JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This is an extremely sad and rare case where a mother has taken the lives of her two children and then committed suicide. The question is whether she was driven to do this inhuman act due to the cruelty meted out to her by her in-laws or not? 2. Vandana (deceased mother) was married to accused, Haresh Gautam, in the year 1999. She gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, in September, 2000 at Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla. Vandana and Haresh Gautam were living at Sanjauli in Shimla whereas her husband's brother, respondent No. 2, Purnesh Kumar Gautam and his wife, Smt. Prem Lata, respondent No. 4, lived with the parents (respondents No. 3 and 4) of the husband of Vandana (deceased mother) at Mandi. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, the appeal stands abated qua them. 3. There is no dispute that on 05.02.2003, Vandana murdered her twin children and then committed suicide by setting herself on fire. This incident was reported to the police by PW5, D.N. Kapoor, landlord of the building in which Vandana lived with accused, Haresh Gautam. Thereafter, PW1, Hans Raj, father of deceased Vandana filed a written complaint with the SHO, Police Station Dhalli, Ex. PA, on the next day, i.e. 06.02.2003. In this written complaint, it was alleged that though at the time of marriage, no dowry was given, immediately after the marriage, the in-laws of his daughter, Vandana, had started taunting her that though she belonged to a well off family, she had not brought sufficient dowry. Hans Raj advised his daughter that she should bear these taunts and in between, he used to pay some amount to his daughter, especially when she gave birth to the twins. It was also alleged that respondents No. 2 and 5, i.e. brother and sister-in-law of respondent No. 1 (Jeth and Jethani of the deceased), who were issueless despite being married for thirteen years, wanted that Vandana should give one of the twins to the issueless couple. Vandana refused this proposal and thereafter, she was abused and subjected to cruelty by the in-laws. This happened during the presence of Vandana's paternal aunt (bua), PW4, Kamla Devi. 4. Vandana refused this proposal and thereafter, she was abused and subjected to cruelty by the in-laws. This happened during the presence of Vandana's paternal aunt (bua), PW4, Kamla Devi. 4. The complaint is very detailed and it also shows that the father gave money to his daughter in between and also celebrated the birthday of his grandchildren having an elaborate ceremony in which meals were offered to a large number of people and jewelery was given to the members of the family of the husband of the deceased. According to the complainant, his daughter again complained to him that she is being troubled by her in-laws for bringing less dowry and they had threatened her to leave her at her parental home. Thereafter, the father himself went to the house of the in-laws at Mandi and brought his daughter to their village at Sandhole. The younger daughter of the complainant was to get married in the month of November that year. According to the father, accused-Haresh Gautam told him that he had not been made a Ghar Jamai and now he (father) would give everything to his younger son-in-law. It is alleged that the accused-Haresh Gautam asked the father-in-law to give him Rs. 15 lacs to purchase a flat in Shimla. Similarly, the in-laws wanted that Vandana should give the male child to her husband's elder brother and his wife. After the wedding of the sister of deceased Vandana, accused-Haresh Gautam visited the village on 27th January, 2003 and promised to keep Vandana properly. He then took her to Shimla. On 2nd February, 2003, the complainant talked to his daughter when she complained that she was still being troubled by her in-laws and they were asking for money for the flat and also pressurizing her to handover the male child to her brother-in-law. When PW1 wanted to talk to accused-Haresh Gautam, he allegedly refused to talk to him. On this basis, the father alleged that his daughter had killed her children and committed suicide due to the cruelty meted out to her both on account of demand of dowry and on account of the pressure being put on Vandana to handover the male child to her brother-in-law. 5. The police investigated the matter and after investigation, accused persons were challenged and charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 5. The police investigated the matter and after investigation, accused persons were challenged and charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State and Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the accused-respondents. 7. On behalf of the State, it is urged that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is more than sufficient material on record to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty to such an extent that she had no option but to commit suicide. 8. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the shoe is on the other foot. According to him, because of the fact that two of the maternal uncles of the deceased were highly placed officials in Himachal Police Service, the accused have been subjected to what he termed as “judicial tyranny” and “legal terrorism”. He submits that deceased-Vandana was not treated with cruelty at all. He further submits that deceased-Vandana was suffering from schizophrenia and her act of killing her children is itself an act of madness which shows that she was totally insane and could go to any extent. According to him, deceased-Vandana after murdering her children had no option but to commit suicide because otherwise she would have been convicted of murdering her children. He also submits that there is virtually no complaint against the husband by the wife and the husband is totally innocent. His last submission is that this is an appeal against acquittal and once the respondents have been acquitted, the presumption of innocence gets strengthened and this is not a fit case where the Court should interfere at the appellate stage. 9. We may note the principles relating to the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal which have been dealt with in Sheo Swarup and others versus King Emperor, AIR 1934 Privy Council 227 (2); Aher Raja Khima versus State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 S.C. 217 ; Ananda Mohan Sen and another versus State of West Bengal, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 774 and Chandrappa and others versus State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 10. 10. The Apex Court in Chandrappa's case held as follows: “15. Bare reading of Section 378 of the present Code (Appeal in case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the Legislature on the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 16. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.” 11. Thereafter the Apex Court culled out the following principles: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law, (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusion’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we have considered the case in hand. We are aware that we are dealing with an appeal against acquittal. We have, therefore, dealt in detail with the evidence, both oral and documentary, in detail. 13. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, has laid great emphasis of the fact that the maternal uncles of deceased-Vandana were senior police officials and, therefore, a false case was made out against the accused. He submits that these senior police officials were so upset with the incident in which their niece had killed her own twins and then committed suicide that they decided that the accused should be taught a lesson by all means. He further urged that there were as many as four Investigating Officers in the case and some of the Investigating Officers are not telling the truth when they say that they were not even aware that the maternal uncles of the deceased were senior police officials. 14. As far as this argument is concerned, it stands proved on record that two of the maternal uncles of deceased-Vandana were senior police officials in the rank of Superintendent of Police and one of them was posted as S.P., CID (Crimes), Shimla. We can, therefore, presume that they would have been aware about the incident on 5th February itself since admittedly the family is a closely knit family. We can, therefore, presume that they would have been aware about the incident on 5th February itself since admittedly the family is a closely knit family. That does give rise to the question why the complaint was filed one day later on 6th February, 2003. However, the mere fact that deceased-Vandana was closely related to senior police officials by itself would not be a ground to discredit the entire prosecution story. It only means that we shall have to scrutinize the evidence with much greater care and caution. 15. The allegations of cruelty can be divided into two parts. The first allegation is that deceased-Vandana was taunted for bringing very little dowry and this amounts to cruelty. This would not only be an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC but would also be an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. As far as allegations of dowry are concerned, we are in agreement with the learned trial Court that there is no cogent or reliable evidence to show that the accused persons ever demanded dowry from the deceased or her family members. 16. Before discussing the other evidence, we would like to refer to the suicide note written by deceased-Vandana. We are of the considered view that this suicide note must be read as a whole and separate sentences cannot be taken out of context and read into isolation, as has been done by the learned trial Court. 