JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge Solan in Sessions trial No. 16-NL/7 of 2006 titled State of H.P. vs. Susheel Kumar and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 4.7.2005 at 5.30/6 AM at village Channal Majra P.S. Barotiwala District Solan deceased Kamla Devi aged 23 years daughter of Neeta Ram committed suicide in the bed room of her matrimonial house when she was pregnant. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide and also subjected the deceased to mental cruelty in her matrimonial house. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased committed suicide by way of hanging herself and left her suicide note Ext.PW2/A. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 4.7.2005 ASI Tajinder Singh Incharge P.S. Baddi received secret information that a lady had committed suicide in village Channal Majra. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter information was entered into daily dairy vide report Ext.PW8/A and thereafter police officials proceeded to the place of incident and reached within 15-20 minutes. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased was found hanging from the roof of the bed room in her matrimonial house and deceased was already died. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter parents of deceased were called who reached at the spot within 1-1½ hours and statement of father of deceased was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that in the meantime Dy.S.P. Nalagarh and SHO Barotiwala on receiving information came to the spot and doctor was also called to spot who examined the dead body of deceased. It is further alleged by prosecution that photographs of hanged dead body Ext.P3 to Ext.P8 and negatives of which Ext.P9 obtained and thereafter inquest report Ext.PW8/B and spot map of the room Ext.PW8/C were prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that in room of matrimonial house a writing pad Ext.PW2/A was found which was took into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter dead body of deceased was brought to CHC Nalagarh for post mortem and it was found that cause of death was due to ante mortem hanging/asphyxia. It is alleged by prosecution that in room of matrimonial house a writing pad Ext.PW2/A was found which was took into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter dead body of deceased was brought to CHC Nalagarh for post mortem and it was found that cause of death was due to ante mortem hanging/asphyxia. It is also alleged by prosecution that post mortem report is Ext.PW3/A and dead body of deceased handed over to PW1 vide memo Ext.PW8/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that brother of deceased during investigation had handed over the admitted writing of deceased Ext.PW2/D-1 and Ext.PW2/D-2 to PW8 which were took into possession by him vide memo Ext.PW2/E. It is further alleged by prosecution that suicide note and admitted hand writing were sent to the Examiner of Question Documents FSL Junga and report is Ext.PW6/A. It is alleged by prosecution that admitted hand writing and suicide note as per expert report belong to the same person. It is alleged by prosecution that deceased had told to PW2 when he came to her matrimonial house that accused persons were harassing the deceased in her matrimonial house. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased told PW2 that deceased was pregnant and accused persons did not want the child and thereafter they had administered some medicine to the deceased. It is alleged by prosecution that PW3 preserved viscera of deceased which was handed over to Investigating Agency and same was sent to FSL Junga for chemical examination. 3 Accused persons were charged by learned Sessions Judge Solan on dated 18.10.2006 under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. 3 Accused persons were charged by learned Sessions Judge Solan on dated 18.10.2006 under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case:- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Shri Neeta Ram PW2 Sunder Dass PW3 Bhupesh Gupta PW4 H.C.Inder Lal PW5 H.C. Sohan Lal PW6 SHO Bhisham Thakur PW7 C. Hakam Ram PW8 ASI T.S. Thakur DW1 Dalip Singh 4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description: Ex.PW2/A. Note Book Ex.PW2/B. Recovery memo Ex.P1 Stool Ex.PW2/D-1 & Ext.PW2/D2 Writing of deceased Ex.PW2/E Recovery memo Ex.PW3/A Post mortem report Ex.PW3/B Application Ex.PW4/B Ruka Ex.P2 Scarf Ext.P3 to Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 Photographs and negatives Ext.PW6/A Chemical report Ext.PW6/B Chemical Report Ex.PW8/A Nakal Rapat No. 30 Ext.PW8/B Inquest report Ext.PW8/C Receipt of dead body Ext.PW8/D Spot map Ext.DA Statement of Shri Dalip Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for contradiction purpose. 5. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stated that deceased wanted to do job and did not want to live with them in village and also wanted to reside with her parents at Pinjore and did not want to have a child also. They further stated that they did not harass the deceased and deceased committed suicide of her own at her matrimonial house. They have produced one witness in defence. Learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of H.P. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises in present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9.1. PW1 Neeta Ram has stated that deceased was his daughter and she was married to accused Susheel about 1½ years back in the month of May. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9.1. PW1 Neeta Ram has stated that deceased was his daughter and she was married to accused Susheel about 1½ years back in the month of May. He has stated that marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs and ceremonies. He has stated that in the month of July he came to know from his son-in-law accused Susheel Kumar that deceased had hanged herself in her matrimonial house. He has stated that thereafter he along with his brother Karam Chand and son Sunder Dass came to matrimonial house of deceased and found that his daughter was hanging from the ceiling fan with scarf tied around her neck. He has stated that when his daughter came to her parental house she told that her husband namely co-accused Susheel Kumar was demanding a motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). He has stated that he told his daughter that his wife was ill and he would come to matrimonial house of deceased with 4/5 persons and would inquire from the co-accused Susheel Kumar as for what purpose the money was required. He has stated that his daughter was killed and she was hanged after killing because feet of deceased were touching the ground. He has stated that police also took photographs in his presence. He has stated that accused were harassing and torturing his deceased daughter for dowry and further stated that suicide was abetted by accused persons. He has denied suggestion that deceased was married against her will. He has denied suggestion that his daughter informed that she was pregnant and she intended to terminate the pregnancy. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not demand any dowry from the deceased and also denied suggestion that accused persons did not harass and torture the deceased in her matrimonial house. 9.2 PW2 Sunder Dass has stated that his sister was married to accused Susheel Kumar on dated 11.5.2005. He has stated that on dated 2.7.2005 he had gone to the house of his sister to attend the function. He has stated that his sister told him that accused persons have harassed her and called her handicapped. He has stated that his sister was pregnant but her inlaws did not want the child and they administered wrong medicine to the deceased. He has stated that his sister told him that accused persons have harassed her and called her handicapped. He has stated that his sister was pregnant but her inlaws did not want the child and they administered wrong medicine to the deceased. He has stated that he visited the house of deceased on 4th July 2005 and found that deceased was hanging from the fan and her feet were touching the ground. He has stated that police officials found a suicide note which was written on a writing pad and suicide note is Ext.PW2/A which was took into possession by police vide memo Ext.PW2/B. He has stated that suicide note Ext.PW2/A was written by his deceased sister and he has stated that he is conversant with hand writing of his deceased sister. He has stated that accused used to harass his sister. He has denied suggestion that deceased told him that deceased did not want child. He has denied suggestion that suicide note Ext.PW2/A and writing Ext.PW2/D-1 and Ext.PW2/D-2 are written by him. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not harass the deceased. 9.3 PW3 Dr. Bhupesh Gupta has stated that he is posted as Medical Officer in CHC Nalagarh since 2002 and on dated 4.7.2005 he visited the spot and found that deceased was hanging from the ceiling hook with red coloured scarf. He has stated that there were no struggle marks in the room and dress of the deceased was in order. He has stated that there was no blood on the floor and further stated that on dated 4.7.2005 dead body of deceased was brought by him to CHC Nalagarh for post mortem. He has stated that scarf is Ext.P2 and on post mortem he observed that deceased was well build and found ligature marks of red scarf around the neck of deceased and found that deceased was wearing pinkish red suit. He has stated that he did not observe any external injury on the body of deceased except the ligature mark on the neck. He has stated that it was found that ligature mark was of 2 cm wide above thyroid cartilage and base of jaw obliquely placed at the mastoied bone bilaterally ligature mark was absent posteriorily and hyoid bone fracture was present. He has further stated that on dissection of ligature mark perchament wide (glistening) area found beneath sub cutaneous tissue. He has stated that it was found that ligature mark was of 2 cm wide above thyroid cartilage and base of jaw obliquely placed at the mastoied bone bilaterally ligature mark was absent posteriorily and hyoid bone fracture was present. He has further stated that on dissection of ligature mark perchament wide (glistening) area found beneath sub cutaneous tissue. He has stated that no bruising of muscles and carotied artery intima injury found and found that left side face of the patient was pale and found bluish tinged eyes had petechial hemorrhage and hands were clichéd. He has stated that on removing the uterus pregnancy of about six to eight weeks was observed and uterus was sent for chemical and histeopathological examination and he opined that deceased was pregnant at the time of post mortem to the gestational age of around six to eight weeks and died due to ante mortem hanging. He has stated that viscera was sent to FSL Junga and after receipt of FSL report he did not find any evidence of poisoning or alcohol in the viscera. He has stated that he issued post mortem report Ext.PW3/A which bears his signatures. 