JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th February, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court at Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 12(4)/97 arising out of Sessions Case No. 15(9)/96 convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution case is as follows:- Deceased Ila Chowdhury was married to Debashis Chowdhury according to Hindu Rites. Sometimes after marriage, Debashis and his mother started torturing the victim housewife physically and mentally on different issues including a demand of gifting a piece of land in favour of Debashis. When the father of the victim was unable to do so, Debashis demanded a cash of Rs. 60,000-70,000/- in lieu of such land. The father of the victim was unable to pay such amount. Torture upon the victim increased in various ways. As a result she was compelled to commit suicide. The first information report being Watgunge P.S. case no. 332 dated 27th October, 1995 under Section 498A/306 was registered for investigation on the written information of P.W. 3, the father of the victim. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 498A/306 was submitted against the appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, South 24 Parganas and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. In course of trial the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was also the specific defence of the appellants that the victim was suffering from depression with suicidal tendency and owing to such mental illness she was treated at Calcutta and Ghatshila. She was then admitted in hospital at Ghatshila. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was also the specific defence of the appellants that the victim was suffering from depression with suicidal tendency and owing to such mental illness she was treated at Calcutta and Ghatshila. She was then admitted in hospital at Ghatshila. She committed suicide as a consequence of such depression. P.W. 1 is the private photographer and took the photograph of the place of occurrence at the behest of the investigating agency. P.W. 2 is the father of the victim and the defacto complainant. P.W. 3 is the Executive Magistrate who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the victim girl. P.W. 4 is the post mortem doctor. P.W. 5 is the cousin of the appellant no. 1 Debashis. P.W. 6 is the brother of the deceased lady. P.W. 7 is the neighbour of Rabin Tapaswi P.W. 2. P.W. 8 is the plan maker who prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. P.W. 9 is a neighbour of the matrimonial home of the victim. He was declared hostile. P.W. 10 is a constable who was attached to the police station and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 12 is the police officer who exhibited general diaries lodged against the appellant no. 1 Debashis being G.D.E no. 1487 dated 24th November, 1994 and G.D.E. no. 1019 dated 19th January, 1995. The defence examined two witnesses namely D.W. 1 Sankar Nath Banerjee who accompanied the victim and Debasish for treatment of the victim at Ghatshila and D.W. 2 is the doctor who treated the victim at Calcutta. Mr. Mondal the learned amicus curiae submitted that the first information report is a manufactured document. It is the evidence of P.W. 2 and 6 that they went to the police station around 9.20 p.m. on 27th October, 1995 whereas the first information report has been purportedly registered on 27th October, 1995 at 1.45 hours. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7, the star prosecution witnesses suffers from embellishments with regard to demands of dowry and allegations of torture on the victim and/or allegation that the appellant no. 1 Debashis had come to the residence of P.W. 2 and had abused him and other family members and caused extensive damage to household articles. 2, 6 and 7, the star prosecution witnesses suffers from embellishments with regard to demands of dowry and allegations of torture on the victim and/or allegation that the appellant no. 1 Debashis had come to the residence of P.W. 2 and had abused him and other family members and caused extensive damage to household articles. He further submitted that the post card purportedly written by the victim (Exhibit 4) is not in the handwriting of the victim housewife and is a concocted document. He further submitted that there was no material to connect the appellants with the torture of the victim. He submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider that the victim was an unstable lady suffering from mental illness and as a consequence thereof had committed suicide. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was ample evidence on record to show that there was demand for transfer of land or cash in lieu thereof by the appellants and as P.W. 2 was unable to meet such demands, the victim was subjected to torture and ill treatment. She was even forced to write letters demanding money from her father under the dictates of the appellants. Exhibit 4 is the post card which was despatched by ordinary post and received by P.W. 2 in ordinary course of business. The genuineness of the said letter cannot be doubted. There is ample evidence that appellants subjected the victim of mental and physical torture. He submitted that the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to treatment of the victim is highly unreliable and her admission at Ghatshila has not been proved by production of registers maintained at the hospital or by examining medical personnel who treated her as an indoor patient. The vital witnesses of the prosecution are P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7 respectively. P.W. 2 is the father of the victim who stated that on 26th November, 1993 the victim was married and various articles including gold ornaments were gifted to her. After the marriage the couple was invited to his residence for the purpose of Jamai Shasthi. The appellant Debashis handed him a wrist watch for repair. There was some delay in repairing the watch. After the marriage the couple was invited to his residence for the purpose of Jamai Shasthi. The appellant Debashis handed him a wrist watch for repair. There was some delay in repairing the watch. A letter (Exhibit 2) was written by the victim under the dictates of the appellants was handed over to him which contains accusations in very ugly language and the envelope is in the hand writing of the appellant no. 1. Seven days later Debashis came to his residence and abused him in filthy language. He demanded land for starting a dispensary. P.W. 2 expressed his inability to hand over land. Thereafter, the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture. Debashis demanded cash in lieu of such land. A daughter was born on 16th September, 1994 to the couple. All medical expenses were borne by P.W. 2. Debashis again came to their residence and demanded money to the tune of Rs. 60,000-70,000/- in lieu of land. When he expressed inability to pay, Debashis tried to set fire on the bedding and other domestic articles by pouring kerosene oil. He even threatened the wife of P.W. 2. General diaries were lodged at the local police station with regard to the