JUDGMENT SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh rendered on 1.9.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2008, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge of his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.3.2008, at about 8.00 p.m. some unknown person from Gandhinagar (Kullu) telephonically informed the police that one lady has committed suicide by hanging. On the receipt of the telephonic information ASI Rattan Chand along with other police officials proceeded to Gandhinagar. Lateron, on 6.3.2008 Vinit Sood, PW-1 lodged an FIR Ex.PW1/A with police station, Kullu alleging therein that Shilpa was his younger sister and the marriage interse his younger sister Shilpa (now deceased) and the accused was solemnized on 12.11.2007 according to Hindu rites and custom at Sultanpur. He alleged therein that on 5.3.2008 between 12 noon and 1.30 p.m. he had a talk on mobile phone with his sister Shilpa, whereby he inquired about her well being. Shilpa told that her life was lonely since he was living in a rented house at Gandhinagar. She further told that all the day she was confined within the four corners of the rented premises. She complained to her brother that she was not allowed to sit in the drawing room by accused Shalesh, her husband as she would be noticed by every passer by. The accused asked his wife to sit in the drawing room only after pasting the newspapers on the window panes. His sister was not well with her husband. Shilpa and the accused a day before had also gone in the locality at Gandhinagar to search for a new residence. His sister had not liked the new residence as it was like the present one, upon which the accused got angry and had wordy duel with his wife. Shilpa started weeping upon which accused told her that she was free to weep as she would like and thereafter on 3.3.2008 around 9 a.m. accused went to his shop after picking up his keys which was situated just opposite to Vaishali Hotel. Shilpa started weeping upon which accused told her that she was free to weep as she would like and thereafter on 3.3.2008 around 9 a.m. accused went to his shop after picking up his keys which was situated just opposite to Vaishali Hotel. He returned to his house at 9.45 p.m. After returning to his house he took out the suites given to his wife by his in-laws. Shilpa under valued the suites which was not liked by the accused and he got angry and told his wife that she would be reprimanded by his mother, upon which Shipa further told her husband that it would not be a new thing as her scolding by her mother-in-law was usual. Shilpa also disclosed to her brother that she used to feel bore at home, therefore, it would be better to find out some job for her. The complainant received a phone call at about 7.30 p.m., in the evening of 5.3.2008 from mobile phone of her sister Shilpa by some unknown lady, whereby it was informed that Shilpa was not well and the complainant was asked to come along with his mother. Upon receiving this message complainant along with his friend Rupinder, PW3 proceeded to the residence of his sister at Gandhinagar, where many persons were present and the accused was seen weeping at the door. On reaching inside the premises, Shipa was found dead hanging with the frame of the door. After some time Kiran Sood, PW2 mother of the deceased also arrived at the place of occurrence. The complainant further alleged that Shilpa used to feel all alone at home and she was of sensitive nature but there was no source of entertainment at home like radio and television and for quite some time she had been keeping mum. The complainant alleged that the accused used to taunt his wife and for this reason she was constrained to commit suicide. He has confirmed suspicion that her husband's taunting has forced his sister to commit suicide. He was under the shock on the previous day because of the sudden demise of his sister, as such, he had come to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis of statement of PW-1 Vinit Sood, a case under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC came to be registered against the accused at Police Station, Kullu. He was under the shock on the previous day because of the sudden demise of his sister, as such, he had come to the police station for lodging the report. On the basis of statement of PW-1 Vinit Sood, a case under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC came to be registered against the accused at Police Station, Kullu. The police during the course of investigation, visited the site of occurrence and took the photographs of the spot as also done the videography of the spot. The police also prepared the inquest report and took into possession suicide note Ex.PW3/B under recovery memo Ex.PW3/C. The dead body of deceased Shilpa was subjected to postmortem examination by the Medical Officer of Regional Hospital, Kullu and the police obtained the report to this effect. The police also took into possession marriage invitation card, video camera and CD. During the course of investigation the mother of the deceased produced admitted writing of her daughter to the police which was taken into possession vide separate memo. The suicide note along with admitted writing of the deceased was also sent to the FSL, Junga for opinion. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. by the Investigating Officer. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed false implication. 5. The learned trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State 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 misappreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned 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 marriage inter se deceased Shilpa and accused Salesh was solemnized on 12.11.2007 at Sultanpur. On 5.3.2008, at about 8.00 p.m. an unknown person from Gandhi Chowk, Kullu telephonically informed the police that a lady has committed suicide. Subsequent thereto FIR Ex.PW1/A was lodged at police station Kullu by PW-1 Vinit Sood, the brother of the deceased. Given the factum of the deceased having within 7 years of hers solemnizing marriage with the accused committed suicide by hanging, a presumption as enshrined under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act of the accused having abetted the suicide of the deceased is drawable. However, before proceeding to avail against the accused the presumption enshrined in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, of his having abetted the suicide of his deceased wife, especially when uncontrovertedly the ill fated event/occurrence took place, within 7 years from the date of marriage inter se them having come to be solemnized, it is deemed apt to extract the hereinafter provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. “113-A –– Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman:- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regarding to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” 10. A perusal, of the afore extracted provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, on unfoldment whereof, the prosecution has endeavoured to coax an inference from this Court, that with the ill-fated event having occurred within 7 years of marriage inter se the accused and the deceased having come to be solemnized the accused is to be presumed to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, unravels the fact that a presumption of the accused having abetted the commission of suicide of his deceased wife would be on the anvil of the afore extracted provisions of the Indian Evidence Act drawable against him only in the event of it having come to be proved by cogent evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused/her husband. Necessarily, then the entire evidence on record has to be traversed through, for culling out therefrom the preeminent proven fact of the accused having subjected the deceased to cruelty, for hence sustaining the propagation of the prosecution that the presumption enshrined in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act stands attracted against the accused. 11. Necessarily, then the entire evidence on record has to be traversed through, for culling out therefrom the preeminent proven fact of the accused having subjected the deceased to cruelty, for hence sustaining the propagation of the prosecution that the presumption enshrined in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act stands attracted against the accused. 11. In the endeavour to unearth, besides extricate from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses the preeminent fact of the accused having subjected the deceased to cruelty hence his having abetted her suicide besides, for sustaining the espousal of the prosecution that the presumption enshrined in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act especially when the ill-fated event occurred within seven years of the marriage inter se the deceased and the accused is invokable against the accused, a prompt advertence to the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as of PW-1 Vinit Sood, the brother of the deceased, PW-2 Smt. Kiran Sood, the mother of the deceased, PW-3 Rupender, the friend of PW-1 and PW-4 Smt. Indra Devi, the real sister of PW-2 is imperative. In the event of a close and an incisive scrutiny of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, it is unearthed therefrom that they are free from the taint of improvements or embellishments arising from the fact of theirs deposing facts attributing perpetration of cruelty by the accused upon the deceased while theirs having come to record their testimonies in Court even when they omitted in their previous statements recorded in writing by the Investigating Officer to disclose the facts pronouncing upon the perpetration of cruelty by the accused upon the deceased besides, when their testimonies comprised in their examinations-in-chief vis-a-vis cross-examinations are free from the taint of inter se contradictions, as also, when they have omitted to, also intra se depose in disharmony and inconsistency qua the pivotal fact of the accused having perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased, this Court would be driven to construe their testimonies to be natural and inspiring. Concomitantly any formation of an inference by this Court of the accused being guilty of the offences for which he stood charged and tried would be a finding embedded in unshakable evidentiary material on record. 