JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 29/09/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur) in Sessions trial No. 2/7 of 2006, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.10.2005 at 6.30 a.m one Shri Hamender Singh visited Police Station Bharari and reported that Kalpana who was daughter of his paternal aunt Neelam Devi and who was married to accused Akhilesh in village Doharu about 6 months back had died due to consuming poison on that day at 4.30 a.m. This information was recorded in daily diary of the police station by SHO Duglu Ram and thereafter he alongwith his subordinate officials visited the spot where he recorded the statement of Smt. Neelam Kumari, mother of the deceased under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which she alleged that deceased Kalpana was married to Akhilesh Kumar on 23rd May, 2005. Her daughter was kept well for one month but thereafter her mother-in-law Roshani Devi and sister-in-law Tripta started maltreating her. They also did not send her to their house during Kala Mahina. When she asked her son-in-law Akhilesh as to why they were maltreating her daughter he told her that none was doing so. On the other hand accused Akhilesh, his mother and his sister-in-law were blaming her daughter for being less educated and she was not giving clothes to her Jethani. It is alleged therein that on 15.10.2005 her son rang up Kalpana and she told him that the accused persons were maltreating her and they would not send her to her parents house during Diwali and that he should visit her and take her alongwith him on the 30.10.2015. On 16.10.2005 at about 3.00 a.m Smt. Leela Devi and Satya Devi came in a vehicle and informed her that Kalpana had died by consuming poison. On the basis of this statement F.I.R came to be registered in P.S.Bharari. The case was investigating by S.I.Duglu Ram. The investigation revealed that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison due to maltreatment and harassment of her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. On the basis of this statement F.I.R came to be registered in P.S.Bharari. The case was investigating by S.I.Duglu Ram. The investigation revealed that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison due to maltreatment and harassment of her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Accused Akhilesh Kumar, Roshani Devi and Tripta Devi were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC whereas accused Ishwar Singh was charged by the learned trial Court of his committing offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, they chose to lead evidence in defence two witnesses. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting 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. Deceased Kalpana was married on 23rd May, 2005 to accused Akhilesh. She by consuming poison committed suicide in the intervening night of 15.10.2016 and 16.10.2016. Consequently, her demise occurred within a short span of hers solemnizing marriage with accused Akhilesh. 9. Deceased Kalpana was married on 23rd May, 2005 to accused Akhilesh. She by consuming poison committed suicide in the intervening night of 15.10.2016 and 16.10.2016. Consequently, her demise occurred within a short span of hers solemnizing marriage with accused Akhilesh. The learned trial Court in dispelling the creditworthiness of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was goaded by theirs holding a close relation with the deceased whereupon it concluded of their testimonies in the absence of rendition of the relevant account by independent witnesses hence standing imbued with a vice of interestedness. In sequel the learned trial Court discounted the creditworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. However, the aforesaid ground as meted by the learned trial Court to dispel the efficacy of the testimonies of the close relatives of the deceased is mis-founded, imminently when law does not enjoin the testimonies of close relatives of the deceased who committed suicide at her matrimonial home on hers standing purportedly instigated by the accused persons by their purported acts of ill-treatment and maltreatment perpetrated upon her person being discountable unless their testimonies are wanting in legal vigour, arising from theirs deposing a contrived version qua the perpetration of cruelty upon the deceased by the accused, cruelty whereof stood engendered by theirs demanding dowry from the deceased, also hence their testimonies would be construable to stand stained with a vice of concoction also the testimonies of the close relatives of the deceased would suffer the ill-fate of their veracity standing discounted on the preeminent principle of law of no evident immediate proximity occurring vis-à-vis the purported cruelty meted by the accused upon the deceased vis-à-vis the ill-fated occurrence, whereupon a construction is enjoined to be erected of the accused not abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased. Obviously given the deceased committing suicide within a short hiatus occurring since her solemnizing marriage with accused Akhilesh necessarily hence the principle of proximity vis-a-vis the commission of suicide by the deceased with the purported cruelty meted by the accused upon her stands saturated. Obviously given the deceased committing suicide within a short hiatus occurring since her solemnizing marriage with accused Akhilesh necessarily hence the principle of proximity vis-a-vis the commission of suicide by the deceased with the purported cruelty meted by the accused upon her stands saturated. Be that as may, even though the close relatives of the deceased deposed in their respective testifications of the accused demanding dowry from the deceased, on anvil whereof, the prosecution assays of hence cruelty standing proven to be perpetrated by them upon the deceased yet the learned trial Court dispelled the vigour of their testimonies on the ground of PW-1 not in her testimony voicing