JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). The State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.09.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 8-D/VII-2010 has preferred this appeal, as thereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) has been acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations against the accused in a nut shell are that during the night intervening 30.09.2011/1.12.2009 around 2.00 a.m (mid night), he subjected his wife Smt. Indira Devi (since dead) with cruelty in the matrimonial house at Village Salig, District Kangra and as a result thereof she committed suicide. 3. Deceased Indira Devi was married to the accused in the year 1999. She was treated well in the matrimonial home for 2-3 months of her marriage with the accused. Thereafter, the behaviour of the accused towards her changed altogether and he started picking up quarrel with her on trifles that too without any rhyme or reason. He even started administering beating to her. Looking to such behaviour of the accused elderly placed persons in her in-laws and from parental side asked him not to quarrel with deceased and spoil the atmosphere in the house, but of no avail as he continued to harass her both mentally and physically. On being fed up from such quarrelsome attitude of her husband, the deceased went to her parents’ house on 2-3 occasions, however, on each and every occasion, he came there and admitted his guilt as well as given an assurance that he will not torture or maltreat her in future. She, therefore, in view of such representation he made particularly for well being of her minor children accompanied him to the matrimonial home on such occasions. 4. On 30.09.2011, there was marriage of the daughter of Smt. Satya Devi (PW-3), real aunt (Mausi) of the accused in the same village. In the evening after departure of ‘Barat’ everybody present there were dancing. The accused, who was under the influence of liquor, asked the deceased to dance with him, however, she finding the presence of elderly placed persons present there, refused to dance with him. He got offended. When deceased returned to the house, he also came behind. In the evening after departure of ‘Barat’ everybody present there were dancing. The accused, who was under the influence of liquor, asked the deceased to dance with him, however, she finding the presence of elderly placed persons present there, refused to dance with him. He got offended. When deceased returned to the house, he also came behind. He administered her beatings in the ground floor of the house, when she went to upper storey to sleep; the accused came there also and administered her beatings. She being offended from the beatings administered to her and also such cruel behaviour of the accused, went to kitchen and taken out kerosene oil lying there above the hearth. She poured kerosene oil on her and lit match stick and set herself on fire. 5. The accused on finding the deceased under fire picked up her and started extinguishing fire. He, however, failed in his attempt to extinguish the fire, as the deceased received burn injuries over 80-90% on her entire body. He also received burn injuries on his person. On hearing hue and cry his aunt Smt. Satya Devi, PW-3 and another neighbour Smt. Vyasa Devi, PW-4 rushed to the spot. They noticed the accused having picked up the deceased in his arms at that time. The deceased was shifted to Dr. Rajinder Prasad Medical College, Tanda, District Kangra. She was attended upon by the doctor on duty in the causality department. On being informed by the doctor on duty, the police arrived in the hospital and sought the opinion qua fitness of the deceased vide application Ext. PW-6/A. In the opinion of the doctor on duty, she, however, was not fit to make any statement. On 2.12.2009, police again sought the opinion of the doctor qua fitness of deceased to make statement, Dr. Sanjay Sood, PW-14 found the deceased fit to make statement vide his opinion Ext. PW-13/A on the application Ext. PW-6/A. The statement Ext. PW-10/A was thus came to be recorded by ASI Dujesh Kumar in the presence of Dr. Aman Verma. It is, thereafter deceased died in the hospital on 5.12.2009 around 10.30 p.m. 6. The investigating agency on the completion of the investigation has filed the challan against the accused in the trial Court. PW-6/A. The statement Ext. PW-10/A was thus came to be recorded by ASI Dujesh Kumar in the presence of Dr. Aman Verma. It is, thereafter deceased died in the hospital on 5.12.2009 around 10.30 p.m. 6. The investigating agency on the completion of the investigation has filed the challan against the accused in the trial Court. Learned trial Judge on finding that the evidence available on record suggests the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence framed charge against him under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The parties were put to trial. The prosecution in turn has examined the complainant Sh. Sihnu Ram, PW-1 brother of deceased and her another brother Sh. Piare Lal as PW-2. Smt. Satya Devi and Smt. Vyasa Devi, who witnessed the incident of fire and the deceased as well as the accused in injured condition had also stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and PW-4. The remaining witnesses are formal. PW-5 is Dr. Aakanksha Singh who has conducted the post-mortem o the dead body of deceased Indira Devi, whereas, PW-6 Dr. Harsh Vardhan Singh casualty Medical Officer, who attended upon the deceased in causality when she was brought there. Dr. Aman Verma, Assistant Professor Department of Surgery in whose presence statement of deceased was recorded by ASI Dujesh Kumar, PW-10 as well as Dr. Sanjay Sood who had given opinion Ext. PW-13/A qua fitness of the deceased to make statement. 