16. Before discussing the other evidence, we would like to refer to the suicide note written by deceased-Vandana. We are of the considered view that this suicide note must be read as a whole and separate sentences cannot be taken out of context and read into isolation, as has been done by the learned trial Court. The suicide note written by deceased Vandana reads as follows: ^^eSa tks dqN Hkh dj jgh gw¡ oks viuh ethZ ls dj jgh gw¡A eSa vius lkFk vius cPpksa dks Hkh ys tk jgh gw¡A eSa ugha pkgrh fd esjs ckn tks eSaus Hkqxrk oks esjs cPps Hkh HkqxrsaA eSa fdlh ij Hkh vius ejus dk bYtke ugha yxkuk pkgrh gw¡A blfy, ugha fd eSa vius llqjky okyksa dks ltk ugha nsuk pkgrh cfYd eSa pkgrh gw¡ fd os yks jxM+&jxM+ dj ejsaA ftUgksaus eq>s ;s lc djus dks etcwj fd;kA dkuwu tks ltk bu yksxksa dks nsxk oks rks cgqr de gSA vius ek¡&cki ls eq>s cl bruk dguk gS fd eq>s ekQ dj nsaA esjs ikl blds vykok vkSj dksbZ pkjk ugha FkkA vius ifr ls eq>s flQZ bruk dguk gS fd rqe eq>s dHkh le> ugha ldsA rqeus vius ek¡ vkSj HkkbZ ds I;kj dh iV~Vh bruh viuh vk¡[kksa ij yxk yh Fkh fd rqEgkjk viuk ?kj mtM+ x;k ij rqEgsa irk ugha pykA vius HkkbZ vkSj ek¡ dks dguk fd vc rks oks yksx [kq’k gSa ukA rqeus viuk ?kj [kqn [kRe fd;k gSA ij eSa tkurh gw¡ bldk vglkl rqEgsa esjs ejus ds ckn Hkh ugha gksxkA eq>s Police ls flQZ bruk dguk gS fd esjh vkSj esjs cPpksa dh Body esjs llqjky okyksa dks uk lkSaih tk,] uk gh esjs ifr dksA bu yksxksa us eq>s ;s lc djus ij etcwj fd;k gS] budks gkFk Hkh uk yxkus fn;k tk,A esjk vkSj esjs cPpksa dks vafre laLdkj esjs ek¡&cki ds gkFkksa gksA ;s esjh vafre bPNk gSA tks eSa pkgrh gw¡ fd iwjh gksA esjs tks Hkh xgus gSa vkSj tks Hkh iSlk esjs ek¡&cki us cPpksa ds uke fd;k gS oks esjh lkl vkSj tsB dks ns fn;k tk,A rkfd oks bu lc ls tks iSlk mUgksaus esjs Åij [kpZ fd;k gS mldh HkjikbZ dj ysaA eSa flQZ vius cPpksa ls ekQh ekaxuk pkgrh gwa fd oks eq>s ekQ dj nsaA eq>s mudh ftUnxh Nhuus dk dksbZ gd ugha FkkA ij esjs ikl vkSj dksbZ jkLrk ugha FkkA esjh lkl vkSj tsB tSls yksx lekt ij ,d dyad gSa tks ckgj ls rks vPNs cus jgrs gSa ij vanj ls vius gh ?kj dks [kk tkrs gSaA bu tSls yksxksa ds dkj.k gh ?kj VwVrs gSa vkSj cgqvksa dks ,sls dke djus iM+rs gSaA eSa ,d ckj fQj fy[k jgh gw¡ fd esjs vkSj esjs cPpksa dk vafre laLdkj esjs ek¡&cki ds gkFkksa gksA bu yksxksa dks rks gkFk Hkh uk yxkus fn;k tk,A vxj esjk cPpk ftUnk cp tkrk gS rks mls esjs ek¡&cki dks lkSai fn;k tk,] ij budks ughaA bu lc ckrksa ds ihNs esjs ifr] llqj] tsBkuh dk dksbZ gkFk ughaA mUgsa csdlwj ekuk tk,A ij eq>ls vkSj esjs cPpksa ls mudks Hkh gkFk uk yxkus fn;k tk,A Sd/- oUnuk 17. The translation of the suicide note would read as follows: “What I am doing is totally of my own volition. I am also taking my children with me. I do not want that after I am gone my children should suffer what I have suffered. I do not want to blame anybody for my death, not because I want my in-laws to go unpunished, but because I want that my in-laws, who have forced me to do what I am doing, should die a slow and torturous death. Any punishment which the law will mete out to them would not be sufficient. To my parents all I can say is that I am extremely sorry but I had no other option but to do what I am doing. To my husband all that I have to say is that you could never understand me. Your love for your mother and your brother had blinded you to such an extent that your own home and family was destroyed and you did not even come to know about it. Tell your mother and brother that now they can be happy. You have finished your home and family yourself but I am sure that even after my death you will not realize the same. To the police I want to say that neither my body nor the bodies of my children should be handed over to my in-laws or my husband. These people have forced me to act in such a manner and therefore they should not even be permitted to touch the bodies. The last rites of my children and myself should be performed by my parents. This is my last wish which may be fulfilled. All my jewellery and all the money which my parents have put in the names of my children may be given to my mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Jeth) so that they can be compensated for the money which they may have spent on me. From my children I beg forgiveness. I had no right to take their lives but I had no other option. People like my mother-in-law and brother-in-law are a blot on society. They appear to be civilized from outside but they devour their own homes from inside. It is because of these people that homes and families are broken and daughter-in-laws are forced to do such things. I had no right to take their lives but I had no other option. People like my mother-in-law and brother-in-law are a blot on society. They appear to be civilized from outside but they devour their own homes from inside. It is because of these people that homes and families are broken and daughter-in-laws are forced to do such things. Whatever punishment is given to these people would be insufficient. I again reiterate that my children and my last rites be performed by my parents only. These people should not be permitted to touch the bodies. If any of my children survives then that child be given to my parents but not to these people. My husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law (Jethani) have nothing to do with these things. They be treated to be innocent but they may not be permitted to touch