JUDGMENT : Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.204 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahalir Court, Thiruchirapalli are the appellants in the criminal appeal. They were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and the learned trial Judge convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A, held not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, but found them guilty of a lesser offence, namely an offence under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, each one of the appellants/accused was convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced as follows: 1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 306 IPC, 2) to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of the fine for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the conviction as well as sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings before the trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, is as follows: i) The second accused Kamalaveni is the mother of the first accused Balasubramanian. The deceased Ramya, daughter of PW1 Periyasami, had been given in marriage to the first accused Balasubramanian and their marriage took place 1 + years prior to the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage, PW1 adorned his daughter with 35 sovereigns of gold jewels and his son-in-law with gold chain and ring weighing about 5 sovereigns, besides providing the household articles. The couple led a happy life for about 6 months. Thereafter, pointing out that the deceased Ramya was not able to bear a child within that period, the second accused caused a threat to arrange for a second marriage to her son, namely the first accused. Not stopping with that, she treated deceased Ramya with cruelty demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to meet the expenses of sending her son, namely the first accused, to a foreign country. Not stopping with that, she treated deceased Ramya with cruelty demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to meet the expenses of sending her son, namely the first accused, to a foreign country. For the first Deepavali, deceased Ramya alone was sent to her parental home. Thereafter, the accused did not go there to take her back to the matrimonial home. Hence, PW1-Periyasami arranged one Priya (PW12) to take deceased Ramya to her husband's place. When they reached there, the second accused Kamalaveni did not allow Ramya to entered the house and caused a threat that she would commit suicide if Ramya enter the house. The said Priya informed the same to PW1, whereupon PW1 and his wife went to the place of the accused and made arrangements for Ramya's stay in her in-laws' house. Even thereafter, the second accused was intimidating deceased Ramya stating that she would arrange for a second marriage to her son as Ramya could not bear a child. ii) On 17.03.2006, Ramya contacted her father (PW1) over phone, asked him to arrange atleast a sum of Rs.1 Lakh and informed him that if the said amount was not arranged, there would be a big problem for her. PW1 replied that he would arrange the said amount after the end of the financial year, namely end of March, when account would be settled. On the very next day, to his shock and dismay, he received a phone call at about 12.30pm, carrying the message that there was a problem at Ramya's house and when he went there, he saw the dead body of his daughter Ramya laid on the floor. He was informed that Ramya committed suicide by hanging. Hence, he went to Srirangam All Women Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. PW2-Senthilkumar, Son of Periyasami (PW1), also knew the above said facts and he went along with his father to Srirangam All Women Police Station to lodge the complaint. PW3- Kalarani is the person who helped for the exchange of the horoscopes before the marriage between the first accused and Ramya was arranged. She also knew about the jewels given to Ramya and her husband at the time of marriage by the parents of Ramya. PW3- Kalarani is the person who helped for the exchange of the horoscopes before the marriage between the first accused and Ramya was arranged. She also knew about the jewels given to Ramya and her husband at the time of marriage by the parents of Ramya. When the wife of PW1 informed her of the demand made by the accused and wanted her to help her by providing Rs.2 lakhs, PW2 informed her that she would discuss with the accused as to the reason for their demand and she had an idea of making a personal visit to meet the accused persons and enquire about the matter. Meanwhile, she heard the news regarding the death of Ramya. PW4-Ramadevi is a neighbour of PW1. When Ramya had come to her parental home without being accompanied by her husband for Deepavali, she questioned her as to why her husband had not come. The deceased informed her that the accused were demanding Rs.2 lakhs and they had asked her not to come back if she could not get the amount demanded by them. She also knew the fact that when Ramya was taken by one Priya to the house of the accused, a further demand was made. She also knew the resistance that came received from the accused, the arrival of the parents of Ramya after the information was passed on to them and the fact that the second accused allowed Ramya to get into her house on the assurance given by PW1 that he would arrange for Rs.2 lakhs as demanded by her. On 18.03.2006, PW4 also heard the news of death of Ramya. PW5-Pattu was aware of the demand of the sum of Rs.2 lakhs made by the accused and she also heard about the suicidal death of Ramya by hanging. PW6 Indirani, PW7 Mangalam and PW8 Balasubramanian were the other persons who knew the above said facts. iii) Based on the complaint of PW1, one Malarvizhi, the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srirangam prepared Ex.P12 First Information Report, registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C in Crime No.14 of 2006 on the file of All Women Police