JUDGMENT Dev Darshan, J. (oral) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who have been convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). 2. The prosecution case in brief is that three accused, who were arraigned before the learned trial Court i. e. Shri Kishori Lal, (appellant No.1 herein), Shri Susheel Kumar and Smt. Berfi Devi, (appellant No.2 herein) are related to each other. Shri Kishori Lal and Shri Susheel Kumar were brothers and Smt. Berfi was their mother. The deceased Seema Devi daughter of Inder Singh (PW1) was married to the first appellant herein Shri Kishori Lal in May, 1999. In 2000, three days after Diwali, Kishori Lal asked Shri Inder Singh telephonically to come to their house whereupon Shri Inder Singh and his wife rushed there and were informed by this accused that the deceased had not been eating food for the last three days. On further inquiry the deceased informed them that she has been beaten up by Kishori Lal and her mother in law ( Smt. Berfi Devi). She also showed her injuries to PW1 Shri Inder Singh and PW2 Smt. Amri Devi. Seema Devi also bore twins who had died immediately after birth. But even in this situation she was compelled and harassed by accused Barfi Devi to work in the fields, perform house hold work and wash clothes etc. after 7-8 days of the delivery which according to the prosecution is not a normal course of conduct in case of ladies who suffer trauma of delivery. As a result of this arduous labour she had swollen feet and hands. On 22.2.2001 accused Susheel Kumar informed PW1 Inder Singh telephonically to come to the house of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. When he and his wife rushed there, he found that deceased Seema, accused Kishori Lal, Susheel Kumar and Marchu Ram were present in the house. Seema complained to the Up-pradhan, Shri Ramesh Chand, PW8 that she had been beaten up by accused Kishori Lal and Barfi Devi on 21.2.2001 when false allegations have been levelled against her that she was of a bad character. She also showed injuries suffered by her to the Pradhan, who asked PW-1 Shri Inder Singh to take her away and further asked them to appear before the Gram Panchayat on 24.2.2001. She also showed injuries suffered by her to the Pradhan, who asked PW-1 Shri Inder Singh to take her away and further asked them to appear before the Gram Panchayat on 24.2.2001. On that day both the parties appeared and the Panchayat directed that the accused Kishori Lal should not beat Smt. Seema in future. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and they were sent to home. On 7.3.2001, accused Kishori Lal again telephoned Shri Inder Singh, PW1 asking him to come to his house whereupon he and his wife Amri Devi, PW2 went there and saw that their daughter Seema was lying dead in the court yard of the house. He suspected that she might have been killed by the accused as they were maltreating, torturing and harassing her. Information was sent to the police whereupon PW11 Suhru Ram reach the spot and recorded statement of Inder Singh, PW1, Ex.PA on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW11/D was registered against the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. Autopsy was conducted on the deceased by Dr. A.K. Sharma and Dr. N.K. Sankhyan. Ex.PB is the report testifying that she died because of respiratory failure due to suspected poison. Report of chemical examiner Ex. PC states that there were traces of phosphide poison in Ex. P-1 (intestines), Ex.P-2 (viscera), Ex. P-4 (blood) and Ex. P-5 (remains of the contents of vomit of the deceased). 3. The learned trial Court on the evidence on record, convicted accused Kishori Lal and Berfi Devi and acquitted accused Susheel Kumar. In order to arrive at this conclusion, the learned trial Court considered the evidence of PW1 Inder Singh, father of the deceased who had corroborated the facts as stated by him in his complaint including the fact that the deceased had given birth to twins, who had died immediately thereafter but accused had forced her to work immediately after 5-7 days of delivery, as a result of which her feet and hands were swollen. In the month of November, 2001 the deceased was beaten up by the accused persons. He was informed on telephone by accused Kishori Lal that she was not taking food. Thereafter he and his wife PW2 Amri Devi went there. He reiterates the other facts stated by him in the complaint. 4. In the month of November, 2001 the deceased was beaten up by the accused persons. He was informed on telephone by accused Kishori Lal that she was not taking food. Thereafter he and his wife PW2 Amri Devi went there. He reiterates the other facts stated by him in the complaint. 4. PW2 Smt. Amri Devi also corroborates her husband when she states that her daughter was beaten up and harassed by the accused persons. She admitted that the matter was reported to the Panchayat only once. PW3 Subahsh Chand states that Smt. Seema was her sister and that she was beaten up somewhere in the year 2000 and thereafter she returned to her parental home. Accused Kishori Lal and some persons came to take her back. He says that on the same day at around 4 p.m., Smt. Berfi Devi started abusing Smt. Seema and threw the clothes out of their house and beaten her. He admits that no report was filed by them with the Panchayat, Police or Magistrate with respect to the beatings administered to her. They also did not get her medically treated for her injuries. PW4 Shri Devi Ram was declared hostile after he stated that the accused had never beaten the deceased in his presence. He was cross-examined at length but nothing material has emerged from his cross-examination. 