me and my children. Sd/- Vandana” 18. If this is not the plaintive cry of a troubled mind we fail to see what else it would be. We are constrained to observe that the learned trial Court did not read the suicide note in its entirety. He selectively picked up certain portion of the suicide note and interpreted those portions out of context. If the suicide note is read as a whole, it is apparent that Vandana was extremely troubled by some acts of her husband who, according to Vandana, was blinded by the love of his mother and brother to such an extent that he was willing to destroy his own family. She regrets her action when addressing her parents but her language used for the accused-husband is totally different. Her wish that the money which her parents had invested in the names of her children be given to her mother-in-law and brother-in-law has wrongly been read by the learned trial Court to mean that she had love and affection for them. In fact, this action of hers only shows that she did not, in any manner, want to remain indebted to her in-laws. It is important to note that in this suicide note she only begs forgiveness from her children clearly stating that she had no right to take their lives. This is not the note written by an insane person. Vandana was conscious that the act she was going to do was extremely heinous. Her explanation is that she had no other option. 19. This is not the note written by an insane person. Vandana was conscious that the act she was going to do was extremely heinous. Her explanation is that she had no other option. 19. We are constrained to observe that the learned trial Court has virtually not taken into consideration the suicide note while deciding the case. The question that still arises is why did Vandana commit the heinous crime of killing her children and then committing suicide. This is not an act which is normally expected of a mother and there must have been extreme circumstances which forced her to do so. 20. It has been urged that Vandana was insane and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the testimony of DW1, Dr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, who was earlier the Head of the Department of Psychiatry in IGMC till 1993. We fail to understand what sort of expert he is when he refers to the report of the post mortem as issued by Dr. Minakshi Mahajan, who, in fact, was the expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory and who submitted the report, Ex. PS and Ex. PT, which relate to the handwriting of the suicide note. The post mortem report is totally different. This so called expert never examined deceased-Vandana or her mother or maternal grandmother. He did not even care to examine the surviving members of the family of deceased-Vandana. He based his opinion solely on the version given to him by the accused persons. We expect a higher standard of probity from a person who claims himself to be an expert and who has retired as a Professor from the Medical College. He relying upon a document, Ex. D1, has come to the conclusion that there is strong history of mental illness in the family of the deceased. He has observed as follows: “A. There is a strong history of mental illness in the family of the deceased whereby her mother named Saroj was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and was treated at Dharampur during the year 1988. B. Late Mrs. Vandana mother’s mother (maternal grand mother/Naani) was also suffering from a mental disorder. C. The details of the antecedent during the period of their post marriage living together, delivery of twin male female children and day-to-day routine maladaptive, behaviour strongly point towards paranoid disorder from which the deceased Smt. Vandana was apparently suffering from. B. Late Mrs. Vandana mother’s mother (maternal grand mother/Naani) was also suffering from a mental disorder. C. The details of the antecedent during the period of their post marriage living together, delivery of twin male female children and day-to-day routine maladaptive, behaviour strongly point towards paranoid disorder from which the deceased Smt. Vandana was apparently suffering from. D. The suicide note written by her own hand Ex. PG prior to the executi0n of the act clearly and unequivocally reflects thought disorder which is absolutely in keeping with the characteristic of the said, then on going mental disorder. Finally the manner of committing the act goes fully in line with such disorders, i.e. paranoid disorder.” 