JUDGMENT Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-11-1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bajar, Distt Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 80/1989 whereby and whereunder after holding the appellants guilty under Sections 498-A and306/34 of Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') for subjecting the deceased Kumari Bai who is daughter-in-law of appellant No. 1 Rama and wife of appellant No. 2 Nanhuram to cruelty and for abetment of suicide, sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year for offence under Section 306/34 of I.P.C. No separate sentence for offence under Section 498-A is imposed as it was not necessary. Co-accused Smt. Neerabai, wife of appellant No. 1 also preferred the instant appeal, however due to her death on 18-1-2010, her appeal stood abated as per order dated 21-7-2014. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 16-1-1989, one Ramkumar reached to the police station, Bhatapara Rural and recorded Merg intimation at about 9.00 pm that when he returned after taking part in Madai evening, he was informed that Kumari Bai hanged herself in the mayar (wooden girder of roof). Police of Bhatapara Rural registered a merg vide Ex. P-1 and conducted the inquest Ex. P-2 on the next day morning after giving inquest notice to witnesses vide Ex. P-3 and sent the dead body of deceased Ram Kumari alias Kumari for autopsy vide letter of request Ex. P-7-A. P.W. 12 Dr. Anil Kumar Dave and P.W. 13 Dr. D.P. Verma jointly conducted autopsy on 17-1-1989 and noticed following symptoms: No external injuries seen anywhere in the body except the ligature mark, ligature mark is a long rope with slide knot. Ligature mark is well marked, grooved, between thyroid cartilage and the chin and it is directed obliquely upwards following the line of the mandible, ligature mark is well defined grooved-deep base of it pale, hard, leathery and parchment like margins congested and is deepest near the knot, knot mark is present 5.5 cm below the mastoid process behind the ear lobule on the left side. As per team conducting the autopsy, the cause of death in this case is asphyxia resulted from hanging. Hanging to suicide in nature. Time elapsed since death - 18 to 24 hours of the post mortem examination. Doctors gave their report vide Ex. P-8 on 17-1-1989. P.W. 19 I.L. Uike, SDO Police Baloda Bazar lodged FIR after inquest inquiry and registered the offence against the appellants and co-accused Neera Bai by registration of crime No. 15/89 under Section 306/34 of IPC. During investigation a hand written letter written by deceased sent to her maternal uncle Jeevan Singh Verma was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-9 in which the deceased informed about her sufferings and circumstances. Patwari map was prepared vide Ex. P-9. The sealed packet containing the rope, clothes of deceased, slide sent by autopsy doctor were seized through Ex. P-10. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'the Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 25-2-1989 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar received the case on transfer and conducted trial. During trial, the appellants and the died appellant were charged under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. All the accused persons denied the charges and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 4. The appellants examined one defence witness D.W. 1 Kaliram. As per this witness, the deceased was alright in her matrimonial house. 5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforementioned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgment impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that deceased Kumari Bai, present appellants and died appellant Neera Bai all resided under the same roof. Deceased Kumari Bai died on 16-1-1989 at about 7.00 PM in the house of appellants by hanging herself in a wooden girder and she died within one year of her marriage to appellant No. 2 Nanhu Ram. Deceased Kumari Bai died on 16-1-1989 at about 7.00 PM in the house of appellants by hanging herself in a wooden girder and she died within one year of her marriage to appellant No. 2 Nanhu Ram. All the facts and undisputed and admitted. She also submits that the sister of the appellant -No. 2 Nanhu was married to brother of deceased Kumaribai in local custom gurawat. As submitted, there was no evidence for demand of dowry. There is no abetment as required under Section 107 of IPC. As per statement of father P.W. 1 Bhagatram, six months after marriage, Kumari Bai went to her paternal house and 15 days prior to her death, she returned to her matrimonial house. As per P.W. 9 Lakhanlal, neighbour, there was dispute between Kumari Bai and died appellant Neerabai on the date of incident. As per prosecution's case, the deceased wrote an inland letter Ex. P-6 to her maternal uncle which was seized by seizure memo Ex. P-9. Her maternal uncle was not examined by the prosecution though he is included in the list of witnesses. P.W. 13 Sarjan Lal (Dr. D.P. Verma and Serjan Lal both were marked as P.W. 13) has not supported the seizure of letter Ex. P-6. Other panch witness Ramkaran is not examined. Said letter was not compared with the handwriting of the deceased by any expert. Only P.W. 11 the father identified the letter and stated that handwriting is of his daughter. But the same is not admissible because P.W. 11 is not a handwriting expert, even her handwriting is not compared with other documents. The deceased was 17 years of age at the time of her death. She was a girl of tender age. If we look into the contents of Ex. P-6, there is no abetment or demand of dowry. This letter does not help the prosecution and Section 498-A is not attracted. Generally people demand for motorcycle, colour TV etc. but in the present case, there is no such demand or instigation. Statement of P.W. 11, the father of deceased should be corroborated by P.W. 13 Sarjan Lal but Sarjan Lal turned hostile. This witness accompanied P.W. 11 but he is not supporting him. Learned trial Court held Ex. P-6 as a dying declaration which is not acceptable. but in the present case, there is no such demand or instigation. Statement of P.W. 11, the father of deceased should be corroborated by P.W. 13 Sarjan Lal but Sarjan Lal turned hostile. This witness