JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur 1. Aggrieved by acquittal of respondents-accused vide judgment dated 27.03.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 49-G/2005, in case FIR No. 80/2004 dated 25.06.2004, registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. the State has preferred present appeal with prayer to set aside impugned judgment and to convict respondents-accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State has advanced arguments that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove guilt of respondent-accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and prayed for allowing appeal and to punish respondents-accused under Section 306 IPC, whereas, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for respondents-accused has vehemently submitted that prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no circumstance incriminating respondents-accused and has sought dismissal of appeal by affirming judgment of Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala. 3. As per prosecution story, respondent No.1 was married to Anju Devi on 28.01.2001. Deceased Anju Devi had committed suicide on 25.06.2004 consuming Aluminum Phosphide. 4. PW-3 Lal Singh father of deceased Anju Devi has made statement under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure Ex. PW-3/A which was sent to Police Station Jawalamukhi and FIR No. 80/2004 Ex. PW-8/C was recorded. It has been alleged that PW-1 is an employee of Police Department and posted as HHC in Police Station Nurpur. After marriage with respondent No. 1 on 28.01.2001, his daughter Anju Devi was residing at Pathankot alongwith her husband. After one year, his son- in-law respondent No.1 had started harassing and teasing his daughter. During her visit in parental house she used to tell about misbehaviour of her husband Ajay Drangal. Respondent No.1 Ajay Drangal had been saying that he will not keep deceased Anju Devi and will solemnize second marriage. Her mother-in-law Rameshari Devi had been alleging that deceased was incapable of begetting child and therefore, she was intending to marry her son respondent No.1 with some one else. PW-3 had tried to advise his son-in-law and his parents not to harass his daughter but they continued to harass her. 5. Her mother-in-law Rameshari Devi had been alleging that deceased was incapable of begetting child and therefore, she was intending to marry her son respondent No.1 with some one else. PW-3 had tried to advise his son-in-law and his parents not to harass his daughter but they continued to harass her. 5. It is case of prosecution that on 10.06.2004, son-in-law-respondent No.1 of PW-3 Lal Singh and deceased Anju Devi had come back from Pathankot to their house and relations between them remained cordial for two days. On 13.06.2004, deceased Anju Devi had telephonically asked her mother PW-7 Vidya Devi to take her with them, otherwise her husband and his parents will kill her. In sequel thereto, PW-3 Lal Singh alongwith PW-11 Mohinder Singh co-brother (‘Sadu’) of PW-3 visited in-laws of deceased and found her weeping. She had requested to take her with them. PW-3 had tried to solicit his son-in- law and his parents but they all replied that they were not ready to keep his daughter and intending for divorce. PW-3 had brought his daughter to his home and for 4-5 days his daughter had gone under treatment. Thereafter on advice of one Milkhi Ram, common relative of both parties, PW-3 had taken his daughter to her in- laws alongwith his nephew Jai Pal and PW-4 Santokh Singh. At that time also, respondent No.1 had quarreled with PW-3 and had asked to accompany him to Dehra for divorce. However, after advising her in-laws, he had left his daughter with them. On 25.06.2004, at about 2.30 AM, he was informed regarding consumption of poison by his daughter Anju Devi and her death in CHC Jawalamukhi. It has been alleged that his daughter Anju Devi has committed suicide by consuming poison due to harassment and ill-treatment by his son-in-law respondent No.1 and his parents. 6. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Rattan had examined deceased Anju Devi in CHC, Jawalamukhi and had declared her brought dead by recording opinion Ex.PW-1/B on application Ex. PW- 1/A. 7. PW-2 Dr. Kulbhushan had conducted postmortem of deceased Anju Devi and postmortem report is Ex. PW-2/B. He had preserved her viscera. No external injury was found on the body of deceased Anju Devi. Viscera was sent to chemical analysis and after receiving Chemical Analysis report Ex.PW-2/F, it was opined that deceased had died due to Phosphide poisoning. PW-1 and PW-2 have not been cross examined. PW-2/B. He had preserved her viscera. No external injury was found on the body of deceased Anju Devi. Viscera was sent to chemical analysis and after receiving Chemical Analysis report Ex.PW-2/F, it was opined that deceased had died due to Phosphide poisoning. PW-1 and PW-2 have not been cross examined. PW-6 Rakesh Kumar had taken Viscera to State FSL Junga vide RC No. 104/21 for chemical analysis. After handing over the same in State FSL Junga, he had handed over RC to MHC. 8. For committing an office under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had committed suicide and suicide was abetted by accused. In present case, it is admitted fact that deceased Anju Devi had committed suicide during night intervening 24.06.2004 and 25.06.2004 within a period of seven years of marriage. 