Station, Srirangam. A copy of the same was also marked to the Revenue Divisional Officer (Executive Sub- Divisional Magistrate), Thiruchirapalli. A copy of the same was also marked to the Revenue Divisional Officer (Executive Sub- Divisional Magistrate), Thiruchirapalli. PW14-Mr.Sivarasu, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchirapalli conducted inquest, recorded Ex.P2 and P3, statements of Pws 1 and 2 and prepared Ex.P9 inquest report. iv) One Radhakrishnan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Srirangam, Thiruchirapalli took up the investigation of the case, altered the case into one for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. He also recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared Ex.P11 rough sketch. Thereafter, PW15 - Thiru. Anbunesan, assumed office as Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam and took up the further investigation of the case. On 19.06.2006, he prepared Ex.P10 Express report altering the case into one for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. He continued the investigation and during the course of investigation, arrested the first accused Balasubramanian on 22.06.2006 at Thiruvanaikovil Sannathi Street and sent him for remand. v) PW13-Dr.Karthikeyan conducted autopsy. At the time of autopsy, he found rigor-mortis all over the body. A ligature mark on the front, left and right portions of the neck to a length of 26 cms with a breadth of 1 cm was found. Blood was found oozing out of the nostrils and hyoid bone was found intact. Viscera was sent to the forensic laboratory and PW11-Navab John, Scientific Assistant, on chemical examination, found absence of any poisonous substance and submitted Ex.P5 Viscera report. PW13, on the basis of his findings at the time of autopsy and on the basis of the viscera report, gave his final opinion to the effect that Ramya had died due to hanging. The autopsy report and the final report are marked as Exs.P6 & P7 respectively. Pw15, after receipt of a copy of the autopsy report containing the final opinion, completed his investigation and submitted a final report on the file of the committal Magistrate on 18.07.2006 alleging commission of offences under Sections 398-A and 304-B IPC by accused 1 and 2. vi) After the case was committed to the Court of Session, it was taken on file as S.C.No.204 of 2006 and made over to Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram on the point of jurisdiction. On appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as Pws 1 to 15 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as Pws 1 to 15 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. After the recording of evidence, the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution were culled out and the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C regarding those materials. The accused denied them to be false and reiterated their stand that they were innocent. No defence witness was examined and no document was produced on the side of the accused. 4. The learned trial Judge, heard the arguments advanced on both sides, considered the evidence in the light of the points urged in the arguments and upon such consideration, held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC, convicted them for the said offences and sentenced them as indicated above. As against the conviction and sentence and seeking total acquittal, the accused have come forward with the present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C on various grounds stated in the appeal petition. 5. This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel for the appellants and by Mr.T.Mohan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 6. Following are the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants:- Though PW1 happened to be the defacto complaint, there was no reference to demand of dowry in the complaint. Witnesses, who spoke about the demand of a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs, besides being the close relatives of PW1, have also admitted that they did not know the demand directly and they heard it from others, making their testimony inadmissible as hearsay evidence. PW15 also admitted in his evidence that the witnesses gave statement before him that the accused wanted PW1 to give only a hand loan and it was not a demand of dowry. There is no direct evidence of cruelty caused to deceased Ramya by either of the accused. The nexus between the threat allegedly made by the second accused to commit suicide, if deceased Ramya would enter her house when she was taken by PW12-Priya to her in-laws' place and the death of the deceased was not established by the prosecution. There is no direct evidence of cruelty caused to deceased Ramya by either of the accused. The nexus between the threat allegedly made by the second accused to commit suicide, if deceased Ramya would enter her house when she was taken by PW12-Priya to her in-laws' place and the death of the deceased was not established by the prosecution. There is no proximity between the alleged time of cruelty and the occurrence so as to attract Section 304-B IPC and the Court below rightly held that the offence under Section 304-B IPC was not proved. However, without there being sufficient evidence, the learned trial Judge chose to hold the accused guilty of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The finding of the trial Court is based on surmises rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction should be set aside and the accused should be released holding them not guilty of any of the offences for which they were convicted and punished by the trial Court. 7. The arguments advanced by Mr. T.Mohan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply to the above said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were also heard and taken into consideration by this Court. 