21. If the so called expert, who had never examined Vandana, was asked to give an opinion, in all fairness, he should have not only taken the version of the accused, but should have also consulted Dr. Verinder Mohan, who had actually examined Vandana’s mother. He admitted that he neither examined Vandana nor obtained details regarding Vandana from her parents. It is only in cross-examination that he stated that he contacted Dr. Verinder Mohan when they were together at a conference. Why did he not contact Dr. Verinder Mohan and obtain his opinion in writing when there was evidence on record to show that it was Dr. Verinder Mohan who was treating the mother of the deceased. It was only he who could have appeared as an expert especially when he has admittedly still alive. Merely because the mother of the deceased was suffering from Schizophrenia is no ground to hold that the daughter must also be definitely suffering from a mental ailment. The way this witness has written the report clearly shows that he wanted to help the accused persons. While giving his opinion, he observed as follows: “…Circumstantially the grandparents with a view of help the both parents rear up the twins, offered to bring them up both or at least one which because of disorder resulted in heightened sense of insecurity for the children and because of hostility towards the environment (family members) thought it only wise to end the story by killing them by using all means including smothering (which means physically strangulating and blocking the air passage).” 22. How did he come to the conclusion that the grand parents wanted to rear the twins with a view to help Vandana and her husband. It is obvious that this was the version of the accused. This version is, in fact, different from that of the accused, who admit, in no uncertain terms, that they wanted Vandana to give one of her children and not both to the brother-in-law and his wife. We fail to understand how the so-called expert came to the conclusion that Vandana was suffering from a paranoid disorder. 23. The accused-Haresh Gautam and Vandana were married for more than three years. If Vandana had shown any signs of mental illness why did her husband and in-laws not take her to a Psychiatrist? Vandana belong to a family where her mother had been treated for a psychiatric disorder. If she had shown any signs of mental illness, her husband would normally have taken her for similar treatment. There is not a shred of evidence on record to show that she was suffering from any mental disorder. Merely because her mother suffered from a mental disorder and because the act committed by her is a rare and heinous one is not a ground by itself to hold that she was insane. 24. Her suicide note, to which we have made detailed reference above, clearly shows that she was aware of what she was doing and cannot be said to be an insane person. The less said about the opinion of the expert is better. An expert, who wanted to assist the Court, especially a Doctor, must act fairly and should examine the entire record which DW1 did not do. Once defence led evidence and had examined an expert, they should have examined Dr. Verinder Mohan also. Therefore, we are discarding the opinion of the expert. 25. Another witness relied upon by the defence is DW5, Yugal Kapoor, who calls himself a Doctor in Alternative Medicine. He is a charlatan who is wrongly using the prefix Doctor in front of his name. According to him, whenever Vandana used to come to Mandi she had been buying a medicine Prothadin 75 from him. He further states that she used to purchase 34 tablets but when she had to go to Shimla, she used to buy 45 strips of the said medicine containing ten tablets each. According to him, whenever Vandana used to come to Mandi she had been buying a medicine Prothadin 75 from him. He further states that she used to purchase 34 tablets but when she had to go to Shimla, she used to buy 45 strips of the said medicine containing ten tablets each. According to him, this medicine is meant to give rest. He states that the medicine was being sold to the deceased against proper cash memo, but the same were not produced on the ground that they had been destroyed. In cross-examination, he admits that the drug in question is a Scheduled drug and cannot be sold without the prescription of a Doctor. He could not remember the name of the Doctor on whose prescription he sold the medicine. 26. The statement of this witness does not inspire confidence and he is obviously telling lies. He has not produced any record with regard to the sale of the tablets. If, as stated by him, he was selling the medicines to Vandana on prescription issued by some Doctor, what prevented the accused persons from examining the said Doctor instead of this practitioner of alternative medicine? Admittedly, Vandana used to live at Sanjauli with her husband and she would have bought medicines at Sanjauli if she had really needed them. Assuming that she was buying such medicine, this would also not mean that she is insane. It would only mean that she was unable to sleep and therefore required medication. 27. Coming to the main issues involved, we are clearly of the view that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the case of demand of dowry or demand of Rs.15 lacs for construction of the flat has not been proved. Similarly, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust is also obviously false. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the accused never demanded dowry from the family of the deceased at the time when the marriage took place. It is proved that two uncles of the deceased were highly placed police officials. In case, any dowry would have been demanded, the uncles would have raised this issue. This issue was never raised for four years. 