8. The remaining prosecution witnesses are police officials as PW-7 Constable Ranjeet Singh had entered the rapat Ext. PW-7/A in the rojnamcha, whereas, PW-9 Inspector Rajiv Attri, the then SHO, Police Station, Dharamshala had prepared the challan on the completion of the investigation. PW-10 ASI Dujesh Kumar, PW-11 ASI Krishan Chand and PW-12 Head Constable Sukesh Kumar are the investigating officers who have partly conducted investigation of the case. PW-8 Anup Verma is the photographer. 9. On the other hand, when the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C he has denied the entire prosecutions case either being wrong or for want of knowledge and stated that he is innocent and has been implicated in this case falsely. 10. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record and also hearing the parties on both sides has arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record and also hearing the parties on both sides has arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, been acquitted from the charge framed against him vide judgment under challenge in the present appeal. 11. The legality and validity of the judgment under challenge has been assailed on the grounds inter-alia that cogent and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution has erroneously been brushed aside. The evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of complainant PW-1 and also from that of PW-2 and PW- 13 Dr. Aman Verma in whose presence statement Ext. PW- 10/A was recorded is stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective. It is pointed out that such evidence amply demonstrates that deceased had committed suicide after being beaten up by the accused immediately after the commission of suicide by her. There being overwhelming cogent and reliable evidence available on record, the present was a case of conviction of the accused, however, learned trial Court allegedly erred legally and factually while acquitting the accused from the charge. 12. We have heard Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant- State and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate representing the accused-respondent and also gone through the entire record. 13. In order to understand as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in legal parlance, we are drawing support from the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of H.P. versus Pradeep Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 1431. This judgment reads as follows: “10. At the outset it is desirable to discuss as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment reads as follows: “10. At the outset it is desirable to discuss as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that sine qua non to establish the said offence is subjecting to cruelty the wife by her husband or relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or willful conduct of the husband of such woman or a relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. 11. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita versus State of Assam (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 330 has held as under: “21. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 12. So far as the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused. 13. In the case in hand, the deceased had committed suicide on 25.5.2008 in her matrimonial home at village Nau-Shehra, District Kangra, H.P. One of the ingredients of the commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC, therefore, stands proved. The prosecution, however, is further required to prove that it is the accused alone who had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 14. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal code. The prosecution, however, is further required to prove that it is the accused alone who had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 14. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or person in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing can be said to have abetted the doing of that thing. 15. Now if coming to the case in hand, whether it is the accused alone, who instigated the deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, has to be seen from the evidence available on record. It is worthwhile to mention here that in a case of this nature, torture and harassment ordinarily is meted out to the victim in the four walls of the house and such cases mostly depend upon the circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that if a married woman commits suicide within the period of seven years from the date of marriage and there are allegations that she did so because of being subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband or by both. Having regard to all other circumstances, the Court can presume that she has committed suicide on being abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Apex Court in Wazir Chand and another versus State of Haryana (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 has held that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. 16. In case of suicidal death, the onus to prove that suicide was abetted by the accused alone is on the prosecution and to raise the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, one of the ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty is required to be proved first by the prosecution.” 14. The above legal position make it crystal clear that the commission of an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC can be inferred from the conduct, the gravity and seriousness of the acts of cruelty attributed to the accused and also that such acts were sufficient to drive the victim to commit suicide. It is also to be established that victim was being subjected to cruelty continuously and in close proximity of time of the occurrence. Wear and tear of the normal married life and petty quarrels cannot at all constitute ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions contained under Section 498-A of the Code. 15. The cruelty for the commission of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code should be on account of harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or Any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 16. Now if coming to the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused, no doubt, the deceased Smt. Indira Devi has committed suicide, however, it is the accused who alone has abetted the commissions of suicide by her need proof cogent and reliable and beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. Adverting to the case in hand, Sihnu Ram, PW- 1 is the complainant, because FIR Ext. PW-1/A has been registered at his instance on 1.12.2009 in the mid night. Nothing has come in the FIR that deceased was being tortured and harassed at the pretext of demand of dowry or any valuable security. The allegations, rather are that accused started maltreating her after 2-3 months of marriage without any rhyme or reason. PW-1/A has been registered at his instance on 1.12.2009 in the mid night. Nothing has come in the FIR that deceased was being tortured and harassed at the pretext of demand of dowry or any valuable security. The allegations, rather are that accused started maltreating her after 2-3 months of marriage without any rhyme or reason. Meaning thereby that if there was any torture and harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused, it was on account of wear and tear of normal married life and not to coerce her for dowry or any other valuable security with a view to derive her to commit suicide. The case that on 2-3 occasions on account of being beaten up by the accused, deceased went to the house of her parents plausible or not is again doubtful because no evidence is forthcoming to show that the deceased or her parents have reported the matter if not to the police to Gram Panchayat or Ward Member etc. etc. 18. Now if coming to the testimony of complainant PW-1 he has only said whatever he reported to the police in his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ext. PW-1/A. There is nothing in his statement that alleged harassment and torture of the deceased at the hands of the accused was at the pretext of the demand of dowry or some valuable security. Interestingly enough, PW-1 was not in talking terms with the accused for the last 5-6 years as he said in his cross-examination. His admission that the deceased did not visit their house (parental house) for the last 5-6 years lead to the only conclusion that she was happy in the matrimonial home and was not being tortured or harassed to an extent so as to compelled her to commit suicide. 19. Now if version of PW-2, Sh. Pyare Lal another brother of deceased is seen, he has introduced a story that accused was a habitual drunkard. However, nothing to this effect has come in his testimony nor in the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, Ext. PW-1/A. If the prosecution case that deceased has committed suicide after being treated with cruelty by the accused, a reference can be made to the statement of Smt. Satya Devi, PW-3 and Smt. Vyasa Devi, PW-4. PW-1/A. If the prosecution case that deceased has committed suicide after being treated with cruelty by the accused, a reference can be made to the statement of Smt. Satya Devi, PW-3 and Smt. Vyasa Devi, PW-4. As a matter of fact, these two ladies who on hearing hue and cry rushed to the house of the accused. They both tells us that when reached there, they noticed the accused having picked up and placed the deceased in injured condition in his lap. Both had burn injuries on their person. True it is that PW-3 and PW-4 being aunts of the accused are in his close relations, however, when cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited, lending support to the prosecution case or that they have deposed falsely to save the accused from his prosecution. PW-2 has also admitted in his cross-examination that accused remained under treatment in the hospital on account of burn injuries he sustained on his person while extinguishing the fire. Even the accused having sustained burn injuries is also substantiated from the MLC Ext. PW- 6/C. Therefore, admitted case of the parties is that the deceased on seeing his wife under fire came for her rescue without caring for his own life and made every possible effort to extinguish the fire, however, unsuccessfully because by the time he succeeded in his attempt to extinguish fire the body of his wife had already burnt to an extent of more than 80%, as has come in the statement of PW-6, Dr. Harsh Vardhan Singh who had attended upon her in the casualty of Dr. Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda. Therefore, such evidence available on record leads to the only conclusion that had there been intention of the accused to torture the accused with a view to instigate her to commit suicide, there was no question of his coming for her rescue. 20. Much has been said about the statement of deceased Ext. PW-10/A recorded by PW-10 ASI Dujesh Kumar under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The deceased was not in a position to make any statement on 1.12.2009, as is apparent from the opinion of Dr. Harsh Vardhan Singh, Ext. PW-6/B. She, however, was declared fit for making statement by another doctor i.e. PW-14 Dr. Sanjay Sood as per endorsement Ext. PW-13/B. Dr. The deceased was not in a position to make any statement on 1.12.2009, as is apparent from the opinion of Dr. Harsh Vardhan Singh, Ext. PW-6/B. She, however, was declared fit for making statement by another doctor i.e. PW-14 Dr. Sanjay Sood as per endorsement Ext. PW-13/B. Dr. Sanjay Sood while in the witness box as PW-14 has expressed his inability to tell as to whether he attended to the patient or not, however, according to him, she was examined by him before giving his opinion regarding her fitness to make statement. He also admitted that burn injuries were around 90%. The same could have affected the mental faculty of the patient. He also admitted that as per application Ext. PW- 6/A, there were two persons admitted for treatment. The close scrutiny of this witness reveals that he is not certain as to whether deceased was attended upon by him while admitted in the hospital or not. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that his opinion that she was fit to make statement is correct. Otherwise also, when the injuries were to an extent of 90% and the mental faculty of deceased impaired thereby, how she could have make a parrot like statement, in the manner as recorded in Ext. PW-10/A, particularly when as per the version of her brother PW2 during the period remained admitted in the hospital, there was no improvement in her health condition and her condition remained as it is right from her admission till death. Therefore, it is doubtful that she was fit to make the statement on 2.12.2009. Above all, in the application Ext. PW-6/A, there is reference of admission of deceased and the accused both in the hospital for treatment. On this score also, it cannot be said that opinion Ext. PW-13/A was given by PW-14 in respect of fitness of deceased alone and not that of her husband, the accused. 21. Now, if coming to the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 though they both turned hostile to the prosecution, however, their testimony that when they reached on the spot and noticed the deceased in an injured condition asked her as to what happened and the deceased replied that she had set herself on fire at her own. 21. Now, if coming to the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 though they both turned hostile to the prosecution, however, their testimony that when they reached on the spot and noticed the deceased in an injured condition asked her as to what happened and the deceased replied that she had set herself on fire at her own. Such evidence having been brought on record by the prosecution itself has caused a major dent in the prosecution story, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased has committed suicide after being beaten up by the accused. 22. Now if coming to further case of the prosecution that deceased was given beatings by the accused on being offended from her denial to dance with him in the marriage, true it is that this aspect of the prosecution case stands established from the prosecution evidence because the marriage was in the house of PW-3 and she has admitted that on being asked by the accused to dance with him, the deceased refused to dance with him. PW-4 has also stated so while in the witness box. However, when returned to home he actually administered beatings to the deceased, no evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the same. Otherwise also, had she been slapped or administered beatings by the accused would neither amounts to her continue harassment nor that the mere beatings so administered was sufficient to instigate her to take such a drastic decision to put an end of her life, more particularly, when two minor children were dependent upon her. Therefore, we are not satisfied that accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or abetted the commission of suicide by her within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact, the present rather is a case where nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused in relation to demand of dowry or any other valuable security has come on record. The present is also not a case where it cannot be said that degree of cruelty was of such a nature that she was not able to make difference between the life and death and chosen the pangs of death. The present is also not a case where it cannot be said that degree of cruelty was of such a nature that she was not able to make difference between the life and death and chosen the pangs of death. We are oblivious of the fact that in normal circumstances, no one takes such a drastic step to do away with his/her life that too without there being any cause, however, in this case whether the deceased had committed suicide owing to the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused is not proved on record. 23. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and the surety discharged.