9. PW-3 Lal Singh father of deceased Anju Devi PW-4 Santokh Singh uncle of deceased Anju Devi, PW-7 Vidya Devi, mother of deceased and PW-11 Mohinder Singh uncle ‘Massad’ of deceased and also PW-5 Leela mediator in arranging marriage have been examined in support of prosecution story. 10. PW-3 Lal Singh has made statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that accused had abetted commission of suicide by deceased Anju Devi by torturing her on one pretext or other. It has further been alleged that her husband Ajay Kumar was not behaving properly with her and was threatening to solemnize second marriage and her mother-in-law used to taunt that deceased was not capable of bearing child and was threatening to arrange second marriage of her son. It has been alleged that respondents-accused were quarreling with deceased Anju Devi and for these reasons Anju Devi had been forced to commit suicide by respondents-accused. 11. PW-3 Lal Singh in his deposition in court has added two more reasons. He has alleged that his daughter was being harassed for insufficient dowry and was being tortured that she was not good looking. However, PW-4 Santokh Singh, PW-7 Vidya Devi and PW-11 Mohinder Singh have not uttered even a single word regarding harassment on account of insufficient dowry. PW-5 Leela Devi is also silent on this aspect. 12. It is case of prosecution that on 13.06.2004, on receiving call from deceased, parents of deceased had visited house of her in-laws. However, PW-4 Santokh Singh, PW-7 Vidya Devi and PW-11 Mohinder Singh have not uttered even a single word regarding harassment on account of insufficient dowry. PW-5 Leela Devi is also silent on this aspect. 12. It is case of prosecution that on 13.06.2004, on receiving call from deceased, parents of deceased had visited house of her in-laws. PW-3 Lal Singh has stated that he and his co-brother PW-11 Mohinder Singh had visited the house of accused. PW-7 Vidya Devi has stated that after receiving telephonic message, she alongwith PW-3 her husband, PW-4 Santokh Singh, PW-11 Mohinder Singh and one Jai Pal had gone to house of accused. Whereas PW-11 Mohinder Singh has stated that he, PW-4 Lal Singh and PW-7 Vidya Devi had visited house of accused.PW-4 Santokh Singh is silent on this fact whereas Jai Pal has not been examined. 13. PW-3 Lal Singh has stated that his daughter was weeping and she had informed him that she was not being given medicines to cure illness and for that reason, he had brought her daughter to his house. However PW-7 Vidya Devi and PW-11 Mohinder Singh have not uttered even a single word regarding this issue. 14. PW-3 has admitted that deceased Anju Devi had come to marriage of Jai Pal from Pathankot and also to attend a jug (social function) arranged by his brother alongwith her husband accused Ajay Drangal. He has also admitted that when he was posted in Police Station, Nurpur deceased Anju Devi and her husband accused Ajay Drangal had visited his residence at Nurpur. However, PW-4 Santokh Singh, uncle of deceased has stated that accused Ajay Drangal and Anju Devi had not visited his house after marriage. 15. PW-7 Vidya Devi has stated that her daughter had attended marriage of Jai Pal but accused Ajay Drangal had not attended said marriage. She has further stated that accused Ajay Drangal did not accompany her daughter to her house. However, she has admitted that accused Ajay Drangal and her daughter had both come to their house to attend religious function known as ‘jag’ (social function). 16. It is also case of prosecution that prior to committing suicide, deceased Anju Devi, was taken by her father PW-3 Lal Singh, PW-4 Santokh Singh and one Jai Pal to the house of her in-laws on advice of a common relative Milkhi Ram. 16. It is also case of prosecution that prior to committing suicide, deceased Anju Devi, was taken by her father PW-3 Lal Singh, PW-4 Santokh Singh and one Jai Pal to the house of her in-laws on advice of a common relative Milkhi Ram. It is alleged that on that day also accused had threatened to divorce deceased Anju Devi. It is case of the prosecution that in-laws of Anju Devi were not ready to keep her in their house and were interested to get rid of her and were asking for divorce. This allegation is falsified by statement of PW-5 Leela Devi who has stated that mother-in-law Rameshwari Devi had approached her for bringing back deceased Anju Devi, when deceased was staying in her parental house. It is also admitted by all witnesses that Anju Devi was staying with her husband at his place of posting Pathankot for maximum period of her married life. 17. Milkhi Ram has been given up on statement of learned Public Prosecutor by declaring him won over by accused. It is strange that without examining a witness in court said witness was declared as won over by accused. In any case, best option available to prosecution was to examine the said witnesses and on turning hostile to cross examine the said witnesses to elucidate truth but not withholding said witnesses. Prosecution has also chosen not to examine Jai Pal who has been stated to be accompanying PW-3 to the house of accused. 