JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. The present appeal filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Una District Una in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2007 titled State Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that co-accused Rakesh Kumar is the husband of deceased Raman Jot, co-accused Jagdish Chand is the father-in-law of deceased, co-accused Ashok Kumar is brother-in-law of deceased and co-accused Asha Devi is the mother-in-law of deceased Raman Jot. It is further alleged by prosecution that all accused persons committed cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot in her matrimonial house. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 4.7.2006 at about 10.15 AM at place Behdala accused persons abetted deceased Raman Jot to commit suicide. It is further alleged by prosecution that marriage was solemnized on dated 28.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs between deceased Raman Jot and co-accused Rakesh Kumar. It is further alleged by prosecution that after marriage the accused persons harassed deceased Raman Jot and demanded dowry by way of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) from deceased Raman Jot when she was alive. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons have also used to beat deceased Raman Jot in her matrimonial home. It is further alleged by prosecution that the parents of deceased Raman Jot came to Behdala when deceased was alive and accused persons tendered an apology and undertaken not to repeat the same action in future. It is further alleged by prosecution that again deceased Raman Jot rang up her father and asked her father to bring deceased to her parental house as deceased was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial house. It is further alleged by prosecution that relatives of deceased came to meet the deceased Raman Jot in her matrimonial house but accused persons did not allow them to meet the deceased. It is further alleged by prosecution that ultimately on dated 4.7.2006 deceased Raman Jot committed suicide by way of jumping into the well in village Behdala. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter Pradhan Gram Panchayat Behdala informed the parents of deceased Raman Jot by way of telephone about the death of deceased Raman Jot. It is further alleged by prosecution that photographs of dead body are Ext. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter Pradhan Gram Panchayat Behdala informed the parents of deceased Raman Jot by way of telephone about the death of deceased Raman Jot. It is further alleged by prosecution that photographs of dead body are Ext. PW9/A to PW9/G. It is further alleged by prosecution that police officials recorded the statement of complainant Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.PC and thereafter FIR Ext PW13/A was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that post mortem of the dead body of deceased Raman Jot was conducted in District hospital Una. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per post mortem report deceased Raman Jot died due to drowning leading to asphyxia. It is further alleged by prosecution that site plan Ext PW15/B was prepared. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed tried. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC on dated 16.1.2008. 3. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Shri Kamaljit Singh PW2 Shri Gurmeet Singh PW3 Shri Juggar Singh PW4 Shri Lakhvir Singh PW5 Smt. Sonia Rana PW6 Smt. Parminder Kaur PW7 Ms. Jasbir Kaur PW8 C. Poonam Devi PW9 HC. Shahi Kumar PW10 Dr. M.K. Pathak PW11 HC. Ram Avtar PW12 Harbhajan Dass PW13 H.C. Sukhdev Singh PW14 Jagdish Ram PW15 Inspector Ajay Rana 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case :- Sr.No. Description. Ex.PW 1/A Statement of Kamaljeet Singh. Ex.PW 9/A to 9/G Photographs of deceased Ex.PW 9/H Negatives Ex.PW 10/A Request from S.H.O. for Post mortem Ex.PW 10/B Report of Chemical examination Ex.PW 10/C Post mortem Report Ex.PW 11/A Report No.6 Ex.PW 11/B Report No.5 Ex.PW 13/A F.I.R. Ex.PW 15/A Form 25/35 A Ex.PW 15/B Site Plan Ex.PW 15/C Statement of Gurmeet Singh. Ex.PW 15/D Statement of Lakhbir Singh. Ex.PW 15/E Statement of Jasbir Kaur. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in acquitting the accused persons. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 7. 6. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in acquitting the accused persons. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 7. PW1 Kamal Jit Singh has stated that he was posted as ward servant in BBMB Hospital Nangal. He has stated that he had three children i.e. one son and two daughters. He has stated that deceased Raman Jot was his elder daughter and she was married to co-accused Rakesh Kumar of village Behdala on dated 28.11.2005. He has stated that the marriage of deceased Raman jot was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. He has stated that he had given dowry to his deceased daughter as per his capacity. He has stated that for about 2 ½ months the relations of his daughter remained normal with her in laws and thereafter they started harassing her by demanding dowry and used to give beatings to her. He has stated that deceased Raman Jot had complained to him that accused persons have demanded dowry and have also beaten the deceased in her matrimonial house. He has stated that thereafter he and his wife, younger daughter and 2/3 other persons of the village went to Behdala and talked with the accused persons and they tendered an apology and stated that they would not repeat the same act in future. He has stated that thereafter about one month later deceased Raman Jot ranged him at night and told him that