JUDGMENT : Justice Surinder Singh, J. The acquittal of the respondents passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged in the present appeal. Heard and gone through the record. The undisputed facts are that: (i) The deceased Smt. Vijay Bharti was married to the respondent Rakesh Kumar on 5th December, 1997. She committed suicide by partially hanging in her room on 4.1.2002 at her residence at Sanjauli, where she was residing with her husband, parents in law and the other respondents. (ii) Respondents No. 2 and 3 Miss. Reena Sharma and Miss Monika Sharma are unmarried sisters of respondent No. 1. (iii) Respondent No. 1 was Draughtsman (Civil) in HPSEB, Shimla. (iv) Respondent No. 2, Miss Reena Sharma is post graduate in Engineering and B.Sc B.Ed and for some time she remained as teacher in SPM Model High School Sanjauli, Shimla. (v) Respondent No. 3, Miss Monika is M.Phill in Mathematics and serving in private Engineering College as lecturer. (vi) After one year of marriage, deceased started living in a rented house with her husband, near the house of her in-laws. 2. As per the prosecution case, the relations between deceased, respondents and other family members did not remain cordial, as such, she had been quite often complaining to PW-1 Minakshi Gautam. It is alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 had been passing comments against the deceased that she did not know the house hold work and did not know how to wash clothes. It is alleged that when she was carrying eight months pregnancy, her husband left her alone in the rented room unattended. Then she was taken to her home by PW-2 Kaura Devi, where she delivered a child and after birth of child, she joined the company of her husband. On 4.1.2002, as already stated above, deceased was found partially hanging in her room, which was bolted from inside. Police was called and door was broken open and dead body was taken out by PW-8 H.C. Suraj Parkash, with the assistance of other constables. Thereafter PW-10 Dr. Piyush Kapila, Registrar Forensic Medicine, IGMC, Shimla was called to the spot. He inspected the dead body and thereafter at the request of police the dead body was taken to hospital for conducting post mortem. Thereafter PW-10 Dr. Piyush Kapila, Registrar Forensic Medicine, IGMC, Shimla was called to the spot. He inspected the dead body and thereafter at the request of police the dead body was taken to hospital for conducting post mortem. Apparently, doctor did not notice any ligature mark on the neck but faint marks of contusions were present on the neck. Hypostasis had not appeared on the back of the dead body. There was no frothing or salivation from the mouth, however, the face was congested and body was worm. The partial hanging was with sari Ex. P-26. The doctor also noticed the congestion and bluish coloration of the face and pale extrimities. No ligatures mark could be appreciated at the time of fixing on the back purpling colour. Riger mortis has started to appear in big joints and neck. No evidence of crushing of subcutaneous on the neck. There was no fracture of hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage or cricoids cartilage was found. In both the lungs evidences of petechial hemorrhages were found in the inter lobar fissures. Tongue was not bitten in between the teeth. There was no food or fluids in the stomach neither any smell nor congestion was seen. Viscera were not sent for chemical examiner. There were gross petechial hemorrhages on liver, spleen and kidney. The deceased was in menstrual phase and sanitary pad was in situ. Prima facie doctor was of the opinion that the deceased had died of antemortem asphyxia secondary to partially hanging leading to death-suicidal in nature in all probabilities. Post mortem report along with ligature material and the jewellary articles found on the dead body was handed over to the police vide inventory. The post mortem report is Ex. PK. The inquest papers prepared by the police are Ex. PL(5 pages). A wooden plank was found on the spot when the doctor had visited the spot. The height of the grill from floor was about 4 feet with which one end of the sari was found tied. The probable duration of injuries and death was about 3 to 5 minutes and between death and post mortem was about 6 to 7 hours with quite certainty that the doctor was of the opinion that the case of the death was partial hanging, because other nature of death like strangulation and complete hanging can easily be ruled out by him in the present case. The police had also taken the photographs of the dead body and had prepared the site plan of the spot. The police recorded the statement of PW-1, Smt. Minakshi Gautam, u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which ultimately culminated into FIR against the accused persons for offences aforesaid. The challan was accordingly presented in the Court for trial. 3. Finding a prima facie case against the respondents, they were charged for the offences aforesaid and at the end of the trial, they were acquitted of the offences. The State felt aggrieved against the impugned judgment of acquittal, filed the present appeal. 4. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Sh. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General forcefully argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective. No reasons were assigned for discarding the cogent version of the complainant, mother of the deceased and other witnesses, which were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges. The circumstantial evidence on record clearly proves that the respondents were responsible for creating a situation for committing suicide by the deceased in the matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage. Therefore, by virtue of Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act, presumption as to abatement of suicide by the decease could have been drawn. Since the findings of the learned trial Court dehorse the evidence, therefore, there are chances of acquittal converting into conviction of the respondents. 5. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel for the respondents countered the above arguments that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is tainted and exaggerated, probably they were prejudiced with the untimely death of the deceased. It is submitted that there was an age difference between the deceased and her accused/husband. The deceased was younger of about eight years. She was reluctant to marry with respondent No. 1, however, otherwise also the evidence on record suggests that she was suffering from physiological problem, for which she had taken the treatment from DW-2 Dr. Munish Kumar Saroch, Registrar, Psychiatry Department IGMC and further he has referred to the statement of PW-1, Minakshi Gautam that the deceased had been taken to Sundernagar for treatment from a 'Tantrik'. Munish Kumar Saroch, Registrar, Psychiatry Department IGMC and further he has referred to the statement of PW-1, Minakshi Gautam that the deceased had been taken to Sundernagar for treatment from a 'Tantrik'. He has further stated that the deceased was sensitive in nature and at one time, she had also tried to commit suicide by jumping into Satluj River near Tata Pani, who was saved by her husband. Further that there was no cogent and reliable evidence of cruelty by the respondents and also in absence of the proof of cruelty the presumption u/s 113(A) of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn. 6. We have appreciated the rival contentions of the parties, in the light of the record, more carefully and cautiously. Admittedly, the deceased had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. The presumption u/s 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act can only be drawn, when it is proved that the suicide has been committed within seven years of the marriage and further when the husband or any relative of her husband must have committed the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The presumption, however, is rebuttable. In other words, failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused leads to the conclusion that the presumption u/s 113(A) of the Evidence Act cannot be raised, therefore, the instant case is required to be examined in the light of the above settled principle of law. 7. PW-1, Minakshi Gautam is the cousin of the deceased, i.e. the daughter of her Mausi. She was residing in the vicinity of the in-laws of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had been visiting her and was also in touch on telephone. After about 2-3 months from her marriage, the relations between the deceased and the respondents become strained, as they were unnecessarily torturing her with regard to her conduct and behavior and she was helpless. On this, she advised her to get the matter settled by intervention of the parents-in-laws. She had also visited her mother in the month of June, 1998 at Karsog. Simultaneously, her husband also reached there. On this, she advised her to get the matter settled by intervention of the parents-in-laws. She had also visited her mother in the month of June, 1998 at Karsog. Simultaneously, her husband also reached there. On seeing the deceased and her husband visiting the house, everybody was surprised and felt concern and it was then the deceased told her that she came alone from her house from Sanjauli and took a bus to Karsog and her husband might have also boarded the same bus, since some quarrel had taken place between them and she had left the house of her husband. Next day, Rakesh Kumar, respondent returned Shimla and Vijay Bharti remained in the house of her mother. This all happened in June, 1998. Thereafter they tried to console the matter and the respondents told that it was a family matter and nothing would happen in future. She specifically stated that respondents No. 2 and 3 had been torturing her by saying that she did not know how to cook food and wash clothes and were in full control of the affairs in the house. They had also been giving beatings to her and pass unpleasant remarks. In cross-examination she stated that no dispute have ever taken place in her presence in between deceased and respondents. But a sporadic incident, took place on the birth day of the daughter of the deceased when the parents and sisters of respondent No. 1 did not attend the birth day function, her husband wanted to provide packed dinner to them, but deceased raised objection that since they failed to attend the function, why the dinner should be