JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral) The State of H.P. aggrieved by judgment dated 3rd April, 2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in S.C. No.74-G/VII/2010/ 2008, Sessions Trial No.43/2011, whereby the respondents, hereinafter referred to as accused No.1 and 2, respectively, have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A, 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred the present appeal, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective. The evidence produced by the prosecution has been erroneously discarded. Prosecution case that deceased Kanchan Wala had committed suicide on 25.8.2008, after being tortured by her in-laws, is fully proved on record from the testimony of the complainant PW-10 Rumel Singh, his wife PW-1 1 Smt. Bimla Devi and neighbour PW-8 Smt. Leela Devi and as such, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, should have been drawn against both the accused, however, contrary to it, learned trial Court has erroneously disbelieved their testimony and based the findings of acquittal on conjectures and surmises. It is also pointed out from Rapat Ext.D-1 that earlier also, the deceased had attempted to commit suicide and as such there was sufficient evidence to show that she was compelled to commit suicide on account of her constant torturing by the accused persons. 2. Deceased Kanchan Wala was married to accused No.1 on 20.2.2007. Since she was doing M. Sc from Jallandhar, therefore, immediately after the marriage she went to Jallandhar where her father was residing, to complete the studies. After her examination was over, the accused persons brought her to village Nau-Sehra, their native place. She later on came to Bhatinda, where her father-in-law was employed as driver and started living there. One day, the deceased informed her father PW-10 Rumel Singh over telephone that her mother-in-law used to beat and maltreat her on trivial matters every now and then. On this, complainant (PW-10) accompanied by his wife PW-1 1 Bimla Devi went to Bhatinda to the place of the in-laws of deceased. They intervened and made the deceased and her mother-in-law Raksha Devi accused No.2 understand not to quarrel. However, accused No.2 misbehaved with them also and asked to take the deceased with them. The deceased was turned out forcibly from the house. They intervened and made the deceased and her mother-in-law Raksha Devi accused No.2 understand not to quarrel. However, accused No.2 misbehaved with them also and asked to take the deceased with them. The deceased was turned out forcibly from the house. The complainant and his wife had to bring her with them to their place at Kartarpur. Complainant informed accused No.1 also in this behalf. He told them that he would come on leave and settle the entire controversy. The complainant thereafter sent the deceased to Dohag, his native place. Accused No.1 came to Kartarpur on 20.5.2008. On coming to know that the deceased was at Dohag, he went there in the night itself. At Dohag he misbehaved with PW-1 1 Bimla Devi in the presence of Anjana Devi, Roshani Devi and Leela Devi, present there and insisted for sending the deceased with him in the night itself. Complainant told him that the deceased was at Dohag. On this, at that very time, he left for Dohag and reached there around 10-11 a.m. Complainant was informed by his wife PW-11 Bimla Devi that accused No.1 was quarreling with them and insisting to send the deceased with him in the night itself. Also that though she asked the said accused to take the deceased with him on the following morning, however, he did not care to it and took the deceased with him in the night itself. 3. On 25.5.2008 around 2.30 a.m., the complainant was informed by accused No.1 that the deceased had hanged herself around 6 a.m. and that her condition was serious. Also that she was under treatment in a hospital at Dehra. The complainant accompanied by other members of his family left for the hospital, however, on the way they were informed by one of his relatives that Kanchan Wala was no more and that her dead body was lying in the house of her in-laws at Nau-Sehra. On reaching at Nau-Shehra, the complainant found the dead body of his daughter Kanchan Wala lying there. There was ligature mark around her neck and no external visible injuries were noticed on her person. 4. Police was informed by PW-1 Ashok Kumar, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Nau-Shehra and Rapat No.3 Ext. PW17/A to this effect was entered in Police Post, Rani Tal. ASI Manohar Lal, Incharge Police Post, Rani Tal, informed PW-18 SI/SHO Som Nath about this incident. 4. Police was informed by PW-1 Ashok Kumar, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Nau-Shehra and Rapat No.3 Ext. PW17/A to this effect was entered in Police Post, Rani Tal. ASI Manohar Lal, Incharge Police Post, Rani Tal, informed PW-18 SI/SHO Som Nath about this incident. PW-18 SHO Som Nath, accompanied by other police officials, left for the spot and on reaching there recorded statement Ext. PW10/A of the complaint under Section 154 Cr. P.C. He reported to the police that on account of constant beatings, torturing and taunting by the accused persons at the pretext of dowry, the deceased committed suicide. 