the accused persons were subjecting her with cruelty without any reason. He has stated that deceased told him that he should come to take deceased Raman Jot from her matrimonial house. He has stated that thereafter he went to village Behdala on his scooter and brought deceased Raman Jot to her parental house at Nangal. He has stated that after about 15 days accused persons along with their relatives came to his house at Nangal and again tendered an apology and thereafter on the next day he sent deceased Raman Jot with the accused persons to her matrimonial house. He has stated that after about 15 days accused persons along with their relatives came to his house at Nangal and again tendered an apology and thereafter on the next day he sent deceased Raman Jot with the accused persons to her matrimonial house. He has stated that after about 15/20 days he and his brother-in-law went to the matrimonial house of deceased to meet her but the accused persons did not allow them to meet deceased and after sitting for about two hours in the matrimonial house of deceased they came back to Nangal. He has stated that when they were leaving the house of accused persons deceased Raman Jot came in a weeping situation. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 Smt Sonia Rana Pradhan Gram panchayat Behdala informed one Bhajan Lal telephonically that deceased Raman Jot had jumped into the well and committed suicide. He has stated that thereafter he along with the villagers and members of the Panchayat went to village Behdala and found that the police and fire brigade personnel were present and were trying to take out the dead body from the well. He has stated that as the well was quite deep they could not take out the dead body on dated 4.7.2006. He has stated that dead body was taken out on dated 5.7.2006 in the morning from the well. He has stated that thereafter he gave his statement Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 Cr PC to the police official. He has stated that Ext PW1/A bears his signatures. He denied suggestion that accused persons did not harass deceased Raman Jot. He denied suggestion that he made a false report to the police regarding cruelty and demand of dowry to deceased Raman Jot. He denied suggestion that accused persons did not demand any dowry. He has denied suggestion that accused persons have not beaten the deceased in her matrimonial home. 7.1 PW2 Gurmeet Singh has stated that he is running a khokha of cigarettes near the well at Behdala. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 at about 9.15 AM when he was in his shop along with Vipan Kumar he heard a noise from the well and on hearing the sound he along with other persons of village went to the well and found that somebody had jumped into the well. He has stated that thereafter he informed Pradhan Smt Sonia Rana. He has stated that thereafter he informed Pradhan Smt Sonia Rana. He denied suggestion that he warned deceased Raman Jot not to jump into well. He denied suggestion that co-accused Rakesh Kumar and Asha Devi were running behind the deceased and were stopping her from jumping into well. He has stated that the police took the photographs of the dead body and completed other formalities. 7.2 PW3 Juggar Singh has stated that he is a meson by profession. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 he heard noise from the side of well and went there where he came to know that the wife of co-accused Rakesh Kumar had jumped into the well. He has stated that the police and fire brigade personnel had reached at the spot. He has stated that he assisted the police in retrieving deceased Raman Jot from the well for which he went into the well but he could not succeed as the well was quite deep. He has stated that on the next day he along with Jagdish Ram and Rajinder Parshad were able to retrieve the dead body of the deceased from well. 7.3 PW4 Lakhvir Singh has stated that he is driver by profession. He has stated that he has two sisters. He has stated that deceased Raman Jot was his elder sister who was married with co-accused Rakesh Kumar of Behdala on dated 28.11.2005. He has stated that for about 2 ½ months after the marriage the relation of his sister remained normal with her in-laws and thereafter they started ill-treating her by way of demanding dowry and by way of giving beatings to deceased. He has stated that accused persons were also demanding Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand). He has stated that thereafter his father went to village Behdala and he brought back the deceased to Nangal. He has stated that after 15 days the accused persons along with their relatives came to the parental house of deceased at Nangal and assured that they would not repeat the same act in future. He has stated that after tendering the apology the accused persons took the deceased back to Behdala. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 when he was in the transport union his father intimated him on telephone that he should go immediately to Behdala. He has stated that after tendering the apology the accused persons took the deceased back to Behdala. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 when he was in the transport union his father intimated him on telephone that he should go immediately to Behdala. He has stated that thereafter he accompanied with his father, sarpanch and other panchayat members went to Behdala and when they reached at Behdala the deceased Raman Jot had already jumped into the well. He has stated that police tried to retrieve the dead body from the well but since the well was quite deep the dead body could not be taken out on dated 4.7.2006. He has stated that the dead body was taken out from the well on dated 5.7.2006. He denied suggestion that accused persons did not demand any dowry from the deceased. He denied suggestion that accused persons have not committed any cruelty upon deceased in her matrimonial house. 