JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants - original accused against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the learned 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2011 whereby original accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and RI for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 114 of IPC whereas original accused No. 2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 114 of IPC and SI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 114 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They were given set off for the period undergone in jail. 2. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint was filed by the complainant- Mansing @ Mansukh Nathabhai Parmar, resident of Chhapri against the accused stating that marriage of his sister-Rasilaben was solemnized with accused No. 1 at Village Shilodar prior to six years in 2005. It was alleged inter alia that initially marriage life was going on smoothly, however, after some time, regarding household work, physical and mental harassment was caused to her. However, no complaint was filed as a compromise was arrived at between the parties with the help of third party, Sarpanch of Village. On 20.12.2010 at about 5 a.m., it was noticed that Rasila accidentally fell in the well and she passed away at Keshod Government Hospital. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. 2.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Mehul Vakharia for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the appellants-original accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent-State of Gujarat. 4. Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate for the original accused, drawing attention of this Court on the depositions of P.W. No. 1-Dr. Kunil Ramanikbhai Vyas-Exh. 11, the doctor who performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. No. 2-Sanjay Kalabhai Kodiya-Exh. 16, the panch of inquest panchnama, submitted that it has come on record that the victim accidentally fell in the well when she along with other family members was repairing pipes in the agricultural field during night hours as electricity was made available at the place. He also took this Court through the deposition of P.W. No. 9-Dayabhai Hajabhai Humbal-Exh. 31, the Police Station Officer and P.W. No. 10-Nagabha Jambha Rana-Exh. 42, the Investigating Officer and submitted that initial version of these witnesses was that the victim accidentally fell in the well when all the family members were doing agricultural work during night hours. He also took this Court through the deposition of P.W. No. 9-Dayabhai Hajabhai Humbal-Exh. 31, the Police Station Officer and P.W. No. 10-Nagabha Jambha Rana-Exh. 42, the Investigating Officer and submitted that initial version of these witnesses was that the victim accidentally fell in the well when all the family members were doing agricultural work during night hours. He further submitted that the marriage span of the deceased with accused No. 1 was of six years and two children were born out of said wedlock and at no point of time, there was complaint of any physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the appellants-accused nor was there any allegation for demand of dowry and therefore, no inference can be drawn and hence, ingredients of offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC were not made out, however, the trial court, without considering these aspects, has convicted and sentenced the accused and therefore, appellants may be given benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted. 5. Learned APP, Mr. K.L. Pandya submitted that the trial court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. He further submitted that almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that physical and mental cruelty has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W. No. 4-Mansingbhai Nathabhai Parmar at Exh. 22, P.W. No. 5-Nirmalaben Hamirsinh Dodiya at Exh. 24, P.W. No. 6-Hamirsinh Mandabhai Dodiya at Exh. 25, P.W. No. 7-Devdasbhai Kanabhai Parmar at Exh. 26 on the ground that four times the deceased had returned to her parental house. He further submitted that the marriage span of the deceased was of six years and merely because a compromise was arrived at due to the intervention of Village Sarpanch, it cannot be said that mental and physical cruelty did not continue thereafter. It was, therefore, rightly held by the trial court considering the evidence of these witnesses together with the independent witnesses of doctor and investigating officer that ingredients of offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC have been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution and hence, the accused were rightly convicted and sentenced and therefore, no interference is called for in the same. 6. This Court has considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties together with the impugned judgment and order. 6. This Court has considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties together with the impugned judgment and order. 7. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that the trial court, considering the depositions of P.W. No. 4-Mansingbhai Nathabhai Parmar, the complainant at Exh. 22, P.W. No. 5-Nirmalaben Hamirsinh Dodiya, aunt (mami) of the deceased at Exh. 24, P.W. No. 6-Hamirsinh Mandabhai Dodiya, uncle (mama) of the deceased at Exh. 25, P.W. No. 7-Devdasbhai Kanabhai Parmar, uncle(kaka) of the deceased at Exh. 26, has observed that physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in view of the fact that the deceased had returned to her parental house by leaving her in-law's place on four occasions. 