aforesaid incident. He stated that he received a post card from the victim which he handed over to the police during investigation. The post card is exhibited as Exhibit 4. Victim died by hanging on 27th October, 1995. He lodged first information report, which was written by P.W. 6 his son. He proved the First Information Report. He was cross-examined at length. P.W. 6 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 and deposed that the victim was tortured by the appellants on the ground that Rs. 60,000-70,000 was not paid to the appellants in lieu of the land which was to be transferred to Debashis. He also stated that Debashis came to the house of P.W. 2 and misbehaved with him and his family members by setting on fire domestic articles and general diaries were lodged with regard to misbehaviour of the appellants. He also deposed that the letter being Exhibit 4 was in the handwriting of the victim housewife. P.W. 7 is an independent witness who supports the prosecution case that the P.W. 2 had received letters from the victim being Exhibits 2 and 4. He also deposed that the letter being Exhibit 4 was in the handwriting of the victim housewife. P.W. 7 is an independent witness who supports the prosecution case that the P.W. 2 had received letters from the victim being Exhibits 2 and 4. He also proved that the letter (Exhibit 4) was handed over by P.W. 2 in course of investigation to the police. P.W. 12 exhibited general diaries lodged against the appellant no. 1 with regard to his misbehavior at the residence of P.W. 2 over non-payment of Rs. 60.000-70,000/-. I have analysed the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and I find it is the consistent version of the said witnesses that the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellants on demand of Rs. 60,000-70,000/-. It is also the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that Debashis subjected the victim to physical and mental torture as his demand for land or a sum of Rs. 60,000-70,000/- in lieu thereof was not paid. It has been argued that there is no reference to demand of dowry either at the time of lodging general diaries or even first information report. The first information report is not an encyclopedia of facts. Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved if otherwise corroborated by contemporaneous materials merely on the ground that the first information report is a cryptic one. In the instant case the evidence of ill treatment of the victim by the appellants over various monetary demands is corroborated by general diaries lodged against the appellant no. 1 Debashis at the police station being Exhibits 19 and 20 as per the evidence of P.W. 12. Exhibit 4 is a post card written by the victim narrates the abject ill treatment of the victim at her matrimonial home by her husband and mother in law. She had narrated the woeful tale of physical and mental assault at the hands of the appellants. It has been argued that Exhibit 4 has not been proved to be written in the handwriting of the victim. It has been argued that Exhibits 2 and 4 are appearing to be written in different hand writing although they are said to have been written by the victim herself. I am unable to accept such defence contention. It has been argued that Exhibit 4 has not been proved to be written in the handwriting of the victim. It has been argued that Exhibits 2 and 4 are appearing to be written in different hand writing although they are said to have been written by the victim herself. I am unable to accept such defence contention. It has been established through cogent evidence that the victim was not a free agent when she wrote exhibit 2 that is, the abusive letter to her father P.W. 2. The terms used in the letter including the manner in which she addressed her mother therein gives rise to the irresistible conclusion that the same is a product of dictation and that she was forced to write the same. As such, it is probable that her handwriting (if at all she was the author of the same) would be at variance to the handwriting in Exhibit 4 wherein she had voluntarily communicated the saga of ill treatment to her father from the matrimonial home. The letter (Exhibit 4) is a post card which bears the postal stamp and it is clear that the same was received by P.W. 2 in ordinary course of business through post. The origin of the letter as well as its dispatch and receipt by P.W. 2 being so established, it is difficult to believe the defence version that the same is a manufactured document. Exhibit 4 clearly lays down the active participation of both the appellants in the torture of the victim. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants for commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is justified. Coming to the conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, I find that defence witnesses particularly D.W. 2 has deposed that she was under treatment for mental illness of depression with suicidal tendency. It is true that D.W. 2 did not treat her at Ghatshila. But the said witness had treated the victim girl at Calcutta on various dates namely 21st December, 1994, 25th January, 1995, 15th March, 1995 and 25th August, 1995. In fact on 25th August, 1995 he had advised hospitalization owing to her precarious mental state. In cross examination, he categorically refuted the charge that such depression could be caused by mental and physical torture. In fact on 25th August, 1995 he had advised hospitalization owing to her precarious mental state. In cross examination, he categorically refuted the charge that such depression could be caused by mental and physical torture. According to him, the features revealed constitution or genetic involvement. Learned trial Judge did not disbelieve D.W. 2 in toto. On the other hand it was the version of the learned Judge that she had developed mental instability owing to oppressive conditions prevailing at her matrimonial home. I am unable to accept such view of the learned Judge in the light of the clear opinion expressed by D.W. 2 in cross-examination that the state of mental illness is essentially a matter of genetic or constitutional disposition of the state and not a product of external stimulai. Such evidence however, has not been explained away by the prosecution. Hence, I am of the opinion that although there is evidence on record to show that the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture during her matrimonial life, the evidence led on behalf of the defence showing the protracted treatment of the victim owing to mental illness immediately prior to her commission of suicide rebuts the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act by giving a plausible explanation to the commission of suicide of the victim at her matrimonial home. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I set aside the conviction of the appellants for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed in part. Lower Court records along with the copy of the judgment be sent down to the trial Court. The appellants are directed to surrender to their bail bonds within a month from date and to serve out the sentence in accordance with law.