8. When the death was intimated to the police, perhaps through the complaint marked as Ex.A1, the case came to be registered and the investigation was done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. As it was a case of death of a woman within 7 years after her marriage, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (RDO) conducted the inquest. The inquest report has been produced and marked as Ex.P8. N.Ramesh, R.Saravanakumar, M.Mathivanan, R.Ganesh and S.Kumaresan were stated to be the Panchayatdhars in whose presence the inquest was made. Besides noting the fact that the apparent cause of death was due to hanging and the fact of sending the dead body to the General Hospital, Thiruchirapalli for autopsy through W.P.C.No.904 S.Gowsalya attached to Srirangam, All Women Police Station, no specific injury was noticed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 12.06.2006, directing action to be taken for offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC has been marked as Ex.P9. Expect the ligature mark found on the front and both sides of the neck measuring 26cm x 1 cm, no other external or internal injury was found. The proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 12.06.2006, directing action to be taken for offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC has been marked as Ex.P9. Expect the ligature mark found on the front and both sides of the neck measuring 26cm x 1 cm, no other external or internal injury was found. During autopsy, Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis and chemical analysis report Ex.P5 shows that there was no poison found in the internal organs of deceased Ramya. Accordingly, the Medical Officer, namely PW13, on the basis of his findings made by him during the autopsy and on the basis of the Chemical analysis report of viscera, opined that the death was due to hanging. The final report has been marked as Ex.P7. 9. From the evidence of PW13-Dr.Karthikeyan, the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy, the evidence of PW11 Navab John (Scientific Assistant), Ex.P6-Postmortem Report, Ex.P5 - Chemical Analysis report of Viscera and Ex.P7 - final opinion of the Medical Officer, it is quite obvious that the death of deceased Ramya was caused due to hanging. It is no one's case that the deceased Ramya was hanged by any one or her death was caused by the accused or by any one by hanging her. It is the definite case of the prosecution that Ramya committed suicide by hanging. When the prosecution has come forward with a definite case that the death was suicidal, the burden of proving that the suicide by the deceased was abetted by the accused heavily lies on the prosecution. 10. In this case, there is no direct eyewitness, who saw the deceased being abetted by any one of the accused to commit suicide. On the other hand, majority of the prosecution witnesses spoke to the effect that the deceased Ramya was treated by the accused with cruelty and such ill-treatment she received in the hands of the accused drove her to commit suicide. The cruelty, according to the prosecution case, was caused in two ways: 1) there was a threat made by the second accused that she would arrange for the second marriage of her son, namely the first accused, as deceased Ramya could not bear a child within 6 months from the date of marriage; and 2) the accused demanded Rs.2 lakhs as dowry and treated the deceased Ramya with cruelty. 11. 11. Relying on Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, it is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the fact that the deceased Ramya committed suicide within 7 years from the date of her marriage and further fact that she was subjected to cruelty will attract the presumption contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are ample evidence to show that the deceased Ramya was treated with cruelty by the accused persons and the same shall be enough to attract the presumption contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Section 113 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: 113A. 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 or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.? 12. It visualizes two conditions to be established to attract the presumption contemplated under the provision: a) Suicide by the woman within 7 years from the date of her marriage; and b) The woman should have been subjected to cruelty by her husband or such relative of her husband. In case of establishment of these two ingredients, the Court may drew a presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. It means that the Court has to exercise a discretion juridically either to presume or not to presume. The proof of the other two conditions alone is not the deciding factor. The Court has to take into account all other surrounding circumstances to arrive at a conclusion as to whether such a presumption of abetment of suicide is to be drawn or not. The term cruelty that the appears in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is explained to be having the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: 498A. The term cruelty that the appears in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is explained to be having the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.] 13.PWs 1 to 8 have deposed to the effect that the marriage of deceased Ramya with the first accused Balasubramanian took place 1 + years prior to the date of occurrence, namely the date of death of Ramya. The occurrence took place on 18.03.2006 at 12.15 hours. Ex.P1 complaint was lodged at 17 hours on the same day. PW14 ? Thiru. Sivarasu, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted inquest between 08.30 hours and 10.30 hours on 19.03.2006. None of the witnesses, except PW12 - Priya, furnished the exact date of marriage of Ramya with the first accused Balasubramanian. According to her testimony, the marriage took place on 17.11.2004. The date of marriage as furnished by PW12 has not been disputed by the accused. Hence, it is quite obvious that Ramya died within 7 years (to be precise within two years) after her marriage. 