accompanied P.W. 11 but he is not supporting him. Learned trial Court held Ex. P-6 as a dying declaration which is not acceptable. The girl wrote letter to her maternal uncle but not told anything to her father P.W. 11 Bhagatram who visited few days before the death of Kumari Bai. As per this witness in para 8, Kumari Bai was telling him that she would not live in her matrimonial house and she only wanted to go with him. The girl was sensitive. There is no provocation, instigation or goading. There was no external injury. Only there was fact regarding harassment. P.W. 13 Sarjanlal deposed that P.W. 11 Bhagat told him that his daughter and son-in-law are quarreling with each other. Then he accompanied P.W. 11 Bhagatram. They went to the house of appellant. The tried to make them understand and thereafter they returned back. After 8 days, he was informed that Kumaribai died. This witness is not supporting P.W. 11 on other counts. P.W. 9 Lakhanlal deposed that the day Kumar Bai committed suicide by hanging, there was a dispute between the deceased and appellant Neerabai. The mother-in-law was angry because the deceased was not doing any domestic work. Even as per this witness, there was no demand for dowry. This witness turned hostile not said anything against the present appellants. This witness lived in half furlong from the house of appellant. He only saw the ordinary dispute which arise in every house. P.W. 4 Shatrughan deposed that there was family dispute between the deceased and her mother-in-law. This witness too has not said anything regarding dispute or some other incident with the present appellants. This witness also have not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 5 Bhagwani, the neighbour has deposed that she heard some hot talks between mother-in-law and Kumari Bai. This witness also did not say anything against the present appellants. As submitted the mother-in-law and family members were not behaving properly. Father of the deceased said that don't come back in the maternal house and as the girl was of tender age, she had no option that is why she committed suicide. This witness also did not say anything against the present appellants. As submitted the mother-in-law and family members were not behaving properly. Father of the deceased said that don't come back in the maternal house and as the girl was of tender age, she had no option that is why she committed suicide. There is no abetment, no direct inducement, no instigation for suicide. Only evidence has come against the mother-in-law the died appellant. Neighbour gave clean chit to appellants. Only the father speaks against the appellants which is not admissible as the prosecution failed to prove the guilty or abetment for suicide by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in Jagannath Mondal and others v. State of West Bengal 2013 Cr.L.J. 1994, where it is held that barring the solitary statement "Tum mar jao vis khakar, gale main rassi dalkar" (Hindi translation) nothing else had transpired in the form of goading, provoking, instigating as required as a proof of case under Section 306, IPC. There was no sign of mark of injury. Due to family disputes, the deceased had committed suicide. She was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society which happen in day to day life, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction of accused is improper. She also relied on Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, 2014 AIR SCW 2085, and Karan Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2014 AIR SCW 2669. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is identical to the cases cited. The appellants are convicted upon presumption and preponderance which is not proper. They may be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced. He submitted that as per Para 2 and 3 of statement of P.W. 11 Bhagatram, her daughter Kumari Bai informed him that all the three i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her on account of dowry, they used to abuse and assault. Her daughter wrote a letter to her maternal uncle who informed him regarding receipt of letter Ex. P-6 written by her daughter. When he went to her daughter-in-law's house, the appellants refused to send her. Being unsuccessful, he returned home and next day, his daughter committed suicide. The contents of Ex. Her daughter wrote a letter to her maternal uncle who informed him regarding receipt of letter Ex. P-6 written by her daughter. When he went to her daughter-in-law's house, the appellants refused to send her. Being unsuccessful, he returned home and next day, his daughter committed suicide. The contents of Ex. P-6 constitutes cruelty, mental harassment committed by the appellants, and on account of such harassment, the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage. In the present case, provisions of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act are attracted. The prosecution has proved that husband and father-in-law subjected her to cruelty as per evidence and circumstances of the case. The suicide had been abetted by the appellants. This Court has to draw presumption as provided under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that P.W. 13 Sarjanlal supported the P.W. 11 that father of Kumari Bai came to him and informed that his daughter and son-in-law are quarreling then he accompanied him. They reached the village Dewari. There they advised the daughter and son-in-law and thereafter they returned back. After 8 days, he came to know that Kumar Bai had died. It is further submitted that when they reached to make them understand, the in-laws started quarreling and disputing and at the same time the deceased was weeping and narrating the incident. As per P.W. 5 Bhagwani he heard some hot talks between Kumar Bai and her mother-in-law Neera Bai. Neera Bai was abusing her daughter-in-law. He submitted that conviction and sentence is well founded. There is no scope of interference. Hence the appeal may be dismissed. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased died within one year of marriage with appellant No. 2 Nanhu. The deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. It is also established that the appellants and the deceased and died appellant Neera Bai all residing under the same roof. 12. In the present case, S. 113-A of the Evidence Act is applicable. The main question for decision in the present case is whether the commission of suicide by Kumari Bai was abetted by her husband or any other near relative of her husband. 