JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before this Court against the judgment dated 29.10.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 14-K-VII/11, Sessions Trial No. 22/2011, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498- A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The complaint is that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective and to the contrary based findings on hypothesis, conjectures and surmises. The reasoning, the trial Court has recorded while acquitting the accused, is manifestly unreasonable and untenable. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have erroneously been discarded for untenable reasons only on account of they being in near relations of the deceased without there being any proof of enmity of the witnesses with the accused. Cogent and reliable evidence suggesting that immediately before her death, the deceased visited her parental house on 22.3.2011 and apprised her parents about her harassment and torture in the matrimonial home show that she was tortured and harassed immediately before the commission of suicide by her. An abrasion on outer aspect lumber region in left side establishes that the deceased was administered beatings before her death as the accused allegedly failed to explain the said injury. Since the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with accused Bhupinder Kumar and the prosecution has produced satisfactory evidence to establish that she was being tortured and harassed in the matrimonial home, the presumption against them to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased should have been drawn. The claim of the respondent-State is, therefore, that despite of the prosecution having proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused have been erroneously acquitted of the charge. 3. In order to decide the fate of the present appeal, it is desirable to take note of the facts of this case in a nut shell. The case under Section 498-A/306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered in Police Station Kangra against both the accused at the instance of PW-1 Onkar Chand, the father of deceased Naina. Naina was married in April, 2008 to accused No. 1 Bhupinder Kumar. Accused No. 2 Smt. Samangla Devi was her mother-in-law. The case under Section 498-A/306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered in Police Station Kangra against both the accused at the instance of PW-1 Onkar Chand, the father of deceased Naina. Naina was married in April, 2008 to accused No. 1 Bhupinder Kumar. Accused No. 2 Smt. Samangla Devi was her mother-in-law. As per the prosecution story, the deceased was treated nicely for some time by the accused persons in the matrimonial home. They started treating her with cruelty at the pretext that sufficient dowry was not given to her by her parents and that the articles given in dowry were defective after 2-3 months of her marriage. The deceased as and when used to come to her parental house had been disclosing her miseries and harassment at the hands of the accused at the pretext of demand for dowry to her parents. Her parents had been pacifying her that they will take up the matter with the accused and ensure that she was not tortured by them any further. On 22.3.2011 also, when she visited her parental house to attend “chawarkha”, she told her parents that she was being tortured by the accused. Her parents, however, sent her back to the matrimonial home on the assurance that the matter will be taken up with her husband and mother-in-law, the accused persons. She, therefore, returned to matrimonial home. However, on the next date i.e. 23.3.2011, she consumed poison and her father PW-1 Onkar Chand was informed at 1:00 PM over his cell phone in this regard. Her parents accompanied by other villagers and relatives though reached at the place of accused persons where they came to know that she had been shifted to the hospital at Tanda. However, when they reached in the hospital, they found Naina having already expired. 4. The statement of PW-1 Onkar Chand Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the hospital by the police. On the basis of Ext. PW-1/A, FIR Ext. PW-11/A was registered in Police Station, Kangra. The investigation was partly conducted by PW-12 HHC Mahinder Singh and partly by PW-14 ASI Santosh Raj. The witnesses, PW-1 Onkar Chand, father of the deceased, her mother Smt. Sudarshana Devi (PW-2), sister Neelma Devi (PW-3) and aunt Soma Devi (PW-4) were associated during the investigation of the case. 5. PW-1/A, FIR Ext. PW-11/A was registered in Police Station, Kangra. The investigation was partly conducted by PW-12 HHC Mahinder Singh and partly by PW-14 ASI Santosh Raj. The witnesses, PW-1 Onkar Chand, father of the deceased, her mother Smt. Sudarshana Devi (PW-2), sister Neelma Devi (PW-3) and aunt Soma Devi (PW-4) were associated during the investigation of the case. 5. PW-5 Megh Nath was examined to prove that PW-1 Onkar Chand came to the house of accused in his presence and discussed the matter qua harassment of his daughter in their house with them. He, however, has not supported the prosecution case in this regard. The remaining witnesses are mostly police officials who remained associated during the course of investigation of the case in one way or the other. PW-8 Kaptan Singh is also formal because he has photographed the dead body whereas PW-13 Dr. Susheel Sharma has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. On the other hand, both the accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They both have admitted that the deceased was married to accused No. 1 in April, 2008. However, the remaining incriminating circumstances put to them during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been denied being wrong for want of knowledge. In their defence, it was pleaded that they are innocent and were implicated falsely in this case. Accused No. 1 has further stated that he started depositing Rs. 100/- per month in the name of his wife, deceased Naina, in the Post Office right from 20.4.2009 and continued to deposit the same till March, 2011 i.e. during her life time. 7. Accused have also examined Anjali Sharma (DW-1), Post Office (Recurring Deposit) Agent, who has supported the plea raised by the accused persons qua deposit of Rs. 100/- per month in the account of the deceased which was opened by her husband accused No. 1 Bhupinder Kumar. 