8. It is to be noted that the marriage span of the deceased with accused No. 1 was of six years and two children aged four years and five months respectively were born out of the wedlock. However, it appears from the cross-examination of P.W. No. 5-Nirmalaben Hamirsinh Dodiya, aunt (mami) of the deceased at Exh. 24 that prior to the incident, she had not met the deceased since last one year as she was residing at Dubai. Moreover, deposition of P.W. No. 8-Bhavnaben Pratapbhai Solanki, sister-in-law of the deceased at Exh. 29, has not supported the case of the prosecution and she had been declared hostile. In the cross-examination, she has placed the facts on record to the effect that they were doing repairing work of pipes so as to see that water may not be wasted and at that time, she accidentally fell in the well, which appears plausible. Said version is corroborated by the panchnama of scene of incident at Exh. 19 and inquest panchnama Exh. 17. Apart from that, it is clear that accidental janvajog entry was made at 5.45 a.m. after the incident at about 2.30 a.m. on 20.12.2010 and the victim was immediately shifted to the hospital where Dr. Kunil Ramanikbhai Vyas has performed postmortem on her dead body at 11 a.m. on 20.12.2010 wherein probable cause of death has been mentioned as asphyxia due to drowning. Final cause of death as per Exh. 15 has been stated to be asphyxia due to drowning. Kunil Ramanikbhai Vyas has performed postmortem on her dead body at 11 a.m. on 20.12.2010 wherein probable cause of death has been mentioned as asphyxia due to drowning. Final cause of death as per Exh. 15 has been stated to be asphyxia due to drowning. Said aspects have been proved through the evidence of P.W. No. 1-Dr. Kunil Ramanikbhai Vyas. Thus, it is proved by the prosecution that death of the deceased was accidental and not suicidal. 9. It is to be noted that incident in question occurred when the deceased was at her matrimonial house, at that time, they all were doing agricultural work in the night in the vadi which is situated nearby their house. In fact, it appears that the house is situated in the vadi itself and to give water to the crop at night is the natural conduct because at times, the Electricity Company used to release electricity during the night and at the time the farmers and their family members used to work also during the night. It is also to be noted that no allegation of demand of dowry or any physical or mental cruelty at the hands of the accused was ever raised by the deceased. Simple statement to the effect that the deceased had returned to her parental house by leaving her in-law's house on four occasions would not give rise to allegation of any physical and mental torture meted out to the deceased at the hands of the appellants-accused especially when no other concrete evidence as to for what reason she had gone to her parental house, how much time she had spent there and what efforts were made by her parents to send her back, etc. have appeared on record. Apart from that, no complaint appears to have been filed against the appellants-accused at any time alleging any physical or mental cruelty or any demand of dowry except the alleged minor complaint regarding household chores which was settled through the Sarpanch. However, said Sarpnach, Jaydipbhai Dodiya, who took interest and compromised the matter and made the deceased to return to her matrimonial home, has not been examined by the prosecution. However, said Sarpnach, Jaydipbhai Dodiya, who took interest and compromised the matter and made the deceased to return to her matrimonial home, has not been examined by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the Court cannot place sole reliance on the contradictory versions appeared in the testimonies of witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased and when important link connecting the accused with the offence in question is missing, benefit of doubt would naturally accrue in favour of the accused. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that ingredients of offence punishable under sections 306 and 498-A are not attracted against accused. Though the marriage span is less than seven years, then also without any trustworthy substantive piece of evidence, no presumption under section 113-A or section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can also be drawn against the accused. In this regard, reference is made to a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2009 on 27/03/2014, more particularly, Para 26 of the same. The relevant portion of Para 26 is extracted hereunder: "26. We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under Section 498A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term "the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary." 10. Considering the abovereferred decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and considering the well settled legal position that the mere fact that a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. Considering the abovereferred decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and considering the well settled legal position that the mere fact that a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. Hence, a plausible doubt is created in the mind of this Court as to actual involvement of the accused in the offence in question and hence, benefit of doubt is required to be given to them. However, it appears that the trial court, in the impugned judgment and order, did not consider all these aspects and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which, in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case coupled with other evidence discussed herein above, can be said to be not proving the guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court on accused was unjust and improper. Thus, Criminal Appeal requires to be allowed. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 1 has undergone eight months of imprisonment out of his conviction of five years. 11. Under the above circumstances, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-original accused vide judgment and order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the learned 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and they acquitted of the charges levelled against them by giving benefit of doubt. They are on bail and hence, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. However, fine paid by the accused shall not be refunded. Records and proceedings shall be sent back to the courts below forthwith.