12. In the present case, S. 113-A of the Evidence Act is applicable. The main question for decision in the present case is whether the commission of suicide by Kumari Bai was abetted by her husband or any other near relative of her husband. If it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or relatives of her husband had subjected the deceased with cruelty. The Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that the such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Ex. P-6 inland letter though it was not compared by any handwriting expert and the person who received the letter is also not examined but P.W. 11 the father deposed that her brother-in-law had shown him the said letter. This witness identified the handwriting in the Court during trial. There is no reason to disbelieve the handwritten letter written by the deceased as there was no suggestion that the said letter was not sent by the deceased to her maternal uncle in the cross-examination. Upon considering the other attending circumstances, learned trial Court held this letter was written by the deceased prior to her death. When we go through the contents of it, it goes to show that there was element of cruelty. Cruelty has a wider term. It includes mental cruelty also. The letter indicates in many places about the cruelly and also on many time, the, deceased indicated the fact of committing suicide in so many words though in a guarded language. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that this letter proved the element of cruelty against the appellants. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, normally the neighbors do not speak real truth against in-laws because they have to live with them. P.W. 11 Bhagatram specifically deposed in para 2 and 3 that her daughter told him that all the three in-laws used to harass her for dowry. They used to abuse and assault her. This witness along with Sarjanlal reached to the in-law house of her daughter and advised them not to create problem. All the accused told him that they will kill the daughter. They used to abuse and assault her. This witness along with Sarjanlal reached to the in-law house of her daughter and advised them not to create problem. All the accused told him that they will kill the daughter. Next day, as per P.W. 4 they were informed that their daughter is seriously ailing when he reached to the house of accused, his daughter died. He found police present there. He also deposed in his cross-examination in para 8 that when he reached to the house of appellants, his daughter told him that she will not live in her matrimonial house and she will go with him. This goes to show the seriousness of the circumstances and also as evident that on next day, she committed suicide. It goes to show that there was grave degree of mental and physical torture and she died on account of such mental and physical torture. As per Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, this cruelty is held as abetment towards suicide. Having regard to other circumstances of the case, the law permits for this presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. This witness also indicated one more important thing in para 4 that when they reached the house of in-laws of deceased, the in-laws started quarreling and at the time the deceased was weeping and narrating the incident. The mother-in-law was abusing the deceased. As per P.W. 5 Bhagwani, the sister of Appellant No. 2 who was married to brother of deceased was residing in her in-law's house and the father of Kumari Bai left her daughter in her matrimonial house and said that she remained there till she is alive. As per this witness and entire evidence, the physical and mental cruelty with the deceased was on its peak. If after her strong insistence that she will not live in her in-law's house, if her father returned back after making her understand then there was no option with her as she was subjected to serious degree of cruelty but to commit suicide. 13. In the present case, demand of dowry is proved, instigation for abetment is also proved. Whatever evidence is adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold the presumption under section 113-A of the Act that the suicide of Kumari Bai had been abetted by the appellants. 14. 13. In the present case, demand of dowry is proved, instigation for abetment is also proved. Whatever evidence is adduced by prosecution is sufficient to hold the presumption under section 113-A of the Act that the suicide of Kumari Bai had been abetted by the appellants. 14. The case law cited on behalf of the appellants is of no help to the present case because there are many more evidence regarding cruelty, instigation, provocation and goading in the instant case. She was facing hardship and harassment for more than six months. There was demand of dowry. To some extent, the prosecution case is corroborated by neighbour. Having regard to all the evidence, the cited case law is of no help to the appellants. 15. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the appellants. After appreciating the whole incident, facts and circumstances, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants. On close scrutiny of evidence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction by the trial Court. Consequently, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 16. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellants are sentenced to R.I. for 10 years with fine sentence. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where maximum punishment should be awarded. I am of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of R.I. for 5 years would be just and proper. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Appellants' conviction under Section 498-A and 306/34 are affirmed. However each of them are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. Fine sentence is also maintained. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving remaining sentence, if any. Trial Court is also directed to take steps to ensure that appellants serve their remaining sentence. Appeal Partly Allowed