5. PW5, Smt. Kashmiro Devi, who was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Gahar states that on 23.2.2001 Shri Kishori Lal came to their house and asked her to visit them as his wife Smt. Seema used to run away and also used to threaten that she will commit suicide. She advised him to compromise the matter and sent him to the Up Pradhan. Thereafter the Panchayat meeting was convened on 24.2.2001 when both the parties appeared before her. The deceased was accompanied by her maternal grand father, maternal uncle and one lady. Shri Kishori Lal was accompanied by his maternal grand father Shri Marchu Ram and neighbours Shri Nand Lal and Shankar. Smt. Seema told that she was beaten up by accused Kishori Lal, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. She was asked as to whether she would like to continue to live with her in-laws and would like to lodge a complaint when she replied that she would like to live with her husband. Smt. Seema told that she was beaten up by accused Kishori Lal, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. She was asked as to whether she would like to continue to live with her in-laws and would like to lodge a complaint when she replied that she would like to live with her husband. On behalf of accused Kishori Lal, his maternal grand father Shri Marchu Ram and one Nand Lal undertook that Smt. Seema would not be maltreated and accused Kishori Lal also furnished their undertaking. Written compromise Ex. PW5/A was stamped and signed by her. Again on 7th March, 2001, accused Kishori Lal came to her and told her that his wife was lying unconscious in the cow-shed and requested her to visit his house, whereupon she informed the police. This witness admitted in cross-examination that Shri Kishori Lal told her that Seema used to run away from home and threatened that she would commit suicide. Ex.PW5/A was neither written by this witness nor signed by the deceased and the accused. Statements of Smt. Seema and the accused were also not recorded. She did not know who was the scribe of this document. 6. PW-8 Shri Ramesh Chand states that Compromise, Ex.PW5/A was written by him. He was the Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gahar. He states that it is not signed either by Smt. Seema or Shri Kishori Lal. Their statements were not recorded. He has no knowledge as to whom the original of compromise Ex.PW5/A was handed over. He sates that compromise was entered into between Shri Marchu Ram and Jagdish. PW-9 Smt. Anita Kumari, who was the neighbour of deceased Smt. Seema Devi, resiled from her statement. It is in the backdrop of this evidence that the learned trial Court, more especially on the statements of PW5 Smt. Kashmiro Devi, PW-8 Shri Ramesh Chand and PW10 Shri Sita Ram holds that the deceased used to be beaten up by the accused and this was the trigger for her taking the extreme step for ending her life. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal versus Orilal Jaiswal and another, 1994 Cri.L.J. 2104 the Court holds that the case against the accused is proved to the extent that the deceased was subjected to mental harassment and tortured and as a result she ended her life. 7. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal versus Orilal Jaiswal and another, 1994 Cri.L.J. 2104 the Court holds that the case against the accused is proved to the extent that the deceased was subjected to mental harassment and tortured and as a result she ended her life. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the learned Court below was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offences as alleged. Learned counsel refers to the purported compromise Ex.PW5/A to submit that this has not been proved in accordance with law. He submits that even on the admitted case of the parties this compromise has neither been signed nor accepted by the deceased or the accused/appellants. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the factum of there being any dispute between the parties or that they used to beat up the deceased stand proved on record. The purported compromise is only a carbon copy, the original of which is not available and in these circumstances, it could not be said to have been proved. It states that on 24.2.2001 accused Kishori Lal accepted that he would not beat up his wife and Smt. Seema also admitted that she would also not persist inher obstinate and stubborn behaviour but would stay with her husband as his dutiful wife. This is all that it states. It continues that this compromise has been accepted from the side of accused Kishori Lal by his maternal grand father Shri Marchu Ram and neighbour Nand Lal. From the side of Smt. Seema it has been accepted by Shri Jagdish Chand maternal uncle of the deceased. Learned counsel then submits that the defence evidence has given a complete go bye. DW-1 Bansi Ram stated that accused persons reside at a distance of ½ kilometers away from his village. On 12.1.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. he heard a commotion on the road when he saw Nand Lal, Smt. Sunita Devi, Shri Jai Singh and accused Kishori Lal were restraining Smt. Seema Devi about 100-150 yards from Sheer Khad. At this time she was shouting that she would commit suicide by jumping in the khad. Smt. Soma Devi was also there. They brought Seema back from that place. He also went with them. At this time she was shouting that she would commit suicide by jumping in the khad. Smt. Soma Devi was also there. They brought Seema back from that place. He also went with them. Seema Devi was also saying that she was forcibly married with accused Kishori Lal by her parents against her wishes. At this juncture, he advised Kishori Lal to lodge a report with the Pradhan so that it does not cause trouble to him in future. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He states that he never heard about the accused beating up Smt. Seema Devi and that he remembers the date 12.2.2001 as on that day he seen the entire episode of the fracas created by Smt. Seema Devi. DW-2 Shri Nika Ram states that the deceased and the accused persons are known to him and in the month of March, 2001 he was employed by one Shri Khazana Ram where Shri Kishori Lal was also employed as mason. On 7.3.2001, he and Shri Kishori Lal were working in the house of Shri Khazana Ram. At that time around 2 to 2.15 p.m. accused Kishori Lal went to his house to bring “dhajji”. He did not return for a long time and he learnt that his wife had committed suicide. DW-3 Smt. Soma Devi is the sister of accused Kishori Lal and daughter of Smt. Berfi Devi. She states that on 12.2.2001 at around 6.30 p.m. Smt. Seema Devi ran towards Sheer Khad when she along with 5-6 persons including Shri Kishori Lal chased her, caught hold of her and over powered her. Thereafter they brought her back home. Smt. Seema was shouting that she was forcibly married with Shri Kishori Lal despite the fact that she had a choice to marry a government employee. She was also cross-examined at some length but nothing material was elicited from her. 8. It is in this back drop that the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is required to be considered. I see no reason to discard the statement of defence witnesses, more especially of DW-1 Shri Bansi Ram and DW-3 Smt. Soma Devi. Statement of DW-3 Smt. Soma Devi cannot be rejected on the ground of parochial affinity having been related to the accused as she corroborates DW-1 Shri Bansi Ram. I see no reason to discard the statement of defence witnesses, more especially of DW-1 Shri Bansi Ram and DW-3 Smt. Soma Devi. Statement of DW-3 Smt. Soma Devi cannot be rejected on the ground of parochial affinity having been related to the accused as she corroborates DW-1 Shri Bansi Ram. It is well settled law that while assessing the evidence it has to be considered as a whole and the evidence of the defence also requires consideration. It cannot be held that the defence evidence cannot be considered solely for the reasons that it is purportedly partisan in nature. 9. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment as prosecution witnesses and Court should not distrust them, as has been laid down in Dudh Nath Pandy vs. State of U.P., air 1981 SC 911 , holding. “19. Counsel for the appellant pressed hard upon us that the defence evidence establishes the alibi of the appellant. We think not. The evidence led by the appellant to show that at the relevant time, he was on duty at his usual place of work at Naini has a certain amount of plausibility but that is about all. The High Court and the Sessions Court have pointed out many a reason why that evidence cannot be accepted as true. The appellant's colleagues at the Indian Telephone Industries-made a brave bid to save his life by giving evidence suggesting that he was at his desk at or about the time when the murder took place and further, that he was arrested from within the factory. We do not want to attribute motives to them merely because they were examined by the defence. Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And Courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses. … … … … … … … The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. … … … … … … … ….” (p-916) 10. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. … … … … … … … ….” (p-916) 10. The principle of assessing the evidence are by now well established (See C. Magesh and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2010)5 SCC 645 ), which clearly lay down that evidence in criminal trial is to be assessed carefully after evaluation for its credibility. This principle was reiterated recently in Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010)10 SCC 439 inter alia holding that in order to arrive at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the evidence has to be judged by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. The Court holds that: “10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide : Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159 ; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 ; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 ; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of W.B, (2003) 12 SCC 377 ; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of W.B., (2007) 12 SCC 230 ). 11. In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 , this Court observed : (AIR p.645,para-12) "12. … … … …Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between `may be true' and `must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence [before an accused can be convicted]." 12. Thus, the law on the point may be summarised to the effect that in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” (pp-445-446) 11. What had to be established by the prosecution in this case are ingredients of Sections 498 and 306, IPC which is the constant conduct of the accused in harassing and treating the deceased in a manner which would leave no doubt that it was because of constant treatment of the deceased with physical and mental; cruelty which left no option to the deceased but to end her life. . In Amar Singh versus State of Rajasthan (2010)9 SCC 64 the Court has reconsidered the entire case law on Section 498-A holding that it must be applied and invoked with care and caution. . In Amar Singh versus State of Rajasthan (2010)9 SCC 64 the Court has reconsidered the entire case law on Section 498-A holding that it must be applied and invoked with care and caution. Section 306, IPC requires abetment to be proved which I find absent in the present case. Defence evidence on record establishes the suicidal tendency of the deceased that she did not want to live with the accused Kishori Lal as she was forcibly married to the accused against her wishes. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that it was the accused who forced the deceased to commit suicide. This appeal is accepted. Judgment of the learned District Judge is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.