JUDGMENT : - Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The instant appeal, is, directed by the State, against the impugned judgment, rendered, on, 15.01.2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions trial No.8/7 of 2006/05, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents, for, theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). 2. Brief facts, of the case are, that, on 30.5.2005, at about 8.30 P.M. a telephonic information was received at Police Station, Talai, from PW-1 Ram Lal about, his, having discovered Bhago Devi, his daughter, to be dead. On receipt of information, rapat No.3 dated 30.5.2005 was entered, in, the daily diary. Inspector Rai Singh alongwith ASI Ram Dass, HHC Kuldeep Singh, HHG Ram Pal and L.C. Sarswati Devi, proceeded to the spot. Complainant Ram Lal, recorded his statement before the police, comprised in Ex. PW-1/A, alleging therein, that, his daughter Savitri Devi had been married 15 years back with accused Sher Singh alias Choti, son of Shiv Ram, resident of Malraon, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Out of said wedlock, three children were born to them. His daughter, deceased Bhago Devi, was being harassed, by the accused for the last 8-9 years, in as much, as, she was being deprived of food and clothing. His son-in-law accused Sher Singh started harassing her, on, a large scale, for, the last two years alongwith accused Shiv Ram and Devku Devi, at which, the deceased came to her maternal house, and, disclosed to them, the facts, on, her visiting her maternal home. They tried, to, make the accused understand, but, of no avail. On 21.5.2005, the deceased visited his house and went back to her matrimonial home at Malraon on 25.5.2005. On 29.5.2005, at about 9.45 p.m., Ram Lal, the father of deceased, received a telephonic call from accused Shiv Ram that his daughter Bhago Devi alias Savitri Devi, was unconscious, and, froth was coming out from her nose, at, which he reached Malraon at 4.00 a.m., on 30.5.2005. He was told by the accused Shiv Ram that his daughter had expired. He was told by the accused Shiv Ram that his daughter had expired. The complainant alleged that accused Sher Singh, the husband of deceased, Shiv Ram and Devku Devi, in-laws of the deceased, used to maltreat and harass her, and, owing to such maltreatment and harassment suffered by her at their instance, she consumed poison and died. On the basis of statement, made by PW-1 Ram Lal, FIR was lodged, in, Police Station, Talai, against the accused. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused were charged, for, theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34, IPC, by the learned trial Court, to, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, in, which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The State of H.P., is, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned Trial Court, in, favour of the accused/respondents. The Learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended, that, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, are, not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of acquittal, be, reversed by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, be replaced by findings of conviction, and, concomitantly an appropriate sentence be also imposed upon the accused/respondents. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, are, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Ram Lal, father of deceased Bhago Devi. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Ram Lal, father of deceased Bhago Devi. He deposed that, both, his deceased daughter, and, accused Sher Singh, were married about 15 years back. His deceased daughter has been deposed by him to begotten three children, out of the said wedlock. He continued, to, depose, that, his deceased daughter, was, being harassed by the accused, in as much, as, no clothes etc., were provided to her, by the accused, rather, he had been providing clothes to her. He further deposed that the accused started harassing her, after 7 to 8 years, after their marriage. He used, to, abuse her, about, which revelations were made to him by his deceased daughter. Even though, he concerted, to, prevail upon his daughter, to, continue to reside with the accused, as, things, with the passage of time, would be sorted out. However, the accused did not mend his ways. He has testified, that, his daughter had revealed, to, him, that, the accused was having relationship with some other lady. Besides, he deposed that his daughter, was, harassed by the accused Sher Singh, Devku Devi and uncle Sidhu, and, she was not even permitted by the accused to come to her maternal home alongwith with her children. Even though, he deposed, that, he had talked to accused Shiv Ram, regarding the maltreatment, meted out by him, to, his deceased daughter, yet, he assured him, that, things would improve. He deposed that, keeping, the family honour, in view, he did not disclose the matter to anyone or lodged any complaint. His daughter had visited his house for the last time, on, 21.5.2005, and, went back on 25.5.2005. During her last visit, to, her matrimonial home, she had divulged to him, about the harassment meted out, to, her by the accused, about which, he had to talk with the accused, however, before he could talk with the accused Sher Singh, he has received a telephonic message, that, his daughter has turned unconscious, and, on his arrival, at, village Marlaon, he came to know, that, his daughter has expired. On his confronting, accused Sher