5. On the statement Ext. PW10/A, FIR Ext. P18/C was registered in Police Station Haripur, District Kangra. The investigation was conducted by PW-18 Inspector Som Nath, the then SHO, Police Station, Haripur. He got the dead body photographed vide photographs Ext. P1/1 to Ext.P11/1. He inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report Ext. PW-9/A. Thereafter he moved an application Ext. PW3/A for conducting postmortem of the dead body and got conducted the same from a team of doctors, i.e. PW-6 Dr. Raj Kumar and PW-3 Dr. Jatinder Sexena, under the supervision of PW-14 ASI Yash pal, who at the relevant time was posted as HC in Police Station, Haripur. The I.O. also prepared spot map Ext.PW18/E and took into possession two ropes Ext.P-4 and P-5, vide recovery memo. Ext. PW9/B. He conducted the search of the house and memo. Ext. PW1/C was prepared in this behalf. On 28.5.2008, he took into possession “Darat” (scythe) Ext. P3 vide recovery memo. Ext. PW1/A. He made application Ext.PW2/A to Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion and obtained the expert opinion Ext. PW2/B from Dr. D.P. Sawami, Associate Professor and Head Department of Forensic Medicines. The case property was entrusted to PW-15 HC Sultan Singh for safe custody. The same was later on sent to FSL for analysis through PW-16 HHC Ramesh Chand and on receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ext. PX, he obtained the opinion from Medical Officer and on the completion of investigation, filed challan against both the accused persons. 6. Learned trial Judge after having gone through the police report and the documents annexed therewith, has found a prima-facie case having been made out against both the accused and as such, charge under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against each of them. 6. Learned trial Judge after having gone through the police report and the documents annexed therewith, has found a prima-facie case having been made out against both the accused and as such, charge under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against each of them. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed against them and claimed trial. Therefore, the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence in order to sustain the charge against them. Prosecution, in turn, has examined 18 witnesses in all. 7. Material prosecution witnesses are PW-10 Complainant Rumel Singh, the father, PW-1 1 Smt. Bimla Devi, the mother, PW-7 Snehlata, the aunt, PW-13 Ranjana Devi, sister-in-law (cousin’s wife) of the deceased, PW-8 Leela Devi and PW-12 Roshani Devi, the neighbours of the complainant and PW-9 Gurbachan Singh, Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Tripal and uncle of the deceased. Rest of the witnesses either being doctors or the witnesses of various recoveries as well as the police officials are formal and relevant for the purpose of link evidence. 8. On the other hand, the defence of the accused persons, as emerges from the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, seems to be that accused No.1 was merely matriculate and the deceased being M. Sc., was not interested to settle with him. She used to tell her parents that she has been married to a person, who is only matriculate. Her parents made her understand that she being wife of accused No.1 has to live in her in-laws house. In order to ensure that the deceased should reside in the matrimonial home, her parents even arranged three days Paath also. Accused No.1 even told the parents of the deceased that he will take her with him at the place of his employment, in case she was not interested to settle in the village and for that the said accused had already arranged a quarter also. Accused No.1 came on leave and reached at Dohag on 22.5.2008. He went to take the deceased with him, however, in the presence of her mother, she refused and proclaimed that in case she is forced to accompany the accused, she may die. Accused No.1 came on leave and reached at Dohag on 22.5.2008. He went to take the deceased with him, however, in the presence of her mother, she refused and proclaimed that in case she is forced to accompany the accused, she may die. Also that after three days Path, accused No.1 and the deceased had dinner in the house of her parents and came back to the house of said accused on 24th May, 2008, in the evening. The deceased on the next day, i.e. 25.5.2008, however, hanged herself in the house of her in-laws and committed suicide. Plea of the accused persons in their defence, therefore, is that they are innocent and have not committed any offence. 9. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and learned counsel Shri Pawan Gautam, Advocate, representing the accused persons and also gone through the entire record. 10.At the outset it is desirable to discuss as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that sine qua non to establish the said offence is subjecting to cruelty the wife by her husband or relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or willful conduct of the husband of such woman or a relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. 11.The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita versus State of Assam (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 330 has held as under: “21. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/ inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the 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 the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. 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 the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 12.So far as the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused. 13.In the case in hand, the deceased had committed suicide on 25.5.2008 in her matrimonial home at village Nau-Shehra, District Kangra, H.P. One of the ingredients of the commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, stands proved. The prosecution, however, is further required to prove that it is the accused alone who had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 14. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing can be said to have abetted the doing of that thing. 15. Now if coming to the case in hand, whether it is the accused alone, who instigated the deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, has to be seen from the evidence available on record. It is worthwhile to mention here that in a case of this nature, torture and harassment ordinarily is meted out to the victim in the four walls of the house and such cases mostly depend upon the circumstantial evidence. It is worthwhile to mention here that in a case of this nature, torture and harassment ordinarily is meted out to the victim in the four walls of the house and such cases mostly depend upon the circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 1 13-A of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that if a married woman commits suicide within the period of seven years from the date of marriage and there are allegations that she did so because of being subjected to cruelty either by her husband or relatives of her husband or by both. Having regard to all other circumstances, the Court can presume that she has committed suicide on being abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Apex Court in Wazir Chand and another versus State of Haryana (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 has held that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. In a case of suicidal death, the onus to prove that suicide was abetted by the accused alone is on the prosecution and to raise the presumption under Section 1 13-A of the Evidence Act, one of the ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty is required to be proved first by the prosecution. 17. Adverting to the given facts and circumstances and the evidence as has come on record by way of Ext. PW1 0/A, the statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. made by the complainant PW-10 Rumel Singh, who is father of the deceased, the own testimony of the complainant and his wife PW-1 1 Smt. Bimla Devi, the deceased was married only on 20.2.2007 with accused No.1. She, therefore, committed suicide in a period of less than 1 1/2 year of her marriage with the said accused. Though every effort has been made by the complainant and his wife to tell us that she committed suicide on account of her having been tortured and taunted by both the accused on account of demand of dowry, however, unsuccessfully for the reason that in statement Ext. PW10/A, the complainant has not specifically stated about the demand of dowry by the accused persons. PW10/A, the complainant has not specifically stated about the demand of dowry by the accused persons. In the end of the statement, he states that his daughter was forced to commit suicide by torturing and taunting her on account of demand of dowry. On the other hand, while in the witness box, the complainant has not uttered even a single word in this behalf; whereas his wife PW-1 1 Smt. Bimla Devi has made a passing reference that accused No.1 used to demand motorcycle or car in dowry. In whose presence the said accused made such demand, however, she tells us nothing. On the other hand, statements of PW-7 Sneh Lata and PW-18 Leela Devi, who are non-else, but aunt and neighbour, respectively of the deceased, only reveal about her torturing by the accused persons, however, not specifically as to in what manner and for what the deceased was being tortured by them. There is nothing in their statements qua the demand of dowry. True it is that PW-12 Roshani Devi, another neighbour of the parents of the deceased tells us about the demand of motorcycle by the accused from the parents of the deceased, however, being hearsay, is hardly of any help to the prosecution case. 18.It is significant to note that as per admitted case of the parties, the deceased after her marriage on 20.2.2007 with accused No.2, lived upto 7.3.2007 in the house of her in-laws and thereafter to complete her M. Sc. Course, went to Jallandhar, where her father, the complainant, was residing. There is no question of any torturing either at the pretext of demand of dowry or otherwise during such short stay in the house of her in- laws. Although nothing specifically has come on record, yet it can be gathered that somewhere in the months of November/December, after completion of her M. Sc course, she went to the matrimonial home and consumed poison. It is proved from Rapat dated 11.12.2007, entered in the Rojnamcha Ext. D-1 of Police Station, Dehra, produced by the accused persons in their defence. This document reveals that the deceased had consumed sulphur tablet and was brought to hospital at Dehra for her treatment. The police was informed and she made statement that since she had headache, therefore, inadvertently consumed wrong medicine and also that she had no complaint against her husband and in-laws. This document reveals that the deceased had consumed sulphur tablet and was brought to hospital at Dehra for her treatment. The police was informed and she made statement that since she had headache, therefore, inadvertently consumed wrong medicine and also that she had no complaint against her husband and in-laws. Such evidence available on record reveals that the deceased was not being tortured and harassed by the accused persons and rather may not be happy on account of her marriage with accused No.1 and not interested to settle at his place. 