JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. recorded in Sessions Case No. 18-10 whereby the Court aforesaid returned findings of conviction against the respondent herein (for short “the accused”) for his committing an offence constituted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) whereas it returned findings of acquittal qua his allegedly committing an offence constituted under Section 306 of IPC. However, the learned trial Court afforded the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused. 2. The state of H.P stands aggrieved by the rendition of the learned trial Court, hence, through the instant appeal it concerts to beget an order from this Court qua its reversing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. The accused has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded against him by the learned trial Court qua his allegedly committing an offence constituted under Section 498-A of IPC. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on or before 19.6.2010 the accused used to subject Smt. Sulochna Devi, his wife to mental and physical cruelty. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 19.6.2010 at village Daulatpur Ward No.4, accused continued to subject his wife with mental and physical cruelty as a result of which she was driven to consume poisonous substance i.e. phosphide poisoning and died. It is further alleged by the prosecution that suicide was committed by Smt. Sulochna Devi (for short “the deceased”) owing to mental and physical cruelty perpetrated upon her by the accused. In the year 2006 Sh. Hari Singh, father of the deceased had lodged a complaint to police against the accused, however the accused apologized for his fault and promised that he will not repeat such things in future. On 19.6.2010 a telephonic message was received by the brother of the deceased that she is ill and was admitted in hospital. The matter was reported to the police on the next date. Statement of Hari Singh was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in RH Una by Dr. Sanjay Mankotia. As per his opinion the deceased died due to consumption of phosphide. Site plan was prepared. Statement of Hari Singh was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in RH Una by Dr. Sanjay Mankotia. As per his opinion the deceased died due to consumption of phosphide. Site plan was prepared. 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 of learned JMIC-II, Amb who committed this case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una. Learned Sessions Judge, Una has assigned the case trial to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. 5. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 7. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for his committing an offence constituted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) whereas it returned findings of acquittal qua his allegedly committing an offence constituted under Section 306 of IPC. However, the learned trial Court afforded to the accused the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded qua the accused by the learned trial Court for his allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC 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 recorded under Section 306 of IPC being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. He also contends qua the benefit granted to the accused under Probation of Offenders Act meriting interference by this Court. 9. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal recorded under Section 306 of IPC being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. He also contends qua the benefit granted to the accused under Probation of Offenders Act meriting interference by this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has with considerable force and vigor 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. 10. 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. 11. The deceased was married to the accused in the year 1996. Four daughters were begotten from their wedlock. The deceased in the year 2010 committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution alleges qua the commission of suicide by the deceased standing goaded besides instigated by the accused arising from his subjecting her to mental cruelty constituted in his making demands of dowry upon her also in his tormenting her for hers delivering only female offsprings. Before proceeding to dwell upon the tenacity of the aforesaid manner of the accused perpetrating maltreatment and ill-treatment upon his deceased wife hence instigating her to commit suicide, an allusion to the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Sanjay mankotia, who on holding the body of the deceased to post mortem examination prepared the relevant post mortem report, is imperative. In his deposition he has proven the relevant post mortem report comprised in Ex.PW-7/A. He also voices therein of the demise of the deceased standing propelled by hers consuming poison. 12. Be that as it may, this Court is enjoined to delve into the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to succor its espousal qua the commission of suicide by the deceased, wife of the accused, by her consuming poison standing aroused on hers at her matrimonial home standing encumbered with mental cruelty engendered by her mind set perennially standing belabored with tormentings for hers bringing insufficient dowry besides hers rearing only female offsprings. In the year 2006 as deposed by PW-1 Smt. Meena Kumari, a complaint was lodged by the deceased ventilating therein of the accused subjecting her to maltreatment on the ground of hers giving birth to four daughters. The factum aforesaid stands supported by PW-2 Sh. Satish Kumar, in sequel whereto as portrayed by mark ‘A’ a compromise occurred inter-se the accused and the deceased. Even if mark “A” is a photocopy of the original, also if it does not hold the signatures of the accused also hence assumingly the manifestations embodied therein holding no efficacy besides as a corollary Mark ‘A’ holding no legal worth, nonetheless the testifications of PW-1 and PW-2 wherein they make vivid underscorings of the deceased in the year 2006 on hers standing aggrieved by the misdemeanors of the accused constituted in his subjecting her to tormentings for rearing only female offsprings hers instituting a complaint before the Panchayat concerned, prominently when their testimonies qua the facet aforesaid remain un-shattered, does mobilize an inference of the accused, in the year 2006, subjecting the deceased to mental trauma constituted in his tormenting her for rearing only female offsprings whereupon the deceased was prodded to ventilate her grievance under a complaint instituted before the relevant quarters. 