8. Learned trial Judge, after holding full trial has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. They both have therefore been acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. 9. Sh. D.S. Nainta, learned Addl. 8. Learned trial Judge, after holding full trial has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. They both have therefore been acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. 9. Sh. D.S. Nainta, learned Addl. Advocate General, has argued with all vehemence that the evidence as has come on record by way of testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 amply demonstrate that the deceased has committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with accused Bhupinder Kumar and that it is accused persons alone who have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. According to Mr. Nainta, therefore, it is a case where presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, should have been drawn against both the accused as they failed to explain that if cruelty and harassment of the deceased at their hand was not the cause of commission of suicide by her, what prompted her to take such a drastic step. 10. Sh. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the State has very ably argued that mere allegations of harassment and cruel treatment meted out by the accused persons to the deceased is not sufficient to attribute guilt to them. According to Mr. Chitkara, in order to make out a case against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to plead and prove instances of cruelty, its nature and the steps taken by her parents on coming to know about the so called harassment of their daughter at the hands of the accused. Mr. Chitkara has also pointed out various contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the improvements made by the witnesses while appearing in the witness box. Therefore, while supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Chitkara has sought the dismissal of the present appeal, being devoid of merits. 11. We shall first deal with the plea relating to applicability of Section 306 of the IPC in the case in hand. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The Apex Court in Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009(4) SCC 52 , while discussing the scope of Section 306 of the Code, in the context of abetment of suicide, has observed as under:- “8. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The Apex Court in Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009(4) SCC 52 , while discussing the scope of Section 306 of the Code, in the context of abetment of suicide, has observed as under:- “8. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows:- "306 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.” 12. The abetment of a thing has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. The circumstances under which abetment of suicide by a person on being instigated by another person can be inferred have been discussed again by the Apex Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2010(1) SCC 707 . The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows:- “12.At the outset, we intend to address the issue regarding the applicability of Section 306 IPC in the facts of the present case. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They read as follows:- "306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. * * * 107. They read as follows:- "306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. * * * 107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. * * * Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:- "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 , this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6: "6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence." [See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52 ] 15. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence." [See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52 ] 15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. The expression `abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 18. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause `thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.” 13. What constitutes an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code has also been discussed by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Pardeep Singh and another, reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 1431. The relevant text of this judgment is also reproduced as under: “10. At the outset it is desirable to discuss as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498- A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that sine qua non to establish the said offence is subjecting to cruelty the wife by her husband or relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or willful conduct of the husband of such woman or a relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.” 14. We may also make reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330 , wherein it has been held as under:- “11. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 12. So far as the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused.” 15. It is now to be seen in the light of the principles settled in the judgments (supra) that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased by administering beatings to her and also treating her with cruelty at the pretext of demand for dowry. 