Singh, the later told him, that, he had seen his daughter, in, a fallen condition. The said fact aroused the suspicion of this witness, and, he accordingly telephoned the police. He had reached at village Marlaon at about 5.00 p.m. on the next day. The police had also arrived, on, that very date, and, recorded his statement comprised, in, Ex.PW1/A, on the spot, which bears his signatures, in, red circle. During the course of his cross-examination, he deposed, that, his deceased daughter used, to, cook food in the house. He also deposed that accused Sher Singh ,is, having relations with the school peon, and, the said fact had come, to, his knowledge, before the death of his deceased daughter, however he did not disclose this fact, to, anybody except Shiv Ram. However, on his being confronted, during his cross-examination, with the said fact, as, deposed by him, in, Court, of his daughter, having divulged to him, of the accused having illicit relations with the school peon, it surges forth that he had omitted to disclose, the said fact to the police, at, the first instance. Obviously the fact, as, divulged by this witness, for the first time, in, the Court, is, an improvement or an embellishment. In sequel, it looses probative worth, and, hence, cannot, construe a potent fomenting material, for, either the accused to harass the deceased, or, for the deceased, to, commit suicide. Even the fact, as, deposed by him, of the deceased having divulged to him the fact of hers being harassed by the accused in between 21st to 25 May, 2005 , when, she last visited her maternal home, appears to be an improvement and embellishment, given the fact, that, there is omission, on, the part of this witness, at, the initial stage, to disclose the said fact to the police. Moreover, the fact, that, he had apprised the police that he used to provide clothes to his deceased daughter, also, acquires the taint, of, an improvement or an embellishment, as, the said fact has not been recorded, in, his previous statement. Moreover, the fact, that, he had apprised the police that he used to provide clothes to his deceased daughter, also, acquires the taint, of, an improvement or an embellishment, as, the said fact has not been recorded, in, his previous statement. Moreover, there also exist improvements or embellishments, in, the testimony of PW-1, in as much, as, his having deposed, for the first time, in the Court, the fact of his deceased daughter, having, visited her maternal home on the 21st and 25th May, 2005, on which dates, she had disclosed the fact of maltreatment and ill-treatment, being meted out by the accused to her. The fact of this witness, deposing in the Court, for the first time, the fact of his providing clothes, to, his deceased daughter, tantamounting, to, its comprising the meting out of ill-treatment or maltreatment, by the accused, to, the deceased, is, also an improvement or an embellishment, which erodes the efficacy and truth of the deposition of PW-1, as, existing, in, his examination-in-chief. In aftermath, it has to be concluded, that, when this witnesses, in, his deposition, is, not specific qua, the dates, and, times, when the perpetrated acts of ill-treatment or maltreatment, were, meted out by the accused, to, his deceased daughter, that , hence, for lack of specifity in time, qua, the purported ill-treatment or maltreatment, meted out by the accused, to, the deceased , as such, the purported acts of ill-treatment or maltreatment, cannot be construed to be proximate in time, to, the fateful incident so as, to, constitute or comprise actuation to the deceased to commit suicide. Besides rather, with there being highly vague and generalized actuations of ill-treatment or maltreatment meted to the deceased by the accused, as, also, previously when there, is, no complaint lodged, by the complainant, with either the Panchayat or with the police, hence, such allegations of ill-treatment or maltreatment, appear to be an invention, as well, as, a concoction. Therefore, it has to be concluded, that, the generalized acts, are mere trifles or trivial incidents, which are a part of the routine of a married life, they neither acquire potency nor sinew, in, construing theirs to be instigatory factors for the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, it cannot be construed that there is any potent material on record, which, is construable to have, hence, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, it cannot be construed that there is any potent material on record, which, is construable to have, hence, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. As a natural concomitant, it has to be convincingly inferred that no case, is, made out against the accused either under Section 306 IPC or 498 IPC. Even, on, an incisive study of testimony of the PW-2, it appears that, in, her cross-examination, she has deposed though, in, corroboration, to, the testimony of PW-1, however, in her examination-in-chief, she in contradiction to the testimony of PW-2, has deposed that the accused used to threaten to kill the deceased. She further deposed that after 4-5 years of marriage, her deceased daughter, apprised her, that, she was being beaten up by the accused. She further deposed, that, her deceased daughter was being beaten up by Sidhu Ram and Devku Devi, however, the accused Shiv Ram did not harass her. She further deposed that her deceased daughter had come to her house, one week before her death, and, remained there for 10-12 days. She continued to depose that, on the last visit of