13. On a reading of the testimony of PW-1, on four years elapsing therefrom the accused went overseas whereat he remained for three years whereafter he returned home. The incident of 2006 is grossly improximate vis-à-vis the ill-fated occurrences negating hence a sequel qua the commission of suicide by the deceased constituting the instigatory besides actuatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide. However when it also emanates on a reading of the testimony of PW-12 Smt. Ram Pyari of the accused on his returning home after completing his stay in a foreign country, continuing to subject the deceased to torture enjoins this Court to, significantly when PW-11 Sh. Gian Chand also corroborates PW-12 Smt. Ram Piari qua the accused on his returning home after completing stay in a foreign country, his persisting in subjecting the deceased to harassment, hold of the accused during the stay of the deceased at her matrimonial home perennially subjecting her to maltreatment qua the facets aforesaid perenniality whereof up to the deceased committing suicide hence holds close proximity therewith begetting a concomitant effect of it constituting the instigatory factor of the deceased to commit suicide. 14. 14. Be that as it may, with a formidable conclusion standing recorded by this Court qua the accused encumbering the mindset of the deceased with immense pain and trauma constituted by his act of making aspersions upon her qua her inability to rear a male offspring also with this Court holding of the incident of 2006 being starkly improximate vis-à-vis the alleged occurrence, it not constituting a tenable actuatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide, nonetheless the effect of the aforesaid conclusion would not for the reasons afore-stated dwindle the vigor qua the everlasting effect of the perennially etched trauma in the mindset of the deceased significantly when hence given the perenniality of its gripping her psyche besides its hovering in the mental framework of the deceased also its remaining alive even on four years elapsing since the occurrence of 2006, she hence to obtain reprieve is to be concluded to stand instigated there-from to commit suicide. Concomitantly the effect, if any, of the incident of 2006 being improximate vis-à-vis the ill-fated occurrence would hold no legal command with this Court to conclude therefrom of the deceased standing un-goaded besides un-instigated by the incident which occurred in the year 2006. Moreover reiteratedly with the accused on his returning to his native place after completing his stay in a foreign country continuing to as deposed by PWs 11 and 12 subject her to harassment hence appears to incendiariese the dormancy if any of the etchings in the mind of the deceased of the trauma besetting it engendered by the accused tormenting her for delivering only female offsprings. Also from the psychological angle a man’s desire to father a male offspring is a perennial desire in a majority of cases especially in the rural areas wherefrom both the deceased and the accused belong. The aforesaid aspiration of the accused to father a male offspring from his wedlock with the deceased took an untoward ugly turn in the accused harassing besides tormenting her on her inability to rear a male offspring. 15. The aforesaid aspiration of the accused to father a male offspring from his wedlock with the deceased took an untoward ugly turn in the accused harassing besides tormenting her on her inability to rear a male offspring. 15. Since the perpetration of tormentings by the accused upon the deceased on the facets aforesaid occurred once, its reoccurrence, on his returning home after completing his stay in a foreign country, when stands testified by PWs 11 and 12, appears to be a natural re-engenderment of his frustration arising from his inability to father a male child, frustration whereof found its outlet in his persisting to torment the deceased for her inability to rear a male offspring. In the meeting of tormentings on account of aforesaid by the accused upon the deceased there would also be want of direct evidence. Evidence, if any, to secure a conclusion of the accused even after 2006 besides after his returning home after completing his stay in a foreign country persisting in tormenting the deceased for her inability to rear a male offspring has to be mobilized from the aforesaid inference anvilled upon his psyche which for reasons afore-stated stood bruised for hence his frustration finding its outlet in his harassing also his tormenting the deceased. Moreover, when his bruised psyche stood neither soothed nor allayed rather when his frustrations qua the aforesaid facets found its outlet once in the year 2006 its reoccurrence later in the form of his on a similar account harassing the deceased is neither over-rule able rather is natural. Since no tangible explanation exists on record qua the deceased despite hers giving birth to four female children also given hers holding matrimony with the accused since 1996 of hers yet committing suicide, tangible explanation whereof would stand anchored upon hers evidently belaboring under a psychiatric ailment or hers being persistently depressed, depression whereof stood reared by reasons other than the tormentings to which she stood subjected to by the accused, fillips an inference of the depression, if any, or the mental disturbance existing in the mindset of the deceased standing nursed by the accused tormenting her for her inability to rear a male child. Consequently, given the tormentings perpetrated upon her by the accused qua her inability to rear a male offspring, traumatic effect whereof stood perennially etched in her mindset, as a corollary even in the absence of direct evidence qua the aforesaid facets also in the absence of direct evidence qua hers standing subjected to physical cruelty, the immensity of the mental trauma inflicted on her psyche is construable to be sufficient to goad her to commit suicide. 16. In aftermath the recording of findings of acquittal by the learned trial Court qua the accused for his committing an offence under Section 306 of IPC is grossly in sagacious. Also since there is a close connectivity inter-se the commission of an offence constituted under Section 498-A of IPC vis-à-vis commission of an offence constituted under Section 306 of IPC, the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal qua the accused qua his committing an offence under Section 306 of IPC whereas its recording findings of conviction against him for his committing an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, has committed a gross travesty of the solemn principle of criminal jurisprudence, of, with a offence under Section 498-A of IPC standing provenly committed by the accused its begetting a natural ensuing sequel of the accused being also liable for conviction under section 306 IPC. Thereupon too, gross perversity besides absurdity permeates the rendition of the learned trial Court. Further more with the accused not assailing the findings of conviction recorded against him under Section 498-A of IPC renders open a conclusion of his accepting the relevant findings recorded against him by the learned trial Court hence paving way for this Court to rely upon the findings recorded by the learned trial Court qua his being amenable for conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. 17. The crux of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court whereby it recorded findings of acquittal qua the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C is quashed and set aside. Also, this Court holds that prima-facie the benefit of grant of probation of offenders Act to the accused for his standing convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is also quashed and set aside. Now, let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence on 10th August, 2016.