16. In order to infer the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C, the harassment of woman should not be mere harassment and rather harassment to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of dowry. In order to constitute cruelty, a solitary instance of harassment is not sufficient but there should be series of acts of harassment of the woman by her husband and his relatives. In this regard, we are drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002(5) SCC 177 . The relevant text reads as follows:- “18. A faint attempt has been made during the course of submissions that explanation (a) to the Section stands attracted and as such no fault can be attributed to the judgment. This, in our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason of the specific finding of the trial Court and the High Court concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and not suicide. If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of explanation (a) would not arise - neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted. In any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498- A and not de-hors the same. In any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498- A and not de-hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under Section 498-A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b). The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of Section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record.” 17. Now coming to the case in hand, admittedly, the deceased was married to accused Bhupinder Kumar in April, 2008. There is again no quarrel that she took poison on 23.3.2011 in the matrimonial home and died in Dr. R.P.G.M.C., Tanda, District Kangra. She has committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage in the matrimonial home. As per the medical evidence, she died in an unnatural death i.e. by consuming phosphine gas poisoning. The question which needs adjudication, however, is that it is on account of her harassment and torturing, she had taken such a drastic step to put an end of her life. The answer to this poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in negative because the evidence produced by the prosecution even if taken as it is does not disclose any specific instance of harassment and cruelty and such allegations against the accused are rather general in nature. Her father, PW-1 Onkar Chand, while in the witness box tells us that at the time of marriage of deceased with accused No. 1, neither any list of dowry was given by the accused persons nor did they demand dowry articles from them. PW-2 Sudarshana Devi, the mother of the deceased, has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of marriage, the accused had never made any demand for dowry. PW-2 Sudarshana Devi, the mother of the deceased, has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of marriage, the accused had never made any demand for dowry. Similar is the version of PW-3 Neelma Devi, the sister of deceased as she has also admitted that at the time of marriage neither accused demanded dowry nor any list of dowry articles was given. Interestingly enough, the aunt of deceased, PW-4 Soma Devi has also made the similar statement while in the witness box as according to her, right from her marriage till her death no article in dowry was given to the deceased by her parents. Not only this, PW-1 Onkar Chand has also admitted that right from the date of marriage of deceased with accused No. 1, he has never given any money to her. Such evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of prosecution witnesses itself makes it crystal clear that the prosecution case qua the accused had been torturing the deceased with cruelty at the pretext of demand for dowry is false. The story to this effect seems to be engineered and fabricated just to implicate the accused in a false case. 18. Interestingly enough, the complainant party never made any complaint against the accused to respectables in the area or the authorities concerned, such as local Panchayat and police etc. We may make reference here to the testimony of the complainant PW-1, who has admitted that he never lodged any report against the accused persons with any authority, including Gram Panchayat. Similar is the version of PW-2 Smt. Sudarshana Devi, as according to her, they never lodged any complaint against the accused persons anywhere. The prosecution case that the deceased was being tortured and harassed even on account of articles given to her in dowry were defective is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt because PW-1 Onkar Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that he never disclosed in his statement as to what defects the accused had been pointing out in the articles given to the deceased in dowry. PW-2 Sudarshana Devi also tells us that even to her also the deceased had not disclosed as to what defects in the articles of dowry were being pointed out by the accused. PW-2 Sudarshana Devi also tells us that even to her also the deceased had not disclosed as to what defects in the articles of dowry were being pointed out by the accused. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the accused had demanded refrigerator and T.V. in dowry is an improvement because nothing to this effect has come in the statement Ext. PW-1/A recoded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. However, if the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of the prosecution witnesses qua this aspect is seen, PWs 1 to 4 while in the witness box have stated that they never disclosed the names of articles, the accused used to demand from the deceased in dowry. PW-4 Soma Devi has further stated that the deceased never disclosed that what articles were being demanded from her by the accused in dowry and as to what articles were deficient. 