14. PWs 1, 2 and 4 and 8 have stated that Ramya committed suicide by hanging. PW3 - Kalarani alone pleads ignorance as to the cause of death. PW12 - Priya also has stated that Ramya committed suicide. After the registration of the case based on Ex.P1 - complaint, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, namely PW14 conducted the inquest and prepared Ex.P8 - inquest report. Ex.P6 is the Post-mortem report. PW3 - Kalarani alone pleads ignorance as to the cause of death. PW12 - Priya also has stated that Ramya committed suicide. After the registration of the case based on Ex.P1 - complaint, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, namely PW14 conducted the inquest and prepared Ex.P8 - inquest report. Ex.P6 is the Post-mortem report. From the above said reports and the testimonies of PW14 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) and PW13 (Medical Officer who conducted autopsy), it is clear that the death of Ramya was a suicide by hanging. Except the ligature mark found on the front portion and both sides of the neck, no other injury was found. It is also obvious from the evidence of PW11 Navab John, the Scientific Assistant and from the Chemical analysis report of viscera marked as Ex.P5, that no poison was detected in the internal organs of the deceased. Based on his personal observation at the time of autopsy and taking note of Ex.P5-Chemical analysis report of viscera, PW13 gave his final opinion under Ex.P7 stating that the death of Ramya occurred due to hanging. There is no other evidence of violence having been committed on Ramya or evidencing any struggle by Ramya to escape from the clutches of others. In the light of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who spoke to the factum of Ramya committing suicide and the above said documents, the trial Court came to a correct conclusion that Ramya committed suicide by hanging. The said finding cannot be said to be defective or infirm and the same has got to be confirmed. 15. Besides arriving at a conclusion that Ramya committed suicide by hanging, the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution that the suicide of Ramya was abetted by the accused persons. Of course, there is no direct evidence of persons having seen the accused persons inciting or aiding Ramya in her commission of suicide. On the other hand, the prosecution very much relies on the presumption contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge, accepting the contention made on behalf of the prosecution, drew a presumption of abetment of suicide as contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and held the accused to be guilty of abetting the suicide of Ramya. The learned trial Judge, accepting the contention made on behalf of the prosecution, drew a presumption of abetment of suicide as contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and held the accused to be guilty of abetting the suicide of Ramya. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused that the Court should have taken into account all other surrounding circumstances for taking a decision as to whether the presumption of abetment of suicide is to be drawn or not. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Court below committed an error in drawing such a presumption without taking into account the surrounding circumstances, that too, in the absence of unimpeachable evidence in proving the conditions for drawing such presumption. 16. According to the submissions made by the counsel for the accused, there is no direct evidence of abetment of suicide and the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution was not enough to prove cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the two conditions contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act have been proved and that the other surrounding circumstances will also justify the drawal of a presumption of abetment of suicide. The twin conditions contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act are: 1) The woman should have committed suicide within 7 years from the date of her marriage; and 2) She should have been treated with cruelty by her husband or by such of the relatives of her husband. 17. The presumption of abetment of suicide contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is distinguished from the presumption of dowry death as contemplated under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, on the basis of proximity of time between the act of cruelty and the time of occurrence, namely death. If the woman had been subjected to cruelty demanding dowry soon prior to her death, the same will attract the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. If the time gap is sufficiently longer, there will be a presumption of abetment of suicide alone and no dowry death. If the woman had been subjected to cruelty demanding dowry soon prior to her death, the same will attract the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. If the time gap is sufficiently longer, there will be a presumption of abetment of suicide alone and no dowry death. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced through the prosecution witnesses are to the effect that deceased Ramya was treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law, namely the second accused pointing out that she was not able to bear a child and threatening to arrange for the second marriage of her son, namely the first accused and also demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. 18. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that a lot of improvement was made after lodging of the complaint under Ex.P1, which does not contain any reference to the demand of a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. Of course, it is true that Ex.P1 does not contain an averment to the effect that there was a demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. First of all, the complaint which forms the basis of the FIR, cannot be equated with a plaint in civil cases. It must be kept in mind that it is the document by which the criminal law is set in motion. It shall not be taken as A to Z in the criminal prosecution. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, who conducted inquest, also recorded the statements of Pws 1 and 2. Though those statements are not admissible as direct evidence, they could be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. Such statements were recorded on the very next day of the occurrence. In the said statements, Pws 1 and 2 made it clear that there was a demand of Rs.2 lakhs for sending the first accused Balasubramanian to a foreign country. Admittedly, the first accused Balasubramanian had qualified himself in Electrical and Electronic engineering and he was employed in that field. Pws 1 to 8 spoke in one voice that the second accused demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the said purpose. Of course, all the above said witnesses spoke to the effect that it was the deceased Ramya who informed them of the demand made by the accused. Pws 1 to 8 spoke in one voice that the second accused demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the said purpose. Of course, all the above said witnesses spoke to the effect that it was the deceased Ramya who informed them of the demand made by the accused. Though their evidence in this regard may be regarded as hearsay, it becomes admissible as it falls under sub-clause (1) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act as to the statement of the deceased relating to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of Ramya's death has come into question. 19. PWs.1 and 2 made it clear that after her marriage, Ramya alone came to her parents' place to celebrate her first Diwali after marriage and at that point of time, she informed them that she was being treated with cruelty by the accused demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Pws 3 to 8 also spoke to the effect that when they questioned Ramya as to why her husband had not come for the first Diwali after marriage, she informed that she was being ill-treated demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs by the accused. It is true that PW12 - Priya, who is said to have taken Ramya to leave her at the house of the accused after Deepavali, did not speak about the demand of Rs.2 lakhs. But the said omission by PW12 will not have the effect of nullifying the overwhelming evidence adduced through Pws 1 to 3 and 6 to 8. The omission made by PW12 will not make the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 unreliable or having no truth in it. 20. Moreover, clear evidence came to be adduced through Pws 1 and 2 to the effect that a day prior to the date of occurrence, namely on 17.03.2006, deceased Ramya contacted them over phone, asked them to arrange at least a sum of Rs.1 lakh and informed them that in the event of their failure to arrange the said amount, there would be a big problem for her at her place. Of course, Pws 4 and 5 have been contradicted with reference to their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein they have not referred to the demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. Of course, Pws 4 and 5 have been contradicted with reference to their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein they have not referred to the demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. If at all their evidence can be discarded in view of the said contradiction elicited with reference to their 161 statements, the same cannot be the ground on which the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses can be rejected as unreliable. Furthermore, PW3's statement that there was a demand of Rs.2 lakhs by the accused and she was informed of the same by the deceased remains unchallenged as she was not cross-examined on the above said aspect. Furthermore, no contradiction is elicited from Pws 6 and 7 and there is absence of cross examination of PW8 regarding the demand of money made by the accused persons. 21. The death was not intimated by any of the accused to the parents of Ramya. On the other hand, a neighbour, who is also a relative of PW1 by name Somu, alone informed PW1 of the death of Ramya. The deceased Ramya was not accompanied by her husband when she went to celebrate the first Diwali at the residence of her father. Even after the festival was over, none of the accused persons chose to go to the residence of PW1 to take her back to her matrimonial home. The denial of such basic curtsies are the surrounding circumstances making the evidence of prosecution witnesses reliable. 22. In addition, there is ample evidence to the effect that the second accused started ill-treating deceased Ramya after a lapse of 6 months from the date of her marriage, on the premise that Ramya was not able to give birth to a child. Clear evidence has also been adduced to the effect that the second accused was causing a threat that she would arrange for the second marriage of her son, as according to her, the deceased Ramya was barren. A close scrutiny of the evidence in this regard will make it clear that the failure to bear a child immediately after the marriage was taken as a ruse by the second accused to demand a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for sending her son for employment to a foreign country. A close scrutiny of the evidence in this regard will make it clear that the failure to bear a child immediately after the marriage was taken as a ruse by the second accused to demand a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for sending her son for employment to a foreign country. Clear evidence has also been adduced to the effect that a day before the occurrence, namely on 17.03.2006, deceased Ramya contacted Pws 1 and 2, asked them to arrange at least a sum of Rs.1 lakh and informed them that things would get worse if they did not do it. On the very next day, deceased Ramya committed suicide by hanging. The overwhelming evidence, both