12. Concomitantly any formation of an inference by this Court of the accused being guilty of the offences for which he stood charged and tried would be a finding embedded in unshakable evidentiary material on record. 12. The testimony recorded on oath of PW-1, who authored Ex.PW1/A, the FIR lodged qua the incident, is of utmost significance for garnering therefrom whether the attribution of an incriminatory role to the accused in Ex.PW1/A stands rooted or is grooved in firm evidentiary material which when free from the taints aforesaid, would render it to be both credible and truthful for forming there upon a conclusion of the accused having committed the offences for which he came to be charged and tried. PW-1 in his deposition recorded on oath has disclosed therein that on 5.3.2008 at about 12.30 p.m. he had a conversation with his deceased sister over their respective cellular phones for about an hour. He has proceeded therein to unveil the factum that during the conversation which he had with his deceased sister, she had diclosed to him that she was leading a lonely life and was made to stay within the four corners of a single room besides was not allowed to sit in the drawing room as she would be noticed by the passers by. He has continued to depose therein that the accused permitted her to sit in the drawing room only after pasting of newspapers on the window panes. Moreover, he has also testified therein that the accused had not kept any source of entertainment like T.V. radio and transistor at his house and was in the habit of passing sarcastic remarks to her as also his taking to give a vent to his frustrations arising from his failing business by harassing and torturing her. However, there is no disclosure in Ex.PW1/A lodged at the instance of PW-1 of the accused demanding dowry from the deceased. For lack of enunciation in Ex.PW1/A of the accused demanding dowry from the deceased, no concomitant inference is drawable that hence for satiating his demand for dowry he perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased. As a corollary then with the accused never having demanded dowry from the deceased naturally then it can also be inferred that the accused never for gratifying the said demand, harassed, tortured besides, ill-treated or maltreated her. As a corollary then with the accused never having demanded dowry from the deceased naturally then it can also be inferred that the accused never for gratifying the said demand, harassed, tortured besides, ill-treated or maltreated her. The deposition in Court of PW-1 that in a conversation which she (deceased) had with him, over their respective mobiles/cell phones, a day preceding to the lodging of the FIR, she disclosed to him the fact of hers being harassed by the accused owing to his frustrations arising from his falling business is a sheer improvement as well as an embellishment constituted by the fact of it having remained un-communicated in Ex. PW1/A. In aftermath, with the aforesaid fact acquiring the taint of it being an embellishment and an improvement, it loses its credibility. Naturally then no reliance can be placed upon it for concluding that the accused was taken to give vent to his frustrations arising from his falling business by torturing or harassing the deceased. In sequel, the accused cannot be construed to have meted any maltreatment or ill- treatment to the deceased nor hence he can be construed to have meted mental or physical cruelty upon the deceased which goaded or actuated the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, with the existence of an admission in the cross-examination of PW-1 that the deceased and the accused were living happily before 5.3.2008 prods an inference that the attributions to the accused by the deceased of perpetration of ill-treatment and maltreatment upon her by the former in the conversation which she had had with PW-1 over their respective cell phones preceding the ill-fated occurrence are in their entirety bereft of veracity rather are both engineered as well as concocted. 13. Now adverting to the testimony of PW-2, the mother of the deceased, she has unfolded therein the fact that on 27.02.2008 her deceased daughter visited her house at Bhuntar and had a talk with her for about 30-45 minutes, whereafter she left to Kullu. She has continued to depose therein that she was looking physically disturbed. She was carrying a three months' pregnancy besides, she has also testified that her deceased daughter told her that the accused is disputing the paternity of the child. She deposes that the deceased also communicated to her that the accused is demanding Rs. She has continued to depose therein that she was looking physically disturbed. She was carrying a three months' pregnancy besides, she has also testified that her deceased daughter told her that the accused is disputing the