7.4 PW5 Smt Sonia Rana has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 when she was in her house at about 9.30 AM one Gurmit Singh intimated her on telephone that deceased Raman Jot had jumped into the well. She has stated that on receiving said information she went to the well where many people had already gathered around the well. She has stated that thereafter she intimated the police and fire brigade on telephone. She has stated that thereafter she intimated one Bhajan Lal on telephone about the incident and asked him to inform the parents of deceased Raman Jot. She has stated that after some time her parents reached at the spot. She has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 the police and other persons present at the spot could not succeed in retrieving the dead body of deceased Raman Jot as the well was quite deep. She has stated that on dated 5.7.2006 the police retrieved the dead body of deceased with the help of fire brigade officials. She has stated that thereafter the police conducted its proceeding and took the photographs and identified the dead body. 7.5 PW6 Smt Parminder kaur has stated that she is a house wife. She has stated that deceased Raman Jot was her elder daughter. She has stated that deceased was married to co-accused Rakesh Kumar of Behdala on dated 28.11.2005. She has stated that thereafter the police conducted its proceeding and took the photographs and identified the dead body. 7.5 PW6 Smt Parminder kaur has stated that she is a house wife. She has stated that deceased Raman Jot was her elder daughter. She has stated that deceased was married to co-accused Rakesh Kumar of Behdala on dated 28.11.2005. She has stated that for about 2 ½ months the relations of her daughter remained normal with the accused persons. She has stated that thereafter the accused persons started harassing the deceased. She has stated that accused persons started demanding money and also beaten the deceased. She has stated that this fact was told to her by her daughter when she came to her parental house. She has stated that after few days the accused persons came to the parental house of deceased Raman jot and tendered an apology and thereafter the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house. She has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 in the evening her husband told her that deceased Raman Jot had jumped into the well and her dead body could not be retrieved. She has stated that dead body of deceased Raman Jot was retrieved on 5.7.2006 and thereafter her last ceremony was performed. She has denied suggestion that deceased did not make any complaint to her against accused persons. She denied suggestion that accused persons have not harassed deceased in her matrimonial house. 7.6 PW7 Ms Jasbir Kaur has stated that deceased was her elder sister. She has stated that deceased Raman Jot was married to co-accused Rakesh Kumar on dated 28.11.2005 as per Hindu rites at village Behdala. She has stated that deceased was kept properly for about 2 ½ months and thereafter she was harassed and dowry was demanded. She has stated that accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) from her deceased sister as dowry. She has stated that above stated facts were narrated to her by her deceased sister personally. She has stated that her sister had informed on telephone that she was harassed by accused persons in her matrimonial house and thereafter deceased was brought to her parental house. She has stated that thereafter accused persons came to the parental house of deceased and tendered an apology and thereafter her deceased sister was sent to matrimonial house with accused persons. She has stated that thereafter accused persons came to the parental house of deceased and tendered an apology and thereafter her deceased sister was sent to matrimonial house with accused persons. She has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 her father and brother along with other persons of village had gone to Behdala and came to know that deceased had committed suicide by way of jumping into well. She denied suggestion that accused persons have not harassed the deceased in any manner in her matrimonial house. She denied suggestion that accused persons had not demanded any dowry from deceased in her matrimonial house. She denied suggestion that accused persons have not tendered any apology to the parents of deceased. 7.7 PW8 Constable Poonam Devi has stated that she was posted as Constable general duty in Police Station Sadar Una for the last two years. She has stated that she remained associated in the investigation of the present case. She has stated that on dated 5.7.2006 the dead body of deceased Raman Jot was took out from the well with the help of rope and hooks. She has stated that as per direction of Investigating Officer she inspected the body of deceased Raman Jot with the help of camera and it was found that there was one injury on right hip and one injury on the left ankle. She has stated that Investigating Officer got the dead body identified from the father of deceased Raman Jot and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem. She has stated that she does not know how the deceased sustained injuries. 7.8 PW9 HC Shashi Kumar has stated that he was posted as photographer in Police Line Una. He has stated that on dated 5.7.2006 on the direction of Investigating Officer he had taken the photographs of deceased Raman Jot from various angel which are Ext PW9/A to PW9/G and negatives are Ext PW9/H. 7.9 PW10 Dr M.K Pathak has stated that he was posted as Medical Officer at Una in the year 2006. He has stated that a request Ext PW 10/A was received from Station House Officer for conducting post mortem of deceased Raman Jot along with inquest report. He has stated that he conducted the post mortem and on examination on dated 5.7.2006 at about 4 PM he found that R.M. was well developed and eyes were closed. He has stated that a request Ext PW 10/A was received from Station House Officer for conducting post mortem of deceased Raman Jot along with inquest report. He has stated that he conducted the post mortem and on examination on dated 5.7.2006 at about 4 PM he found that R.M. was well developed and eyes were closed. He has stated that whitish fine leather was coming out of both nostrils and face. He has stated that reddish discharge with froth was coming out from her mouth. He has stated that deceased died due to asphyxia. He has stated that he referred the viscera for chemical examination. He has stated that no poison and alcohol was detected in the viscera. He has stated that the cause of death was due to drowning leading to asphyxia. 7.10 PW11 HC Ram Avtar has stated that he was posted at Constable at Police Station Sadar Una in the year 2006. He has stated that he brought roznamcha register. He has stated that report No.6 dated 4.7.2006 Ext PW11/A is the true copy. He has stated that report No.5 dated 5.7.2006 Ext.PW11/B is also true copy of the original. He has stated that both the reports were in his hand. 7.11 PW12 Harbhajan Dass has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 at about 10.15 AM he received a telephonic call from Smt Sonia Rana Pradhan Behdala that the daughter of Kamal Jit Singh had jumped into the well. He denied suggestion that no telephone call was received. 7.12 PW13 HC Sukh Dev Singh has stated that he was posted as Constable at Police Station Sadar Una in the year 2006. He has stated that on the receipt of rukka Ext PW1/A in Police Station Una he recorded FIR Ext PW13/A. 7.13 PW14 Jagdish Ram has stated that he was working in IPH Department as Beldar. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 when he was going for his duty he saw many people had gathered around the well. He has stated that on inquiry he was told that deceased Raman Jot had jumped into the well. He has stated that he assisted the police in retrieving the dead body from the well but the same could not be taken out on dated 4.7.2008 as the well was quite deep. He has stated that dead body was taken out on dated 5.7.2006 in the morning. He has stated that he assisted the police in retrieving the dead body from the well but the same could not be taken out on dated 4.7.2008 as the well was quite deep. He has stated that dead body was taken out on dated 5.7.2006 in the morning. 7.14 PW15 Inspector Ajay Rana has stated that he remained posted as SHO at Police Station Una in the year 2006. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2006 at about 9.35 AM an information was received on telephone in Police Station Una from Pradhan Gram Panchayat Behdala stating that one lady had jumped into the well and a report in this regard Ext PW11/A was prepared. He has stated that after the receipt of the said information he along with other police officials proceeded to the spot. He has stated that many people had gathered around the well near patwarkhana of village Behdala. He has stated that on inquiry he came to know that one lady Raman Jot wife of co-accused Rakesh Kumar had jumped into the well. He has stated that thereafter they made efforts to retrieve the dead body from the well with the help of local persons and fire brigade officials but they did not succeed despite best efforts as the well was quite deep. He has stated that on the next day in the morning they again tried to take out the dead body and ultimately the dead body was took out from the well. He has stated that dead body was got identified from the father of the deceased. He has stated that photographs of the dead body were taken which are Ext PW9/A to PW9/G. He has stated that thereafter dead body was examined by lady constable Poonam Kumari and two injuries were found on the body of deceased Raman Jot. He has stated that thereafter statement under Section 154 Cr PC Ext PW1/A was recorded and the same was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR through Constable Surinder Kumar upon which FIR Ext PW13/A was recorded. He has stated that he filled form 25/35A Ext PW15/A and sent the dead body to District Hospital Una for post mortem. He has stated that thereafter he prepared site plan Ext PW15/B.He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has stated that he filled form 25/35A Ext PW15/A and sent the dead body to District Hospital Una for post mortem. He has stated that thereafter he prepared site plan Ext PW15/B.He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has stated that thereafter he prepared the challan under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. He has denied suggestion that he recorded the statement of complainant Kamal Jit at his own. He denied suggestion that he did not prepare site plan at the spot. He denied suggestion that accused persons never demanded any dowry from deceased Raman Jot. 8. The statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons have stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in present case. Accused persons did not lead any defense evidence. (A) Mental Cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh father of deceased. 