28. It is proved that two uncles of the deceased were highly placed police officials. In case, any dowry would have been demanded, the uncles would have raised this issue. This issue was never raised for four years. 28. The other allegation is that the PW1, Hans Raj, father of deceased-Vandana, was asked to spend a huge amount of money on the first birthday of his grand children. He himself, in his cross-examination, has admitted that in the social milieu to which they belong, maternal grand fathers arrange functions of this nature on the first birthday of the grand children. He admits that when the marriage took place, no dowry demand was made. He also admits that till 5th February, 2003, i.e. when Vandana committed suicide, his brother-in-laws were under the impression that there had never been any dowry demand from the accused persons. 29. It is hard to believe that PW1, Hans Raj, would not have talked to his brother-in-laws about the demand for dowry, especially when admittedly the relations between his daughter (deceased-Vandana) and his son-in-law were strained. The story about the demand of dowry is totally false. When the twins were born, he had given presents to his daughter, his grand children, his son-in-law and the in-laws of his daughter as per the social custom admittedly existing in the area. As far as the demand of Rs.15 lacs is concerned, that has not been proved. 30. Similarly, there is virtually no evidence on record to show that the accused have misappropriated the jewellery of the deceased. The story set forth in this regard is patently false because it stands proved from the evidence on record that when Vandana went to attend her sister’s wedding, she carried her entire jewellery. Thereafter she directly came to Shimla and, therefore, the question of the jewellery being taken by her in-laws at Mandi does not arise. 31. It appears that the police was overzealous while investigating the case and to this extent, we are in agreement with Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, that the investigation has not proceeded fairly. However, merely because some charges have been falsely levelled is not a ground to acquit the accused of all charges including charges which may have been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. M.L. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, that the investigation has not proceeded fairly. However, merely because some charges have been falsely levelled is not a ground to acquit the accused of all charges including charges which may have been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Merely because the police have been overzealous or unfair is not a ground to totally discard the prosecution case. It is for the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. It is the duty of the Court to unravel the truth. The Court is required not only to do justice to the accused, but also to the victims of the crimes and in this case two of the victims happen to be the hapless children whose cry for justice should not go unheard. 32. From the evidence on record and, in fact, as admitted by the husband and the other accused persons, right from the time when the twins were born, pressure was being put on Vandana to part with one of her twins and to hand over her male child to her husband’s elder brother and bhabhi (Jeth and Jethani). According to the father, at the hospital itself, it was proposed that Vandana should hand over one of the newly born children to her brother-in-law and his wife since they could not have a child for 1516 years and this was resisted by Vandana. This fact has not been disputed in cross-examination. PW4, Kamla Devi, parental aunt (bua) of deceased-Vandana, also states that in the hospital, the accused wanted Vandana to give one child to her Jeth and Jethani. She has not been cross-examined on this aspect. 33. One need not refer to the prosecution evidence in detail because these facts are virtually admitted by the two of the accused persons, i.e. the husband-Haresh Gautam and the sister-in-law (Prem Lata, wife of Purnesh Gautam). The relevant portion of the statement of Prem Lata (DW4) reads as follows: “When we had come to Shimla myself and other family members desired that deceased should give one child to me. It is correct that she had declined such offer. It is correct that in Shimla the deceased used to look after her twins. Self stated that her husband was also looking after them. It is correct that she had declined such offer. It is correct that in Shimla the deceased used to look after her twins. Self stated that her husband was also looking after them. It is incorrect that despite her declining we had been pressing her to give one child to us.” 34. The husband of deceased-Vandana, who is a well qualified person, appeared in the witness box as DW3. In cross-examination, he initially stated that it was incorrect that after the delivery of the twins, accused had made a proposal in the hospital to give one child to his brother. However, in the very next breath, he admitted the suggestion that such proposal was straightaway declined by the deceased. This clearly shows that such proposal was made and declined by Vandana. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW3, Haresh Gautam, reads as follows: “……..It is incorrect that immediately after the delivery of twins we had made a proposal in the hospital to give one child to my brother. It is correct that such proposal had been straight way declined by the deceased.” 35. He further on states as follows: “………The deceased might had (sic) been told 3 / 4 times to part with her child. Every time, she had declined such proposal.” 36. He then went on to state as follows: “………...Since despite our best efforts we could not arrange a permanent maid servant, for this reason I had made a proposal to part with our either children so that he or she could be brought up comfortably by my parents. My such proposal was resented by the deceased. When on 5.2.2003 I was about to leave to the place of my job in the morning, the deceased asked from me as to whether I was determined to give one child to my parents and brother and sister in law (Bhavi) and upon her such asking I expressed my firmness to do the needful. After that, I went to my place of job.” 37. He also states as follows: “….. I was making proposal to the deceased to part with one child for the reason that my brother and Bhavi were not having child.” 38. From the statement of the husband, it is more than apparent that at least he was time and again putting pressure on Vandana to part with one of her twin children. I was making proposal to the deceased to part with one child for the reason that my brother and Bhavi were not having child.” 38. From the statement of the husband, it is more than apparent that at least he was time and again putting pressure on Vandana to part with one of her twin children. He may have been doing so on account of his love and affection for his brother and bhabhi. He, however, should have been sensitive to the objections of his wife who was the mother of the children. A child belongs to both the parents. A child does not belong to a mother or a father alone. The father by himself has no right to give the child to any other person. It is obvious that the accused-husband was well settled. The parties belong to the middle class and other than the statement of the family members, there is no material on record to show that Vandana had ever expressed any difficulty in bringing up both the children. How could the husband assume that he had a right to take away one of the children and hand it over to his brother? 39. To us it appears that the husband was insensitive to the feelings of his wife and indeed his children. Why should the two twins live separately? What was the pressing need to hand over one child to his brother? Merely because the brother and his wife had been unable to bear a child was not enough justification for the husband to make an issue about giving the child to his brother. 40. It is more than apparent that for more than two years, Vandana was being pressurized to give one of her child. Any mother who wants to bring up her children and is being forced to hand over a child to somebody else would be deeply affected by such proposals. In case a proposal had been made and after Vandana’s refusal, the matters had remained where they are, we could have understood that a proposal was made and then rejected by the mother and the matter settled down. 41. The statement of the husband is that before he left for his office, when Vandana asked him whether he was determined to give one child to his parents and brother and bhabhi, he expressed his firmness to do so. 41. The statement of the husband is that before he left for his office, when Vandana asked him whether he was determined to give one child to his parents and brother and bhabhi, he expressed his firmness to do so. This was the last straw on the camel’s back. This was the breaking point for Vandana and probably she felt that she would have to part with one of her children. To avoid this, she committed the most inhuman act of killing her children and thereafter left with no alternate committed suicide. 42. We have no doubt in our mind that this persistent action on the part of the accused-husband in trying to force his wife to give one of her children is an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads 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 years 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.” 43. Cruelty need not be physical cruelty. Cruelty can be mental cruelty as clearly set out in the Section itself. The cruelty can be inferred not only from direct evidence but also from indirect evidence. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar and others versus State of Haryana, (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309, held as follows: “18. The next question is, whether there was any cruelty or harassment by the deceased's husband or any relative and that too was it soon before her death. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar and others versus State of Haryana, (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309, held as follows: “18. The next question is, whether there was any cruelty or harassment by the deceased's husband or any relative and that too was it soon before her death. The argument put in is that neither is there any physical injury nor is there any evidence of cruelty from any neighbours or other independent persons; hence there is no cruelty or harassment. In our considered opinion, cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harassment within the meaning of Sections 304B and 498A IPC. Explanation (a) to Section 498A itself refers to both mental and physical cruelty. In view of Explanation (a) the argument is, before it constitutes to be a cruelty there has to be wilful conduct. Again wilful conduct means, conduct wilfully done; this may be inferred by direct or indirect evidence which could be construed to be such. We find, in the present case, on account of not satisfying the demand of the aforesaid goods, right from the next day, she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by being called ugly etc. A girl dreams of great days ahead with hope and aspiration when entering into a marriage, and if from the very next day the husband starts taunting her for not brining dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be greater mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride. There was a quarrel a day before her death. This by itself, in our considered opinion, would constitute to be a wilful act to be a cruelty both within the meaning of Section 498A and Section 304B IPC. 44. The learned trial Court has made reference to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Sumangala L. Hedge versus Laxminarayan Anant Hedge and another, 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1418. We are constrained to observe that the learned trial Court appears to have been only read the catch words and not the entire facts of the case. That was a case where differences had already arisen between the husband and the wife and the father took away the child from the custody of the mother without informing her. We are constrained to observe that the learned trial Court appears to have been only read the catch words and not the entire facts of the case. That was a case where differences had already arisen between the husband and the wife and the father took away the child from the custody of the mother without informing her. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that this in itself does not amount to subjecting her to cruelty. We are not totally in agreement with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, but in that case the child was being taken by one parent from the other and the child was not being taken from the parent and handed over to some other family member for ever. The judgment on this ground was totally distinguishable. 45. We are in agreement with the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Kumar Sharma and others versus State of U.P., 1991 (1) Crimes 298 , wherein it was held that when the husband takes away the son from the custody of the wife without informing her, this amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. 46. We are clearly of the view that the husband at least is guilty of committing an offence of cruelty. As far as the brother and sister-in-law are concerned, they for their own interest, may have wanted to adopt the child of the brother, but there is no cogent evidence on record to show that they ever unnecessarily pressurized the deceased in this behalf. As far as the husband is concerned, he himself, in his statement, has categorically stated that he was firm in his resolve to take one child from Vandana and hand the child to his brother. He also clearly admits that just a couple of hours before the incident, he, when confronted by Vandana, had told her, in no uncertain terms, that he would hand over one child to his brother. This, in our opinion, amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 47. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the State against respondents No. 3 and 4 (Puran Prabha and Yog Raj) already stands dismissed as abated. The appeal against respondents No. 2 and 5 (Purnesh Kumar Gautam and Prem Lata) is dismissed on merits. This, in our opinion, amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 47. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the State against respondents No. 3 and 4 (Puran Prabha and Yog Raj) already stands dismissed as abated. The appeal against respondents No. 2 and 5 (Purnesh Kumar Gautam and Prem Lata) is dismissed on merits. The appeal against the husband, i.e. respondent No. 1Haresh Gautam, is partly allowed and he is held guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside to this limited extent. The bail bonds of accused-Haresh Gautam are cancelled and he be produced before this Court on 31stDecember, 2012, for being heard on the issue of quantum of sentence.