9.4 PW4 HC Inder Lal has stated that he remained post as MHC P.S. Barotiwala and on dated 4.7.2005 statement Ext.PW4/A through HC Yashpal was received in police station and FIR Ext.PW4/B was registered. He has stated that case file was sent to the spot through HC Yash Pal and on dated 5.7.2005 C. Narinder Singh vide RC No. 3 of 2005 deposited with him viscera of deceased, four jars each sealed with three seals of CHC Nalagarh and one sealed envelope along with sample seal which were deposited by him in the Malkhana and entries were made by him in the register. He has stated that on dated 14.7.2005 vide RC No. 22 of 2005 he sent four jars of viscera of deceased sealed with three seals of CHC Nalagarh to FSL Junga along with sample of seal and one more envelope containing letter pad and admitted handwriting of deceased along with relevant papers through C. Hakkam Ram and case property was handed over by Hakkam Singh at FSL Junga on the same day and further stated that receipt was handed over to him by C. Hakkam Singh. He has stated that one stool and scarf were also deposited. He has stated that one stool and scarf were also deposited. He has further stated that case property remained intact in his custody. He has denied suggestion that proceedings regarding FIR Ext.PW4/B recorded subsequently. He has denied suggestion that no ruka was received by him in police station through H.C. Yash Pal. 9.5 PW5 HC Sohan Lal has stated that he is posted as I.O. P.P. Baddi since 2003 and on dated 9.7.2005 he remained associated in the investigation of the present case. He has stated that on dated 9.7.2005 Sunder Dass produced Ext.PW2/D-1 and Ext.PW2/D-2 to the Investigating Officer ASI Tapinder Singh vide seizure memo Ext.PW2/E which bears his signatures. He has further stated that Ext.PW2/D-1 to Ext.PW2/D-2 were written by deceased. He has admitted that about 100-150 villagers were gathered outside the house of deceased. 9.6 PW6 SHO Bisham Thakur has stated that in the year 2005 he was posted as SHO P.S. Barotiwala and after completion of investigation ASI Tajinder Singh presented the case file to him and after receipt of FSL reports Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B he prepared challan and presented the same in Court. 9.7 PW7 C. Hakam Ram has stated that on dated 14.7.2005 MHC Inder Lal P.S. Barotiwala handed over to him two parcels sealed with seal CHC Nalagarh along with two envelopes also sealed with same seal and sample seal vide RC No. 22 of 2005 for taking the same to FSL Junga. He has stated that samples were took by him and deposited in the office of FSL Junga. He has stated that receipt was handed over to MHC and parcels remained intact in his custody. He has denied suggestion that parcels were handed over to him on dated 13.7.2005 in the evening. 9.8 PW8 ASI T.S. Thakur I.O. has stated that in the year 2005 he was posted as Incharge of P.P. Baddi and on dated 4.7.2005 an information was received from an unknown person of village Channal Majra that some lady had committed suicide. He has stated that information was recorded in daily dairy vide report Ext.PW8/A and he along with HC Sohan Lal, H.C. Yahspal, C. Harwinder and Lady C. Gurmeet Kaur proceeded in official vehicle to the spot and reached the spot within 15-20 minutes. He has stated that information was recorded in daily dairy vide report Ext.PW8/A and he along with HC Sohan Lal, H.C. Yahspal, C. Harwinder and Lady C. Gurmeet Kaur proceeded in official vehicle to the spot and reached the spot within 15-20 minutes. He has stated that they found that one lady was hanging from the roof in her bed room and lady was already dead and they waited for parents of deceased. He has stated that parents of deceased came within 1-1½ hours and further stated that father of deceased had given statement Ext.PW4/A. He has stated that father of deceased told that deceased was harassed by accused persons. He has stated that thereafter Dy.S.P. Nalagarh, SHO Barotiwala came at the spot and medical officer was also called at the spot who examined the hanging dead body. He has stated that thereafter he took photographs with his own camera. He has further stated that thereafter he prepared inquest report Ext.PW8/B and inspected the room and prepared map Ext.PW8/C. He has stated that during the inspection of room writing pad Ext.PW2/A was found. He has stated that there was one stool on the bed. He has stated that thereafter he filed application for post mortem of deceased and thereafter obtained post mortem report. He has stated that dead body of deceased was handed over to parents of deceased vide memo Ext.PW8/O. He has stated that he also recorded statements of witnesses and viscera presented by medical officer was sent for examination to FSL Junga. He has stated that admitting hand writing of deceased Ext.PW2/D-1 to Ext.PW2/D-2 took from the brother of deceased vide memo Ext.PW8/E and they were sent to the expert of question document FSL Junga for comparison with hand writing of suicide note Ext.PW2/A. He has stated that report Ext.PW6/A was obtained and as per report of Handwriting Expert both writings was of same person. He has stated that after investigation file was handed over to SHO P.S. Barotiwala for preparation of challan. He has denied suggestion that deceased wanted to terminate her pregnancy. He has stated that he does not know that deceased was not interested for living in the village. He has denied suggestion that deceased wanted to terminate her pregnancy. He has stated that he does not know that deceased was reprimanded by her parents for termination of her pregnancy. He has denied suggestion that deceased wanted to terminate her pregnancy. He has stated that he does not know that deceased was not interested for living in the village. He has denied suggestion that deceased wanted to terminate her pregnancy. He has stated that he does not know that deceased was reprimanded by her parents for termination of her pregnancy. He has denied suggestion that suicide note Ext.PW2/A and hand writings Ext.PW2/D-1 to Ext.PW2/D-2 are hand writing of Sunder Dass. He has denied suggestion that deceased committed suicide of her own. He has denied suggestion that deceased was not harassed by accused persons. 10. Statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons have stated that deceased did not want the child and wanted to perform job. Accused persons have further stated that deceased did not want to live with accused persons in village and wanted to reside with her parents at Pinjore. Accused persons stated that they did not harass the deceased in her matrimonial house. Accused persons have further stated that deceased had committed suicide of her own. 11. Accused persons also examined Shri Dalip Singh as DW1 who has stated that he is familiar with the family of accused persons residing in village Chanar Majra. He has stated that he remained President of Panchayat Kishanpur from 2001 to 2006 and further stated that village Chanar falls under his Panchayat. He has stated that police officials recorded his statement in present case which is Ext.DA placed on record. He has admitted that he is running a clinic at village Manpura and further stated that he was called by accused Susheel Kumar and also stated that house of accused persons is situated at a distance of about 3-4 K.m. from his clinic. He has stated that his house is also situated at the same distance from the house of accused persons. He has stated that he did not give any treatment to the deceased as deceased was pregnant. He has further stated that he also did not conduct any test. He has denied suggestion that he was having knowledge that deceased was murdered by accused persons. He has denied suggestion that deceased had died on account of maltreatment by accused persons. He has admitted that accused persons are voters of his Panchayat. He has further stated that he also did not conduct any test. He has denied suggestion that he was having knowledge that deceased was murdered by accused persons. He has denied suggestion that deceased had died on account of maltreatment by accused persons. He has admitted that accused persons are voters of his Panchayat. Testimony of PW1 Shri Neeta Ram father of deceased is fatal to coaccused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 12. PW1 Neeta Ram father of deceased has stated in positive manner that when deceased used to come to her parental house she told him personally that her husband i.e. co-accused Susheel Kumar was demanding a motor cycle and Rs.50,000/- and he told his daughter that his wife was ill and he would come to her matrimonial house with 4/5 persons and he would ask co-accused Susheel Kumar purpose of demanding the money. Above stated testimony of PW1 against co-accused Susheel Kumar is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and is fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar. There is no reason to disbelieve the above stated testimony of PW1. Testimony of PW2 Sunder Dass brother of deceased is also fatal to coaccused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 13. PW2 Sunder Dass has stated in positive manner that deceased was married to co-accused Susheel Kumar on dated 11.5.2005. He has stated that on dated 2.7.2005 he personally went to the house of his deceased sister to attend the function where on the next day of the function she told him that her in-laws harassed her and called her handicapped and also called her as Paharan. He has stated in positive manner that his deceased sister did not feel happy in her matrimonial home and further stated that his sister was pregnant. Above stated testimony of PW2 Sunder Dass is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar. There is no reason to disbelieve the above stated testimony of PW2. Testimony of PW3 Dr. Bhupesh Gupta is also fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 14. PW3 Dr. Bhupesh Gupta has stated in positive manner that he visited the spot and found that deceased was hanging from the ceiling hook in the bed room of her matrimonial house. Testimony of PW3 Dr. Bhupesh Gupta is also fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 14. PW3 Dr. Bhupesh Gupta has stated in positive manner that he visited the spot and found that deceased was hanging from the ceiling hook in the bed room of her matrimonial house. He has stated that on dated 4.7.2005 dead body of deceased was brought to CHC Nalagarh for post mortem. He has stated that ligature marks were present over the neck of 2 cm wide above thyroid cartilage. He has stated that hyoid bone fracture was also present. He has stated that deceased was pregnant at the time of post mortem and further stated that pregnancy was of 6 to 8 weeks. He has stated that deceased had died due to ante mortem hanging. Above stated testimony of PW3 is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and is fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar. Corroborative testimonies of witnesses namely PW4 HC Inder Lal, PW5 HC Sohan Lal, PW6 HC Bisham Thakur, PW7 C. Hakam Ram, PW8 ASI T.S. Thakur are fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 15. PW4 has stated in positive manner that viscera of deceased four jars each sealed with three seals of CHC Nalagarh and one sealed envelope along with sample of seal deposited with him. He has stated in positive manner that on dated 14.7.2005 vide RC No. 22 of 2005 he sent four jars of viscera of deceased each sealed with three seals of CHC Nalagarh to FSL Junga along with sample of seal and one envelope containing letter pad and admitted hand writing along with relevant papers through C. Hakam Ram. Testimony of PW4 HC Inder Lal is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4 HC Inder Lal. Another corroborative witness PW5 HC Sohan Lal has stated that documents Ext.PW2/D-1 and Ext.PW1/D-2 were produced and same were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW2/E which bears his signatures. Testimony of PW5 HC Sohan Lal is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 HC Sohan Lal. Another corroborative witness namely PW6 SHO Bisham Thakur has stated in positive manner that on receipt of FSL reports Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B he prepared challan. Testimony of PW5 HC Sohan Lal is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 HC Sohan Lal. Another corroborative witness namely PW6 SHO Bisham Thakur has stated in positive manner that on receipt of FSL reports Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B he prepared challan. Testimony of PW7 C. Hakam Ram also inspires confidence of Court. He has specifically stated that two parcels sealed with seal CHC Nalagarh along with two envelopes were handed over to him vide RC No. 22/2005 and he deposited the same in FSL Junga. Testimony of corroborative witness PW8 ASI T.S. Thakur is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. PW8 T.S. Thakur has stated in positive manner that he visited the spot and further stated in positive manner that father of deceased had given a statement to him Ext.PW4/A which was reduced into writing. He has stated that deceased was harassed by accused persons in her matrimonial house. Suicide note Ext.PW2/A is also fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 16. Deceased has specifically stated in her suicide note that she used to remain confine in a room and there is recital in suicide note written by deceased that she did not like comments about her works in her in-laws house. There is recital in suicide note written by deceased that deceased had tolerated everything on account of new marriage. There is recital in suicide note written by deceased that in breakfast co-accused Susheel Kumar told the deceased on oath that he was very aggrieved after marrying the deceased with him because his freedom was snatched after marriage. There is recital in suicide note written by deceased that at 12 Noon electricity light went out of order and co-accused Susheel Kumar went to sleep outside and told the deceased to awaken him when electricity light would come. There is further recital in suicide note written by deceased that electricity light came after ½ hours and she awaken her husband namely co-accused Susheel Kumar and told him to come inside the room. There is further recital in suicide note written by deceased that at 3 AM co-accused Susheel Kumar came in room and abused the deceased. There is further recital in suicide note written by deceased that electricity light came after ½ hours and she awaken her husband namely co-accused Susheel Kumar and told him to come inside the room. There is further recital in suicide note written by deceased that at 3 AM co-accused Susheel Kumar came in room and abused the deceased. There is further recital in suicide note written by deceased that co-accused Susheel Kumar told the deceased that deceased should tell her mother not to visit matrimonial house of deceased. 17. After perusal of testimony of prosecution witnesses carefully and after perusal of suicide note Ext.PW2/A placed on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house in the stage of pregnancy due to mental cruelty given by co-accused Susheel Kumar. Provision of Section 498 has been enacted to meet social challenge to save married woman from being ill-treated and forced to commit suicide by husband or relatives. It is well settled law that if married woman is treated with cruelty within four walls of her matrimonial house then no independent witness of locality would be available. It is well settled law that any form of cruelty to married woman in her matrimonial house will attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. It is well settled law that cruelty is not only physical cruelty but also mental cruelty. It is well settled law that basic difference between Section 498-A and 306 IPC is that of intention only. It is well settled law that under Section 498-A IPC cruelty committed by husband or his relatives drag the woman to commit suicide and under Section 306 IPC suicide is abetted and intended by accused person. 