9. As per testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that for about 2 ½ months the relations of deceased Raman Jot with accused persons remained cordial and thereafter deceased was harassed by accused persons by way of demanding dowry and by way of giving beatings to deceased. As per testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had personally informed PW1 through telephone that accused persons were committing cruelty towards her by way of demanding dowry and by way of giving beatings to deceased. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter PW1 and his wife and his younger daughter and two other persons of village went to the matrimonial house of deceased Raman Jot and talked with accused persons and ultimately accused persons tendered apology and accused persons stated that they would not repeat the incident of cruelty in future and thereafter they came back. As per testimony of PW1 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter about one month later the deceased telephoned him at night and told that accused persons were subjecting her with cruelty without any reason in the matrimonial house of deceased and deceased told PW1 that she should be brought back from her matrimonial house to her parental house. As per testimony of PW1 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter about one month later the deceased telephoned him at night and told that accused persons were subjecting her with cruelty without any reason in the matrimonial house of deceased and deceased told PW1 that she should be brought back from her matrimonial house to her parental house. As per testimony of PW1 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter PW1 went to matrimonial house of deceased at village Behdala on his scooter and brought the deceased to her parental house at Nangal. As per testimony of PW1 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter for about 15 days accused persons along with their other relatives came to parental house of deceased at Nangal and tendered apology and thereafter deceased Raman Jot was sent to her matrimonial house. As per testimony of PW1 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter about 15/20 days PW1 and his brother-in-law went to the matrimonial house of the deceased to meet her but the accused persons did not allow them to meet the deceased and after sitting there for about two hours they came back to their house at Nangal and when they were leaving the matrimonial house of the deceased the deceased Raman Jot came in weeping condition. It is proved on record that thereafter on dated 4.7.2006 deceased aged 19 years committed suicide by way of jumping into well. It is well settled law that testimony of the witness should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh father of deceased that mental cruelty was caused to the deceased in her matrimonial house. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had died within seven years after her marriage in her matrimonial house. Testimony of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. (B) Mental Cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW 4 Lakhvir Singh brother of deceased. 10. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had died within seven years after her marriage in her matrimonial house. Testimony of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. (B) Mental Cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW 4 Lakhvir Singh brother of deceased. 10. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 that for about 2 ½ months the deceased was kept properly in her matrimonial house and thereafter the behaviour of the accused persons became abnormal and accused persons started ill-treating the deceased by way of demanding dowry and had also given beatings to her. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 that deceased had complained through telephone about demand of dowry from accused persons and beatings to deceased from accused persons in her matrimonial house. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that as per testimony of PW4 that deceased informed directly that accused persons had demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand). It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter father of deceased went to matrimonial house of deceased at Behdala and brought deceased Raman Jot back to her parental house at Nangal. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that after fifteen days the accused persons along with their relatives came to parental house of the deceased at Nangal and told that they would not repeat the act of cruelty in future and after tendering an apology they took the deceased back to her matrimonial house at Behdala. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 that thereafter on dated 4.7.2006 the deceased committed suicide by way of jumping into well. The testimony of PW4 Lakhvir Singh is also trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. (C) Mental Cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW 6 Smt. Parminder Kaur mother of the deceased. 11. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that for about 2 ½ months the relations of deceased with accused persons were cordial and thereafter they started harassing deceased Raman Jot and demanded money and also gave beatings to deceased Raman Jot in her matrimonial house. 11. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that for about 2 ½ months the relations of deceased with accused persons were cordial and thereafter they started harassing deceased Raman Jot and demanded money and also gave beatings to deceased Raman Jot in her matrimonial house. Factum of demand of dowry and factum of beatings in matrimonial house was directly disclosed by deceased Raman Jot to her mother PW6. Deceased requested her parents to take her from the matrimonial house and as per request of deceased Raman Jot the deceased was brought to her parental house at Nangal. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that after few days the accused persons came to the parental house of deceased at Nangal and tendered an apology and told that they would treat the deceased properly in her matrimonial house and thereafter deceased was again sent to her matrimonial house. Thereafter deceased Raman Jot committed suicide by way of jumping into well in her matrimonial house. The testimony of PW6 Parminder Kaur mother of deceased is also trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. (D) Mental Cruelty upon deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW 7 Jasbir kaur sister of deceased. 12. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 that for about 2 ½ months deceased Raman Jot was kept properly in-laws house and thereafter the accused persons had harassed the deceased by way of demanding dowry and by way of beatings the deceased. It is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons demanded Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) from the deceased and deceased told this fact to PW7 personally when she visited her parental house. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 that deceased telephoned to her parents about cruelty in matrimonial house and thereafter her father came to matrimonial house of deceased and brought the deceased to her parental house. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter accused persons came to parental house of deceased and tendered an apology and thereafter the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house with accused persons. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter accused persons came to parental house of deceased and tendered an apology and thereafter the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house with accused persons. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 that again deceased reported about mental cruelty in her matrimonial house to her parents and thereafter father and maternal uncle of deceased were gone to the matrimonial house of deceased but the accused persons did not allow them to meet the deceased. It is proved that thereafter the deceased had committed suicide by way of jumping into well in her matrimonial house. The testimony of PW7 Jasbir Kaur is also trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW7 Jasbir Kaur. (E) Death of deceased proved by way of jumping into well as per corroborative evidence. 13. The death of deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years by way of jumping into well proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of corroborative evidence of PW2 Gurmeet Singh, PW3 Juggar Singh, PW4 Lakhvir Singh, PW8 Poonam Devi and PW9 Shashi Kumar who have stated in positive manner that deceased Raman Jot had committed suicide by way of jumping into well. The factum of suicide by deceased is proved by way of corroborative evidence. No reason has been assigned by the accused persons as to why deceased had committed suicide by way of jumping into well in her matrimonial house. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that deceased Raman Jot was suffering from any mental illness. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that deceased was medically treated somewhere by the Medical Officer for any disease prior to her death. In the present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had died by way of jumping herself into the well and the cause of death was drowning leading to asphyxia. (F) Abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that accused persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide prior to commission of suicide by the deceased by way of jumping into well. (F) Abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that accused persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide prior to commission of suicide by the deceased by way of jumping into well. On the date when the deceased committed suicide PW1 Kamal Jit Singh, PW4 Lakhvir Singh, PW6 Smt Parminder Kaur and PW7 Jasbir Kaur were not present in the matrimonial house of the deceased when the deceased had committed suicide. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that accused persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide on dated 4.7.2006. It is well settled law that there should be immediate nexus between the abetment and suicide. In the present case immediate nexus of abetment and suicide is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. Hence it is held that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons under Section 306 IPC by way of giving them benefit of doubt. (G) Presumption under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is not rebutted by accused persons. 15. Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 was incorporated w.e.f. 19.11.1986 and as per Section 113 B the Courts are under legal obligation to draw the presumption of dowry death. The Court has drawn the presumption as to dowry death under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in the present case and the accused persons did not adduce any evidence on record in order to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons under Section 498-A IPC is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. As per testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh father of deceased, PW4 Lakhvir Singh brother of deceased, PW6 Smt Parminder Kaur mother of deceased and PW7 Jasbir Kaur sister of deceased it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons had committed cruelty upon the deceased when deceased was residing in her matrimonial house. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had personally complained about the mental cruelty to her relatives i.e. father, mother, brother and sister. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had personally complained about the mental cruelty to her relatives i.e. father, mother, brother and sister. It is well settled law that generally the married woman used to inform the factum of cruelty to her relatives only qua matrimonial disputes. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that no independent witness from the locality has stated that accused persons have committed cruelty upon deceased in her matrimonial house and on this ground present appeal be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that offence under Section 498-A is a matrimonial offence. It is well settled law that no independent witness of the locality could be procured in order to prove the matrimonial offence when offence is committed inside the room in matrimonial house. In the present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Raman Jot aged 19 years had committed suicide by way of jumping herself into well in her matrimonial house. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that the testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh, PW4 Lakhvir Singh, PW6 Smt.Parminder Kaur and PW7 Jasbir Kaur are not sufficient to convict the accused persons under Section 498-A IPC is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It was held in case reported in AIR 1999 SC 2071 titled Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas that cruelty as defined in Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence and on each occasion the woman has cause of action. Cruelty under Section 498-A means harassment of the woman in her matrimonial house with the view to coercing the woman to meet an unlawful demand for any property. It is well settled law that cruelty or harassment is not only physical cruelty but even a mental cruelty is cruelty as per Section 498-A IPC. It is well settled law that offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 498-A IPC are two independent sections. The basic difference between Section 498-A IPC and Section 306 IPC is that of ‘intention’ only. Under Section 498-A cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman to commit suicide while under Section 306 IPC suicide is abetted and intended by accused persons. 19. The basic difference between Section 498-A IPC and Section 306 IPC is that of ‘intention’ only. Under Section 498-A cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman to commit suicide while under Section 306 IPC suicide is abetted and intended by accused persons. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that deceased or relatives did not file any complaint in panchayat and on this ground appeal filed by the State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that when the accused persons committed cruelty upon the deceased in her matrimonial house the parents of the deceased brought the deceased from her matrimonial house and thereafter accused persons again visited to parental house of the deceased and tendered an apology and assured that they would not commit the offence of cruelty upon the deceased in her matrimonial house and thereafter the deceased was sent to her matrimonial house by her parents. It is proved on record that even after giving assurance by the accused persons that they would not commit any cruelty towards deceased in her matrimonial house deceased again informed the factum of cruelty to her parents, brother and sister by way of telephone and thereafter again the parents of the deceased went to meet the deceased in her matrimonial house but they were not allowed to meet the deceased and they saw the deceased was weeping in her matrimonial house and thereafter the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house by way of jumping into well. In the present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons had committed cruelty upon the deceased in her matrimonial house and deceased was dragged to commit suicide by way of jumping herself into well which was situated nearby the matrimonial house of the deceased. Even as per site plan placed on record the place where the deceased committed suicide by way of jumping into well is situated nearby the matrimonial house of the deceased. Even as per site plan placed on record the place where the deceased committed suicide by way of jumping into well is situated nearby the matrimonial house of the deceased. Court is of the opinion that deceased did not lodge FIR against the accused persons and also did not report the matter in panchayat in order to keep her matrimonial life intact but despite the best efforts on the part of the deceased the cordial relations between the deceased and her in-laws did not remain intact and deceased was dragged to commit suicide in the well which was situated nearby her matrimonial house. The definition of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC consists of two parts. The first part relates to willful conduct which is of such nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide and second part relates to harassment of married woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that there are material contradictions between the testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh, PW4 Lakhvir Singh, PW6 Parminder kaur and PW7 Jasbir Kaur and on this ground appeal filed by the State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that oral testimony of the witness should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. The Court has carefully perused the testimony of PW1 Kamal Jit Singh, PW4 Lakhvir Singh, PW6 Parminder kaur and PW7 Jasbir Kaur as a whole. There is no material contradiction between the testimony of PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW7 which goes to the