served to them. She also stated that only once, they had asked about respondent Rakesh Kumar about the complaint made by the deceased, when he stated that it was only family matter and in her opinion the family skirmishes might have been solved between them, because only for this, they had been living together. She stated that on account of age gap between the deceased and Rakesh Kumar, she did not want to marry. She also admitted the suggestion that the deceased at one point of time was taken to Sundernagar for treatment to Chela/Tantrik. This fact is denied by her mother Kaura Devi. She stated that on account of age gap between the deceased and Rakesh Kumar, she did not want to marry. She also admitted the suggestion that the deceased at one point of time was taken to Sundernagar for treatment to Chela/Tantrik. This fact is denied by her mother Kaura Devi. She also stated that two days prior to death, she was seen along with respondents No. 2 and 3 in the market and before that she had also wished Happy New Year to her on telephone and was quite happy. 8. PW-2, Kaura Devi is the mother of deceased. Her husband had died about 14 years back. She worked as a part time water carrier in a school at monthly wages of Rs. 900/-. In addition to that she was also doing agricultural work. Comparatively the family of the parents of the deceased was not so much affluent as that of the respondents. Previously, on 4.2.2002 a statement Ex. PG was made by Smt. Kaura Devi before the police u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she had admitted that at one point of time, the deceased had also tried to commit suicide by jumping into river at Tata Pani and she was saved by her husband. PW-9, Inspector Ramesh Kumar afforded corroboration to this statement by proving it and admitted that PW-2 Smt. Kaura Devi had stated to him that her daughter told her that she was fed up from her life and for this reason, she had tried to commit suicide by jumping into river and on arrival of her husband on the spot, she changed her mind and came back accompanying him to her house from the spot. Her other statement mark-Y was recorded on 30.2.2002, but according to the investigating officer, she had herself contacted to record her statement, which was recorded in the house of PW-1, Smt. Minakshi. Whereas, PW-2 stated that she approached the police second time for recording her statement as she was not in proper mental condition earlier. She stated that the respondents were not properly maintaining the deceased and inturn she herself had provided clothings to her, but she could not tell how many times and how much money was spent by her on clothes of deceased. She also stated that the deceased wanted to take divorce from the respondent/husband and was called to Shimla. She stated that the respondents were not properly maintaining the deceased and inturn she herself had provided clothings to her, but she could not tell how many times and how much money was spent by her on clothes of deceased. She also stated that the deceased wanted to take divorce from the respondent/husband and was called to Shimla. She further admitted that there was a age difference between her daughter and her husband, as her daughter was much younger to respondent No. 1. She also stated that the family dispute used to be compromised/patched up by her daughter on her advice but she denied that her daughter attempted suicide at Tata Pani, whereas, this fact found mentioned in Ex. PG, her statement given to the police, as stated above, when she was confronted with. 9. PW-4, Bhartendu Sharma is the brother of deceased, though stated that the respondents have been taunting her that she did not know cooking food and washing clothes. In cross-examination he admitted that he had to remain outside to pursue his studies in Maharashtra, where he had gone in August, 2000. He approached police of his own for his statement, while staying in the house of PW-1, Minakshi. He further stated that expenses for marriage were arranged by his maternal uncle, as they were not financially well, whereas, the respondents are financially well. 10. PW-5 Sh. Matidhar Gupta is the nephew from the village of PW-2, Smt. Kaura Devi. He has introduced a new story that twice or thrice, the deceased had stated that her husband and other respondents used to give her beatings and also demanded dowry, which was never the case of the prosecution nor stated by any other witness. He was also confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein this fact did not find mention. 11. PW-6 Sh. Maheshwar Dutt is also from the village of Smt. Kaura Devi. He stated that the respondents had been passing taunts and using to tell the deceased that she did not know cooking and washing of clothes. He also stated that respondent No. 1 was compelling her to live in the family with his parents. 12. The respondents have denied the alleged circumstances, which were found attendant upon to them. He stated that the respondents had been passing taunts and using to tell the deceased that she did not know cooking and washing of clothes. He also stated that respondent No. 1 was compelling her to live in the family with his parents. 