19.No investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer as to what was the attitude of the accused towards her after the incident of 11.12.2007. It can, however, be gathered from the prosecution story that in May, 2008, when the deceased was residing with accused No.1 and her father-in-law at Bathinda, she informed the complainant about being administered beatings by accused No.1 on petty trifles. The complainant and his wife, both went to Bathinda. It is not only accused No.2, who was told by them to keep the deceased properly and not to torture her, but the deceased was also made to understand to live there, as can be gathered from the statement of the complainant. 20. Then comes the instance and proximity with the commission of suicide by the deceased, which as per the prosecution version, pertains to 20.5.2008, when accused No.1 allegedly came in the night at Dohag to the house of his in-laws and irrespective of the deceased and her mother PW-1 1 Bimla Devi having protested against his act and conduct to take her to his house during the night itself, he without caring to such protest, took her to the matrimonial home in the night itself, seems to be not probable for the reason that the evidence otherwise reveals that the parents of the deceased had arranged three days Paath for the deceased herself in their house. 21. In such a situation, the story of taking away the deceased forcibly during the night intervening 20/21st May, 2008 seems to be not plausible. 22. The story of beatings cannot also be believed, as admittedly except for ligature mark, no other external injuries were there on the body of the deceased. 23. 21. In such a situation, the story of taking away the deceased forcibly during the night intervening 20/21st May, 2008 seems to be not plausible. 22. The story of beatings cannot also be believed, as admittedly except for ligature mark, no other external injuries were there on the body of the deceased. 23. The plea raised by the accused persons in their defence that accused No.1 was on leave w.e.f. 21st May 2008 and came to the house of his in-laws at Dohag in the evening of 22nd May, 2008 and returned to his house alongwith the deceased on 24th May, 2008 in the evening after having the dinner, is nearer to the factual position. There is nothing suggesting that some quarrel took place between accused No.1 and the deceased during the night intervening 24/25th May, 2008 and for that matter during the period from 20th May, 2008 to the morning of 25th May, 2008, even if the prosecution story qua forcible act of taking away the deceased with him is believed to be true. Therefore, there is no question of accused persons having instigated the deceased to commit suicide or abetted the commission of suicide by her within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. As a matter of fact, the present is a case where there is nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons in relation to their demand of dowry or otherwise and the degree of cruelty was of such a nature that she was not able to keep comparison between life and death and in such a state, chose the pangs of death. True it is that in the normal circumstances, no one takes such a drastic step to do away with his/her life that too without there being any cause, however, in this case whether the deceased had committed suicide owing to the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused persons, is not proved on record. It seems that the deceased was not happy on account of her marriage with accused No.1, as he was simply a matriculate and she being M. Sc., may not be interested to settle with him. Hence, the possibility of her having committed suicide for this reason alone cannot be ruled out. 24. It seems that the deceased was not happy on account of her marriage with accused No.1, as he was simply a matriculate and she being M. Sc., may not be interested to settle with him. Hence, the possibility of her having committed suicide for this reason alone cannot be ruled out. 24. If coming to the presumption under Section 1 13-A of the Evidence Act, a coordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Justice D.D. Sud), was a Member, in Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P, Cr. Appeal No.548 of 2012, decided on 28th May, 2013, after taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record as well as the entire case law, has held that for raising presumption under Section 1 13-A, the evidence available on record must prove the factum of harassment and torturing of the deceased by her in-laws at the pretext of dowry. Such evidence, however, is lacking in the case in hand, as discussed in detail hereinabove. 25. There is no denial to the remaining evidence, i.e. postmortem report and also the report of Chemical Examiner. As a matter fact, the deceased has died in unnatural death as she had committed suicide. The other evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1 Ashok Kumar, PW-4 Anil Kumar, Photographer, PW-5 LC Suresh Kumari, PW-14 ASI Yashpal, PW-15 HC Sultan, PW-16 HHC Ramesh Chand, PW-17 constable Kuldeep Chand and PW-18 Inspector Som Nath, could have been used as link evidence, had the prosecution otherwise been able to bring home the guilt to the accused. 26.The reappraisal of the evidence hereinabove and also the given facts and circumstances of this case, leads to the only conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 27.In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by both the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.