root of the case qua offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come when the statement of the prosecution witness is recorded after the gap of one year and nine months. It is well settled law that conviction can be sustained on the solitary evidence of the witnesses in a criminal case if testimony of the witness is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. (See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose Vs. the State of Kerala. Also see AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and also see AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar Vs. (See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose Vs. the State of Kerala. Also see AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and also see AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras). It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 Dalbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it was held that each case should be decided as per proved facts. It is well settled law that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trials. (See AIR 1980 SC 957 titled Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana). There is no evidence on record in the present case that deceased was suffering from any mental ailment. There is no evidence on record to prove that deceased was having any extra marital relation with some other person. There is no explanation on the part of the accused persons as to why the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house by way of jumping into well without any plausible reason. It is well settled law that no person would jump into well without any plausible reason in her matrimonial house. There is no medical evidence qua mental illness of deceased Raman Jot. Even as per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. 21. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused persons that PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW7 are relative witnesses and interested witnesses and conviction cannot be given upon their testimonies is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that in matrimonial offence relatives are best witnesses. It was held in case reported in AIR 1981 SC 1390 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki and another that relative witnesses are not equivalent to interested witnesses. 22. It is well settled law that in matrimonial offence relatives are best witnesses. It was held in case reported in AIR 1981 SC 1390 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki and another that relative witnesses are not equivalent to interested witnesses. 22. In view of the above stated facts we affirmed the acquittal of accused persons passed by learned trial Court qua offence punishable under Section 306 IPC by way of giving them benefit of doubt and we set aside the judgment of learned trial Court qua acquittal of accused persons under Section 498-A IPC and we convict all the accused persons under Section 498-A IPC. We hold that all the accused persons had committed mental cruelty upon deceased in her matrimonial house by way of their willful conduct. Appeal is partly allowed. 23. Now convicted persons will be heard on the quantum of sentence on 7.10.2014 upon the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Convicted persons be produced before us by way of bailable warrant. 24. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the convicted persons upon quantum of sentence. 25. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted before us that convicted persons have committed heinous offence under Section 498- A IPC and deterrent punishment be awarded to the convicted persons in order to maintain majesty of law. On the contrary learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of convicted persons submitted before us that convicted persons are first offenders and further submitted that age of convicted Rakesh Kumar is 33 years, age of convicted Jagdish Chand is 57 years, age of convicted Asha Devi is 54 years and age of convicted Ashok Kumar is 30 years and lenient view be taken keeping in view the age of convicted persons. 26. We have considered the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of convicted persons carefully upon quantum of sentence. 27. 26. We have considered the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of convicted persons carefully upon quantum of sentence. 27. In view of the fact that deceased died at the age of 19 years in her matrimonial house by way of jumping into the well due to mental cruelty given by convicted persons we are of the opinion that offence of mental cruelty in matrimonial houses on married women at the young age of 19 years is a stigma on the society. In order to maintain majesty of law and in order to regain the confidence of general public in the judiciary and in view of the facts stated above we sentence all convicted persons as follow:- Sr. No. Nature of Offence Sentence imposed 1. Offence under Section 498-A IPC All convicted persons are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. All convicted persons are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, each convicted person shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 28. Period of custody during investigation, inquiry and trial will be set off. Certified copy of this judgment and sentence be also supplied to convicted persons forthwith free of cost by learned Additional Registrar (Judicial). Case property will be confiscated to State of H.P. after the expiry of period of filing further legal proceedings. Warrant of execution of sentence be issued to the Superintendent Jail forthwith for compliance by learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) in accordance with law.