12. The respondents have denied the alleged circumstances, which were found attendant upon to them. They also filed a written statement u/s 233(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby they stated that the deceased was highly sensitive and was suffering from Hysteria. She was not mentally stable and also was suspecting herself to be under the spell of some evil spirit and she was got treated at IGMC Shimla and Kali Temple Kanswal Khad near Sundernagar by respondent No. 1 and also by the mother of deceased (PW-2). Respondent No. 1 and the deceased had a visit to the parental house of the deceased and remained there for a period of seven days and returned on 30.12.2001 with the deceased happily. She was never harassed by any one and they were surprised by the act of the deceased bolting the room from inside, when the accused were not able to open the door and suspected some foul play, the police was informed. The door was broken open and found the deceased having committed suicide by partially hanging. The deceased being an irrational and sensitive person, suffering from Hysteria had committed suicide. After her death, due to strained relations, a false story was concocted with ulterior motives. 13. To prove their case, the respondents/accused also produced DW-1, Sh. Umesh Sharma from the office of Deputy Chief Engineer, HPSEB, where respondent No. 1 is serving. Respondent No. 1 had claimed the reimbursement with respect to medicines which he purchased for treatment of his wife and the said witness proved Ex. D-1 to D-2, prescription slips which were appended with the reimbursement form. 14. To prove the prescription slips, respondents also examined DW-2, Dr. Munish Kumar Saroch, Registrar, Psychiatry Department, IGMC, Shimla. He admitted that the prescription slip dated 28.4.1998 is in his hand and also the hand of Dr. Joginder Mohan, who had examined Smt. Bharati in the Psychiatry Department. From this prescription slip, Smt. Bharti was lastly given treatment on 8.6.98. As per Ex. DW-2/A, she was given treatment for 'conversion reaction' and 'depression'. He admitted that the prescription slip dated 28.4.1998 is in his hand and also the hand of Dr. Joginder Mohan, who had examined Smt. Bharati in the Psychiatry Department. From this prescription slip, Smt. Bharti was lastly given treatment on 8.6.98. As per Ex. DW-2/A, she was given treatment for 'conversion reaction' and 'depression'. He also stated that conversion reaction means hysteria .In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was suffering from B.F. 32 (depression), which is not common in women. 15. On critical examination, we apparently find that the deceased was suffering from depression. At one point of time, she also attempted suicide by jumping into river near Tata Pani but on arrival of her husband, she changed her mind and accompanied him to her house. We have also noted exaggerations and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to cruelty meted out to deceased. 16. Legally cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A is to be established in that context as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering conduct of the man, weighing gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint. It has been observed in Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam, that petty quarrels cannot be termed as "cruelty" to attract provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. In Bansi Lal Vs. State of Haryana, , the Supreme Court observed that while considering the case u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty has to be proved during the close proximity of time of death and it should be continuous and such continuous harassment physical or mental by the accused should make the life of the deceased miserable, which may force her to commit suicide. 17. In the instant case, there is no such evidence on record to show that any of the respondents have done any act of cruelty in terms of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, during the close proximity of time of death. 17. In the instant case, there is no such evidence on record to show that any of the respondents have done any act of cruelty in terms of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, during the close proximity of time of death. As per record, the deceased committed suicide on 4.1.2002, whereas, prior to it she was seen by PW-1 in the company of respondents No. 2 and 3 roaming in the Bazar happily on the eve of new year. 18. The entire gamut of the above discussion leads us to the conclusion that there might be some minor abrasions in the family as her respondent/husband wanted that deceased should live in joint family with his unmarried. It appears that this proposition was not acceptable to deceased. Since she was already suffering from depression as stated by the doctor and had been under treatment in the recent past that might be the reason that because of her sensitive nature, she must have finished her life, coupled with the fact that she already attempted earlier by jumping into river at Tata Pani without any instigation or abatement by the respondents. 19. Therefore, in the above circumstances, we did not see any reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, as a result of which the appeal stands dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records.