paternity of the child. She deposes that the deceased also communicated to her that the accused is demanding Rs. 2 lacs from her on receiving which communication from the deceased she deposes that she apprised her daughter that she is not in a position to pay the said amount and that as and when she makes a withdrawal from her GPF account, she would accede to the demand of dowry. However, the aforesaid testimony of PW-2 would acquire veracity only in the face of hers having previously also in Ex.PW11/A unfolded the facts as deposed by her in Court. Ex.PW11/A comprises the statement recorded in writing of PW-2 prior to hers proceeding to record her deposition in Court. In the event of the facts as deposed by her in Court telling upon the accused demanding dowry from her deceased daughter as also for gratifying the said demand his hence subjecting her to maltreatment or ill-treatment not finding existence or occurrence in Ex.PW11/A, then the facts aforesaid deposed by her in Court portraying the perpetration of cruelty upon the deceased by the accused would acquire the vice of an embellishment as well as an improvement hence being incredible as well as discardable. PW-2 has admitted her signatures on Ex.PW11/A. It stands also signed by the husband of PW-4. Given the factum of hers having admitted the factum of hers having signatured EX.PW11/A only after hers having admitted its contents on theirs being readover and explained her to be true. Consequently, given the factum of hers having admitted her signatures on Ex.PW11/A, renders the contents therein exculpating the incriminatory role of the accused demanding dowry from the deceased and his for gratifying the said demand subjecting her to cruelty, to be imbued with an aura of sanctity as well solemnity. Consequently, given the factum of hers having admitted her signatures on Ex.PW11/A, renders the contents therein exculpating the incriminatory role of the accused demanding dowry from the deceased and his for gratifying the said demand subjecting her to cruelty, to be imbued with an aura of sanctity as well solemnity. Once this Court imputes credibility to the disclosure in Ex.PW11/A recorded by PW-2 of her deceased daughter having never complained to her of hers having come to be maltreated or ill-treated or hers having been subjected to cruelty by the accused, besides when there is an unfoldment therein of the deceased having a talk with PW-2 a day prior to the incident wherein the deceased communicated to PW-2 that she is free from any woes in her matrimonial home as also when in Ex.PW11/A PW-2 has voiced the factum of her daughter having voluntarily committed suicide by hanging and that she has no suspicion upon the accused, the apt ensuing inference therefrom is that the deposition on oath of PW-2 attributing therein an incriminatory role to the accused arising from the accused demanding dowry from her deceased daughter, for satiation whereof his having subjected her to cruelty which concomitantly goaded or fomented her to commit suicide, is in dire contradiction with her previous statement comprised in Ex.PW11/A. In aftermath, for reiteration her deposition on oath is devoid of any force or vigour. 14. Even the testimony of PW-3 Rupender, the friend of PW-1 wherein he has disclosed the fact of PW-1 having, on his arriving at the house PW-1 on his hearing the news about the demise of Shilpa, communicated to him the fact of the accused harassing his deceased sister, is of no worth to the prosecution, especially when the fact of disclosure by PW-1 to PW-3 of the accused harassing his sister is bereft of with specificity qua the quantum and degree of harassment meted by the accused to the deceased. For lack of ascription with specificity by PW-1 to PW-3 of the degree, magnitude or enormity of the harassment which the accused was perpetrating upon the deceased, no conclusion can be formed from a generalized communication by PW-1 to PW-3 of his deceased sister having been harassed by the accused that it constituted perpetration of cruelty of such a degree by the accused upon the deceased which ultimately goaded the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, when PW-3 admits that the suicide note comprised in Ex.PW3/B was taken into possession in his presence, whose recitals of exoneration of guilt of the accused, for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, are not vitiated with the vice of tutoring or doctoring rather are natural dispel the effect, if any, of attribution by PW-1 to the accused of an incriminatory role arising from his harassing his deceased sister. Even otherwise, the mere generalized attribution of an incriminatory role to the accused cannot marshal an inference of theirs constituting perpetration of mental cruelty upon the deceased by the accused rather the generalized attribution by PW-1 of harassment to the deceased are to be construed to be trivial in nature or being a part of routine every day family life. 15. Moreover, the testimony of PW-4 Smt. Indra Devi, the real sister of PW-2, who settled the matrimony of the deceased with the accused conveying the factum of