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 on which wife is subjected to cruelty new starting point of limitation would start on last act of cruelty. (Also see AIR 1983 SC 1002 titled Virbhan Singh and another vs. State of U.P.). (Also see AIR 1983 SC 1002 titled Virbhan Singh and another vs. State of U.P.). It is well settled law that cruelty or harassment need not be physical but even mental cruelty would be a cruelty under Section 498-A IPC (Also See 1998 (3) SCC 309 Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana.) Report of State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga is fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar. 18. Even Scientific Officer State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga has specifically mentioned in positive manner in report Ext.PW6/A that admitted hand writing A1 to A4 and question hand writing Q1 to Q4 have been written by one and same person. Hence it is held that hand writing expert's report is fatal to co-accused Susheel Kumar qua suicide note and qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 19. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that offence under Section 498-A IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt against other co-accused persons namely Gurbachan, Smt. Ramla Devi and Kumari Narinder Kaur is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence as well as oral and documentary evidence on record against other accused persons namely Gurbachan, Smt. Ramla Devi and Kumari Narinder Kaur. 20. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that offence under Section 306 IPC is also proved beyond reasonable doubt against all accused persons is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that all accused persons have abetted the deceased to commit suicide immediately prior to the commission of suicide. There is no direct nexus between abetment and suicide. Hence all accused persons are acquitted qua offence punishable under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by way of giving them benefit of doubt. It is well settled principle of law that 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 learned trial Court. It is well settled principle of law that 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 learned trial Court. (See (2013)2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another vs. State See 2011 (11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar, See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra vs. State of Rajasthan , See 2012 (1) SCC 602 State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta.) I 21. Submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and statement of deceased recorded in suicide note Ext.PW2/A are not sufficient to convict coaccused Susheel Kumar qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter. It is well settled law that in matrimonial cases relatives are the best witnesses. It is also well settled law that married women generally used to narrate the facts of cruelty to her close relatives. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 father of deceased and PW2 brother of deceased. It is well settled law that that conviction can be based on honest and trustworthy evidence even of a single witness in criminal case. (See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. The State of Kerala See AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras . See AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh). It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh vs. State that there is no hard and fast rule for appreciation of evidence and each case has to be decided on facts as they proved in particular case. 22. Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore co-accused Susheel Kumar be acquitted qua offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and there is no material contradiction between testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and it is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal cases. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and there is no material contradiction between testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and it is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal cases. Deceased had committed suicide on dated 4.7.2005 in her matrimonial house within about two months after her marriage due to mental cruelty given to deceased by coaccused Susheel Kumar and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on dated 14.12.2006, 15.12.2006, 14.5.2007, 15.5.2007 and minor contradictions are bound to come in testimonies of prosecution witnesses when statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded after a lapse of time. It is also well settled law that concept of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal cases. (See AIR 1980 SC 957 titled Bhee Ram vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai singh vs. State of Haryana.) 23. Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that deceased did not want the child and she has voluntarily committed suicide in her matrimonial house is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The plea of learned defence Advocate that deceased has voluntarily committed suicide in her matrimonial house is rejected on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 24. Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that deceased wanted to perform job and she did not want to reside in village and she has voluntarily committed suicide in her matrimonial house when she was at the stage of pregnancy is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that deceased had voluntarily committed suicide in her matrimonial house. On the contrary it is proved by way of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record that deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house due to mental cruelty given to deceased by her husband namely co-accused Susheel Kumar and mental cruelty to the deceased is proved qua co-accused Susheel Kumar when he told the deceased personally that he was very aggrieved after marriage with deceased because his freedom was snatched after marriage. Above stated words have caused mental cruelty to deceased in her matrimonial house in positive manner. 