her deceased daughter, to her maternal home, she had apprised her, that, the accused used, to, beat her, and, did not provide her maintenance, and, asked her father to accompany her. During the course of her cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, she deposed that she had apprised the police, in the first instance, that, the accused Sher Singh used, to, tell her deceased daughter, that, he would kill her and bring another. However, a perusal of her previous statement divulges that the said fact, has been omitted to be disclosed, at the first instance, to the police, hence, its testification in Court, for, the first time, constitutes it to be an improvement or an embellishment. Moreover, she also has made an improvement, when, she deposed, in, her examination-in-chief, that, her deceased daughter had conveyed, to, her about her husband having perpetrated violence, upon, her, and, his not providing any maintenance to her in as much, as, she omitted to disclose such facts to the police, in the first instance. The effect of PW-2, the, mother of the deceased, improving upon her previous statement, renders her testimony, comprised, in, her examination-in-chief, qua the facts, as, aforesaid, as, deposed by her, for the first time, in, the Court, to be unbelievable. The effect of PW-2, the, mother of the deceased, improving upon her previous statement, renders her testimony, comprised, in, her examination-in-chief, qua the facts, as, aforesaid, as, deposed by her, for the first time, in, the Court, to be unbelievable. Moreover, the testimony of PW-1, who has omitted, to disclose, as deposed by PW-2, the acts of violence, having been perpetrated by the accused, on, her deceased daughter, hence, constitutes it or renders it to be an intra se contradiction interse the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Hence, renders their testimonies, qua, the said fact, un-believable. In sequel, when the testimony of PW-2, is, also imbued with pervasive incredibility, therefore, no reliance can be placed, on, her testimony, qua the fact, as deposed by her. Therefore, on a cumulative reading of the testimonies of PW-1, and, PW-2, no material emanates, to, sustain the charge, against the accused, being construed, their testimonies being ridden with grave improvements and embellishments qua germane facts. 10. PW-3 Shri Ajmer Singh, is the brother of the deceased. He, too, has deposed in tandem, with the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. However, when the principal witnesses, being father and mother of the deceased, have been construed by this Court, to be unbelievable, also, the testimony of PW-3 being general and vague, qua the acts, as, alleged by him, qua the accused, does not carry any probative worth and necessitates its being discarded. 11. PW-4 Dr. S.K Patial, conducted the postmortem examination, of the deceased. He has proved Post Mortem Report comprised in Ex. PW-4/B. He further deposed, that, report Ex. PW-4/A, is, not in his hand, and, the same pertains, to, the opinion of the Chemical Examiner, Junga, Shimla, and which shows, that there was no symptom, of, snake bite. 12. PW-5 Shri Sunder Singh, is, also, deposition of the brother of the deceased. The testimony of PW-5, being general and vague, qua, the specifity in time with exactitude and precision, as to when his deceased sister was subjected to maltreatment and ill-treatment, by the accused, as, such, it does not acquire probative worth and value, and, requires to be discarded. 13. PW-7 Shri Thakur Dass has deposed, in, proof of the fact, that, father of the deceased used, to, provide clothes to her, as such, it manifest the fact of the accused maltreating her. 13. PW-7 Shri Thakur Dass has deposed, in, proof of the fact, that, father of the deceased used, to, provide clothes to her, as such, it manifest the fact of the accused maltreating her. However he has omitted to place on record a receipt portraying, the fact of the items, as, instructed by the father of the deceased, as, a matter of fact, having been delivered to her, renders his testimony, to acquire a taint of concoction and invention, hence necessitates its being discarded. 14. This court while analyzing the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, with incisive care and caution, has, construed their testimonies, to be unbelievable, in, proving the fact of the accused having, instigated the deceased, to, commit suicide, and, being liable for punishment under Section 306 IPC, or, theirs having perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased, hence, liable for punishment, under Section 498 A IPC. Rather a piercing analysis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, omitting to reveal stark, categorical and adequate material, on, record, with exactitude in time, qua the incident, hence, such unspecific acts, as deposed to be committed, while being also improximate to the occurrence, cannot constitute, to be either instigatory nor fomenting material for the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, for lack of proof of proximity inter-se such alleged acts of maltreatment or ill-treatment purportedly meted out by the accused to the deceased, vis-à-vis the incident, they cannot for reiteration to be construed, to be the fomenting or actuating material, for the deceased, to, commit suicide. Consequently reinforcingly, it can be formidably concluded, that, the findings of learned trial Court are well merited and do not merit interference. 15. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.