Kot Kehloor. The statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 was recorded on 3.3.1999 at 12.45 p.m. In these circumstances, the appellant cannot be blamed for informing the police of the incident on 2.3.1999 at 5.30 p.m. vide rapat No. 11 Ex.PE. 25. The prosecution case is of cruelty from appellant to deceased by raising demand of scooter and due to which Shubh Lata committed suicide by burning. PW-1 Som Nath has stated that his daughter stayed in his house from 14.2.1999 to 27.2.1999. The marriage was performed on 22.1.1999. PW-11 Savita Devi has stated in the Court that Shubh Lata during her stay in their house had told that appellant demanded scooter. She also told that if scooter was not given then she would not be sent to her parents house. PW-12 Naresh Rani has stated that Shubh Lata told her that Yash Pal was demanding scooter. The close scrutiny of statement of PW-11 and PW-12 do not inspire confidence. PW-11 is a married woman and is resident of Village Kutharwin, Tehsil Haroli, Una. PW-11 has not stated that she resided in the house of PW-1 from 14.2.1999 to 27.2.1999. PW-11 was with PW-1 on 2.3.1999 and even went to the house of appellant alongwith her father on 2.3.1999. 26. PW-1 Som Nath in his statement has not stated that deceased had told him that appellant demanded scooter from her. On the contrary, he has stated during her stay in his house, his daughter had not stated anything about the behaviour of appellant. 26. PW-1 Som Nath in his statement has not stated that deceased had told him that appellant demanded scooter from her. On the contrary, he has stated during her stay in his house, his daughter had not stated anything about the behaviour of appellant. PW-11 has stated that she had not told the demand of scooter to anyone except her Chachi. PW-12 has stated that she has not stated about the demand of scooter to anybody except her husband. There is nothing in the statement of PW-11 and PW-12 that they informed PW-1 regarding the demand of scooter by appellant. PW-1 himself has not stated that he was told demand of scooter by deceased or PW-11 and PW-12. It is surprising that in absence of information of demand of scooter by appellant how a reference of demand of scooter has come in the statement Ex.PA of PW-1 when it has not been proved that PW-1 was told by anybody demand of scooter by appellant. PW-1 reached the house of appellant on 2.3.1999. The police came to know the occurrence on 2.3.1999 at 5.30 p.m. vide Ex.PE and then at 9.35 p.m. vide Ex.PF, but statement Ex.PA was recorded on 3.3.1999 at 12.45 p.m. There is no explanation for delay in recording the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. PW-14 has stated that information was received on 2.3.1999 at 9.30 p.m. and thereafter, he alongwith others reached the spot. The inquest papers Ex.PH and Ex.PJ were filled in on 2.3.1999. It appears that statement Ex. PA has not been fairly written and it is the outcome of deliberations and an after thought attempt to implicate the appellant. 27. The evidence has come on record that in fact PW-1 has stated that Yash Pal had been visiting his house on scooter. When appellant was already having the scooter, then the demand of another scooter by appellant is very remote and suspicious. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded scooter from deceased and committed cruelty. The prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant. The impugned judgment is not sustainable. 28. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant. The impugned judgment is not sustainable. 28. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him, his bail bonds are discharged.