25. Above stated words have caused mental cruelty to deceased in her matrimonial house in positive manner. 25. Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that in view of testimony of DW1 Dalip Singh it is proved on record that deceased had voluntarily committed suicide in her matrimonial house is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that mental cruelty to woman is committed within four walls of matrimonial house and DW1 Dalip Singh has stated in positive manner when he appeared in witness box that his house is situated at a distance of 3-4 K.m. from the house of accused persons. DW1 was not present when mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased within four walls of matrimonial house during night time. Hence we are of the opinion that testimony of DW1 Dalip Singh is not sufficient to discard the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 with whom the deceased had personally narrated that she had sustained mental cruelty in her matrimonial house. It is well settled law that none would commit suicide without any reason in the matrimonial house. In present case it is proved on record that deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house within about two months of her marriage when she was in the stage of pregnancy. Even as per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 titled Lallu Manjhi and another vs. State of Jharkhand that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined and it was held that Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was held that in first two categories there would be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of a single witness. It was also held in case reported in JT 2008 (8) SC 650 titled State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal and others that it is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which requires to be judged by the Court to place credence to the testimony of witness. 26. It was also held in case reported in JT 2008 (8) SC 650 titled State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal and others that it is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which requires to be judged by the Court to place credence to the testimony of witness. 26. Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Susheel Kumar that suicide note Ext.PW2/A is not admitted writing pertaining to deceased and on this ground co-accused Susheel Kumar be acquitted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is positive cogent and reliable evidence on record that suicide note was found from the drawer of bed room of deceased in her matrimonial house which was written on a writing pad. The suicide note was found from the room in which dead body of deceased was found hanging. Age of deceased at the time of her death was 23 years. The deceased had committed suicide due to mental cruelty suffered by deceased in her matrimonial house when she was in prime age of youth i.e. 23 years. In view of positive fact that suicide note Ext.PW2/A written by deceased was found from the same room in which dead body of deceased was found it is held that suicide note Ext.PW2/A is relevant fact in present case. Even State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga in report Ext.PW6/A has specifically mentioned that admitted hand writing A1 to A4 and questioned hand writing Q1 to Q4 have been written by one and same person. Accused did not adduce any evidence on record in order to rebut the report of Scientific Officer State Forensic Science Laboratory report Ext.PW6/A placed on record. It is also admitted by co-accused Susheel Kumar when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house when she was under pregnancy of six to eight weeks. Accused have also admitted when their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded that brother of deceased PW2 Sunder Dass came to matrimonial house of deceased on dated 2.7.2005 two days prior to death of deceased and it is proved on record that deceased had directly narrated the facts about mental cruelty to her brother when he came to her matrimonial house on dated 2.7.2005. 27. In view of above stated facts appeal is partly allowed. 27. In view of above stated facts appeal is partly allowed. We set aside the acquittal of co-accused Susheel Kumar under Section 498-A IPC and we convict co-accused Susheel Kumar under Section 498-A IPC. We hold that coaccused Susheel Kumar had committed mental cruelty upon deceased in her matrimonial house. We hold that due to mental cruelty given by co-accused Susheel Kumar in matrimonial house of deceased the deceased had committed suicide when she was under pregnancy of six to eight weeks. We affirm the acquittal of other co-accused persons under Sections 498 and 306 read with Section 34 IPC granted by learned trial Court. We also affirm acquittal of coaccused Susheel Kumar under Section 306 IPC. Judgment of learned trial Court is modified to this extent only. Now convict Susheel Kumar be heard on quantum of sentence qua offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Nonbailable warrants be issued against convict Susheel Kumar and he be produced before us on 2.12.2014.