therein with specificity the articles demanded as dowry from the deceased by the accused. Also the factum of PW-1 testifying of the accused Akhilesh demanding dowry from the deceased at a ‘Tika ceremony’ whereupon the learned trial Court concluded of with the holding of ‘Tika ceremony’ not being a secretive function wherein the participants are only the deceased and the accused rather when participants therein are other than them rather forestalled accused Akhilesh to make a demand upon the deceased. Consequently it held qua the aforesaid demand made thereat by the accused Akhilesh upon the deceased being unamenable for acceptance. Both the aforesaid grounds as stand meted by the learned trial Court to dispel the deposition of PW-1 hold no force as when in her testification PW-1 echoes of accused Akhilesh demanding cash as dowry from the deceased rendered unnecessary the drawing of any inference, of, for want of any articulation with specificity by PW-1 qua the articles demanded as dowry by accused Akhilesh from the deceased, her testification qua the facet aforesaid holding no sinew. Also the further ground meted by the learned trial Court to conclude of demand of dowry by accused Akhilesh from the deceased at the ‘Tika ceremony’ being contrived given the said ceremony per se holding a huge gathering whereat the making of the demand stood per se baulked is also a specious besides a nebulous reason ensueable from the factum of accused Akhilesh would yet take to only in the presence of the deceased besides in the presence of his close relatives make its demand. Since demand for dowry is made clandestinely also when its demand is not openly proclaimed it is inapt for the learned trial Court to conclude of the occasion whereat it stood purportedly made holding a public gathering hence precluding its proclamation by the accused. Since the demand for dowry made by the accused Akhilesh upon the deceased stands concluded to hold veracity, in sequel when it stood not saturated, it appears of the accused during the stay of the deceased at her matrimonial home concerting with importunacy to beget its satiation from the deceased. As a corollary, the deceased stood tormented also she stood subjected to mental cruelty whereupon hence she stood instigated to commit suicide. The continuance of during her stay at her matrimonial home with stealth the makings of demands of dowry by the accused upon the deceased is a cleverly camouflaged concert assayed by the accused within the precincts of the matrimonial home hence deterring the deceased who was a new entrant thereat to make communications thereof to her neighbours may be also to her parents also given her reticence standing reared by her natural aspirations to salvage her matrimony with accused Akhilesh. Preponderantly with the deceased committing suicide within a short span of hers solemnizing marriage with the accused renders workable the presumption articulated in Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which stands extracted hereinafter:- “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.” wherein a mandate stands embedded of with a married woman committing suicide within seven years of her marriage, courts of law holding leverage to draw a presumption of hence the husband besides the in-laws of the deceased abetting the commission of suicide by a married lady. Consequently, with the presumption embedded in Section 113A of the Act per se standing attracted hereat renders the inculpation of the accused to be sustainable prominently given the factum of the deceased within a span of six months of hers solemnizing marriage with accused Akhilesh committing suicide at her matrimonial home. Even otherwise, the paramountcy of truth or falsity of the suicide note comprised in Ext.PW-1/B standing preempted by the Investigating Officer by his omitting to secure the apposite opinion of the handwriting expert is a palpably omission, which is a sure pointer of the investigations held by him being skewed besides slanted. Consequently, omissions by the Investigating Officer qua the paramount facet aforesaid constrains an adverse inference vis-a-vis the accused also fillips a deduction of especially when the accused omitted to concert upon the Investigating Officer qua his eliciting the apposite opinion qua the authorship of Ext.PW-1/B of their omission standing prodded by theirs fabricating suicide note Ext.PW-1/B. The aforesaid suspicion when stands reared, enables this Court to fortifyingly draw against them the presumption embodied in Section 113A of the Act. It also constitutes relevant circumstance of inculpation of the accused it holding conjunction with the relevant incriminatory circumstances against the accused. It also nails a conclusion qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court meriting interference. 11. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court suffers from a gross perversity and absurdity hence it can be held of the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal its committing a legal misdemeanor, inasmuch as its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court deems it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit interference. 13. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, which is accordingly allowed and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court is quashed and setaside. Accordingly, accused Akhilesh Kumar, Roshani Devi and Tripta Devi are held guilty for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC whereas accused Ishwar Singh is held guilty for his committing offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC 14. Accordingly, accused Akhilesh Kumar, Roshani Devi and Tripta Devi are held guilty for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC whereas accused Ishwar Singh is held guilty for his committing offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC 14. Let the accused/convict be produced before this Court on 03/8/2016 for theirs being heard on quantum of sentence.