a disclosure by the deceased to her, of the accused not permitting her to sit in open rather hers remaining confined within the four corners of a single room as also of the accused demanding dowry from her cannot acquire an aura of credibility, especially when there is an admission on her part that the facts as deposed by her in Court anvilled upon the purported disclosure to her by the deceased telling upon, besides pronouncing upon the perpetration of cruelty upon the deceased by the accused having not come to be previously recorded at her instance before the Investigating Officer. As a corollary then the facts aforesaid pronouncing upon the cruelty perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased when have come to be only deposed in Court, whereas, they were omitted to be divulged by PW-3 to the Investigating Officer when she proceeded to record her statement before him under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. renders them to be stained or smeared with the taint of theirs being an improvement as well as an embellishment to which no credence can be imputed by this Court. 16. P.C. renders them to be stained or smeared with the taint of theirs being an improvement as well as an embellishment to which no credence can be imputed by this Court. 16. With there being palpable emanation in the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-11 of PW-2 having signed EX.PW11/A only after hers having admitted its contents on theirs being readover and explained to her, to be true, renders inefficacious besides, weakens the propagation by the prosecution comprised in the testimonies of PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3 and PW-4, which even otherwise, for the reasons recorded herein-above are insufficient in probative vigour to command an inference from this Court that the accused perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased which instigated or actuated the deceased to commit suicide, ensuably then the drawing of succor by the prosecution upon the mandate of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act for availing therefrom an inference of presumption of the accused, while having subjected the deceased to cruelty especially when the ill-fated occurrence took place within seven years of the deceased and the accused having solemnized marriage, having hence abetted the suicide of the deceased, is both mis-conceived as well as ill-founded. 17. Predominantly, the preeminently efficacious evidence exonerating, besides freeing the guilt of the accused in the commission of suicide by the deceased, is constituted in the suicide note authored by the deceased comprised in Ex.PW3/B. Contents thereof in ad verbatim are reproduced hereinafter:- “Main apani life se kafi tang aa chuki hun, lekin isme kisi ki koi galati nahin hai. Aaj main sabko khud se ajad kar dena chahati hun kyuanki I am not a good wife, not a good daughter-in-law and even not a good house keeper. I am fed up sorry everybody. I am not able to you give me pardon. I love you. I love you so much. So I am going with my loving baby. I know its a crime. Bechari Nattu ne to abhi koi experience nahin kiya, koi duniya nahin dekhi. Nattu hoga to shayad koi use rakh bhi le par agar gudiya hui to use koi payar nhain karega so use bhi apane sath liye ja rahi hun. I am sorry my unborn baby. I am killing you with my frustration and I am really very sorry, dear. I am really very sorry.” 18. Nattu hoga to shayad koi use rakh bhi le par agar gudiya hui to use koi payar nhain karega so use bhi apane sath liye ja rahi hun. I am sorry my unborn baby. I am killing you with my frustration and I am really very sorry, dear. I am really very sorry.” 18. The non ascription of an incriminatory role therein to the accused tears apart the espousal by the prosecution of the accused having subjected the deceased to cruelty, hence, his having prodded and goaded the deceased to commit suicide. Even if there is a recital therein of in the event of hers delivering a female baby, it inviting the deprecation from her family members, yet such rearing of an apprehension aforesaid by her in Ex.PW3/B, cannot sustain an inference that she was subjected to a prenatal test whose result foretold that she would deliver a female child and such foretelling sequeled the accused to compel her to abort, which concerts of the accused on being resisted by the deceased, sequeled the perpetration of cruelty upon her by the accused, which fomented or actuated her to commit suicide. Necessarily then the nursing of an inference by the deceased that if she delivered a female child she would be deprecated by her family members is an apprehension not founded upon any prenatal test rather is a self-nursed apprehension nor also it can be concluded that the accused was in the know of hers carrying a female child and his hence on compelling her to abort invited resistance from the deceased which resistance sequeled perpetration of cruelty upon her by him, prodding her to commit suicide. 19. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 20. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.