19. Whether the deceased visited her parental house on 22.3.2011 or on 23.3.2011 is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt for the reasons that PW-1 Onkar Chand while in the witness box has stated that the deceased had come to his house on ‘Chawarkha’ on 22.3.2011 and apprised him about her harassment by the accused. According to him, he pacified his daughter by saying that he will speak to her husband and mother-in-law and she was sent back to matrimonial home. However, PW-2 Sudarshana Devi, mother of the deceased while corroborating the statement of her husband PW-1 Onkar Chand deposed that the deceased told them about her harassment at the pretext of demand for dowry. She was sent by them to matrimonial home on the next date i.e. 23.3.2011. If coming to the testimony of Neelama Devi (PW-3), on 23.3.2011, the deceased met her at 12:00 noon and told that the accused used to harass and torture her at the pretext of demand for dowry. As per this witness also, they made the deceased to go back to the matrimonial home. Such evidence available on record is not suggestive of that the deceased was made to go back to her house by the witnesses on the same day i.e. 22.3.2011 or the next day i.e. 23.3.2011. Nothing has come on record as to whose ‘chawarkha’ was being performed on 22.3.2011. Such evidence available on record is not suggestive of that the deceased was made to go back to her house by the witnesses on the same day i.e. 22.3.2011 or the next day i.e. 23.3.2011. Nothing has come on record as to whose ‘chawarkha’ was being performed on 22.3.2011. Above all, as per the version of PW-3 Neelama, it took about two hours to reach in the matrimonial home of Naina on foot from her house. When this witness and deceased met in the house of former at 12:00 noon on that day, the deceased could have reached in the matrimonial home around 2:00 PM on that day. Had it been so, how the intimation qua the deceased having consumed poison could have been given to her father PW-1 Onkar Chand at 1:00 PM. Therefore, the prosecution story that the deceased had visited the house of her parents, a day prior to commission of suicide, seems to be engineered and fabricated just to show that immediately before the deceased consumed poison she was tortured and harassed by the accused. The prosecution has, however, miserably failed to prove so for the reason that even if it is believed that the deceased visited her parental house on 22.3.2011 and disclosed that the accused used to harass her at the pretext of demand for dowry for want of date, time and specific instance of such harassment, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the deceased was beaten up and harassed mentally as well as physically immediately before she came to the house of her parents. 20. Interestingly enough, the parents and near relations of the deceased never lodged any report against the accused persons qua alleged demand of dowry from them by the deceased and that her harassment for and in connection with demand for dowry continued till her death. The non-reporting of the matter to any authority is an improbable human conduct because normally when a daughter would tell her miserable plight in the matrimonial home in connection with demand of dowry, the parents or other family members cannot be expected to be a mute spectators and rather deal with the husband or the erring relatives of the husband sternly in accordance with law. PW-1 Onkar Chand, though tells us that when he went to the place of the accused to settle the matter with them, they quarreled with him also, however, PW-5 Megh Raj associated by the police to substantiate this aspect of the matter has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case in this regard. 21. The reappraisal of the evidence in the manner as aforesaid leads to the only conclusion that deceased though has committed suicide, however, not on account of being tortured and harassed by the accused persons. No doubt, nothing has come on record that if the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been abetted by the accused persons, what prompted her to put an end of her life, however, on this score also, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the accused. 22. It is not always necessary that suicide is committed by a married woman only on account of the fact that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband. Sometimes, it is the temperament and approach of a person to various issues coming across in his/her life also to persuade such person to take such a drastic step. 23. True it is that this incident has taken away the life of a young woman, that too, within four years of her marriage with accused No. 1 in the matrimonial home. The presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, however, cannot be drawn in this case because the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the initial onus upon it that deceased has committed suicide only on account of her harassment by the accused. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot also be drawn in this case because it is not proved that the accused used to demand dowry from her and used to torture her mentally as well as physically on this score. 24. As a matter of fact, the present is a case where nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons in relation to their demand of dowry or otherwise and the degree of cruelty was so high that she was not able to understand comparison between life and death and in such a state of mind, chosen the pangs of death, has come on record. True it is that in normal circumstances, no person is expected to take such a drastic step to do away with his/her life that too without there being any cause, however, present is not a case where it can be said that the deceased has committed suicide owing to cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused persons. 25. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by all the accused persons shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.