18. PW-5 Leela Devi has introduced a new aspect that deceased Anju Devi had suffered miscarriage when she was forced to lift heavy articles in fields during pregnancy but none of other witnesses has stated even a single word on this issue. 19. There are material contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in statements of PW-3 Lal Singh, PW-4 Santokh Singh, PW-5 Leela Devi, PW-7 Vidya Devi and PW-11 Mohinder Singh rendering veracity of these witnesses doubtful and incredible. Even if statements of these witnesses are treated to be true then also there are only vague assertions of harassment and cruelty which may not be treated sufficient to drive deceased Anju Devi to such a situation that she was compelled to commit suicide on account of alleged harassment and cruelty by accused. Even if statements of these witnesses are treated to be true then also there are only vague assertions of harassment and cruelty which may not be treated sufficient to drive deceased Anju Devi to such a situation that she was compelled to commit suicide on account of alleged harassment and cruelty by accused. There is no evidence on record to show that accused had conducted in such a manner to drive Anju Devi to commit suicide. Simple quarrels or asking for work in fields cannot be treated as a torture much less torture forcing to commit suicide. There is no allegation of any kind of physical torture. Evidence brought on record against accused with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not convincing. Every unhappiness cannot be treated sufficient reason to commit suicide. The cruelty and harassment must be of such a gravity which in normal circumstance would lead to commit suicide by person being harassed and tortured. 20. Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act reposes discretion in the Court to draw a presumption against the husband or his relatives for attracting suicide of married woman. On the basis of evidence placed on record by prosecution, it is not a fit case to draw presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act that suicide of deceased had been abetted by respondents. Evidence on record in present case is not sufficient to draw inference that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty by respondent drives her to commit suicide. For presuming guilt of accused under this Section, it is necessary to prove by prosecution by leading a convincing evidence to show that accused had subjected deceased to cruelty as per terms and conditions defined in Section 498-A IPC and burden of proof showing that such an offence has been committed by accused is on the prosecution. Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act will be attracted only if prosecution is able to prove atleast foundational facts on record beyond all reasonable doubt indicating proximate and live link between cruelty or harassment and the death in question. Only in such situation, court having regard to all other circumstances of the case, may presume that suicide has been abetted by accused. Scrutiny of Evidence placed on record is not sufficient to draw presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act against accused. 21. Only in such situation, court having regard to all other circumstances of the case, may presume that suicide has been abetted by accused. Scrutiny of Evidence placed on record is not sufficient to draw presumption under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act against accused. 21. In light of above discussion, there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold that respondents-accused have committed an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code abetting the deceased Anju Devi to commit suicide. It cannot be said that learned trial court has not appreciated evidence appropriately and completely and acquittal of respondents-accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused mis-carriage of justice. 22. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon prosecution. Respondents-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court after considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. 23. The present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by respondents-accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.