direct and circumstantial, clearly show that the deceased Ramya was ill-treated and harassed demanding money and pointing out that she was not able to bear a child and also threatening that the accused would go for arranging the second marriage of the first accused. It is pertinent to note that while referring to the statement given to the police to contradict PW2, the counsel for the accused in the lower Court did not put any suggestion that no such demand was made. In fact, regarding the demand, PW2 was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused before the trial Court, drawing his attention to the statement given to the police that the information furnished by deceased Ramya was that the accused needed money for sending the first accused for employment to a foreign country and that she wanted the said amount to be given as loan. Even if it is taken for granted that the demand was to lend money, as it was coupled with the threat to arrange for the second marriage of the first accused and the treatment of the deceased with cruelty and harassment in order to coerce the deceased to get the money from her parents, will nevertheless bring the said act on the part of the accused under the definition of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. 23. Of course, it is true that all the witnesses spoke about the threat made by the second accused, namely the mother-in-law of the deceased Ramya and no direct overt act is attributed to the first accused Balasubramanian. 23. Of course, it is true that all the witnesses spoke about the threat made by the second accused, namely the mother-in-law of the deceased Ramya and no direct overt act is attributed to the first accused Balasubramanian. However, it is quite clear from a consideration of the evidence that the first accused was also acting in unison with his mother, namely the second accused as he caused mental cruelty by not accompanying the deceased to her father's house for the first Deepavali after marriage and by not making an attempt to take her back after Deepavali. It is also the clear testimony of PW12-Priya that when she took Ramya after the first Deepavali to leave her at her husband's house, the second accused (mother-in-law of Ramya) shouted at them stating that Ramya should not enter the house as if she was not able to give birth to a child and that she was going to arrange for the second marriage to her son, namely the first accused. It is her further testimony that the first accused, who was present at that point of time, did not question the propriety of the said act on the part of the second accused. The above said part of the testimony of PW12 remains unchallenged as no cross-examination was done regarding the said aspect. As such there are ample evidence to show that the first and second accused acted in unison in ill-treating and harassing the deceased Ramya in order to see that their demand for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.1 lakh to send the first accused to a foreign country for employment was met with. 24. The learned trial Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence and taking into account all the surrounding circumstances, held that both the conditions contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act have been proved. On the basis of the proof of the said conditions and the circumstances surrounding the suicidal death of Ramya, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act should be drawn. On the basis of the proof of the said conditions and the circumstances surrounding the suicidal death of Ramya, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act should be drawn. This Court, on a re- appreciation of evidence and on overall consideration of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, does not find any defect or infirmity in the decision taken by the trial Court to draw a presumption of abetment of suicide as contemplated under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the accused persons proving at least the improbability of the prosecution case as to the abetment of suicide by preponderance of probabilities. Viewed from any angle, the finding of the trial Court that the accused 1 and 2 were proved to be guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and 306 IPC has got to be confirmed as there shall be no justification to interfere with the same. Hence, the finding holding the accused guilty of the above said offences deserves to be confirmed. 25. So far as the punishment is concerned, after giving an opportunity to the accused to make their representation regarding punishment that could be reasonably imposed, the trial Court has imposed the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year, a fine of Rs.500/- and a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A IPC. The maximum punishment prescribed for an offence under Section 306 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term extending upto 10 years and fine. The learned trial Judge has shown leniency in imposing a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo a sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of the fine for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The said sentence cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. The said sentence cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Moreover, the substantive sentences imposed for both the offences have been directed to run concurrently. As such, this Court does not feel the punishment to be harsh and disproportionate warranting interference. 26. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court regarding conviction as well as sentences. 27. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court, Tiruchirappalli in S.C.No.204 of 2006, vide judgment dated 06.07.2007, are confirmed. The bail bond, if any executed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take steps to commit the accused in prison so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence.