JUDGMENT : Bellunke A.S. J. This is an appeal preferred by accused No.1 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Sirsi, at Sirsi, in Sessions Case No.61/2007, wherein accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC", for the sake of brevity). Accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted by the impugned judgment. The prosecution has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3. 2. Brief facts for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Smt.Manjula and accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, daughter of the complainant Smt.Manjula was married with accused No.1 on 27.05.2002. After their marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 were not allowing Smt.Manjula to go to her parents' house. They were not allowing her to talk to them on phone. In the meanwhile, Smt.Manjula wife of accused No.1 gave birth to a female child. Since there is already a female child in house, accused No.3 giving ill-treatment and they suspected that the child does not belong to accused No.1. On account of this mental and physical torture, the Smt.Manjula is said to have committed suicide on 23.11.2006 at about 9.15 a.m. by pouring kerosene on her body and setting fire by herself. On account of sustaining burn injuries, Smt.Manjula was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli on 23.11.2006. She died on 28.11.2006 at 7.00 a.m. Therefore a complaint came to be filed by the mother of the deceased Manjula. A crime was registered. The police conducted investigation. They filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the of fences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate and after, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. After committal, a sessions case was registered by the District and Sessions Court. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused. After hearing, charge was framed for the alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was conducted. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge found that accused No.1 alone was guilty for the alleged of fences. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused. After hearing, charge was framed for the alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was conducted. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge found that accused No.1 alone was guilty for the alleged of fences. Accordingly accused No.1 has convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Further accused No.1 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the of fence punishable under Section 306 of IPC with default sentences. 3. The said judgment has been challenged by appellant/accused No.1 before this Court on the following grounds: It is contended that the judgment of the Trial court is contrary to law, provisions and against the evidence on record. There is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, except interested testimony. There are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The trial court after acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3, on the same set of evidence could not have convicted accused No.1. In fact, the deceased was staying along with her parents. No independent witnesses are examined to prove that any cruelty was caused to the deceased by accused No.1. The complaint is filed five days after the incident. It is a concocted case. The complaint was got typed after forethought and the delay has been used to concoct the case. Therefore the appellant has sought for setting aside the judgment and acquitting him by allowing this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because Smt.Manjula died within seven years of her marriage would not be a ground to apply the presumption. The alleged dying declaration made before the mother was never disclosed to anybody. The injured was not at all in a position to speak. The investigating officer has not made any attempt to record the statement of injured during her lifetime. The doctor has admitted that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Therefore, she could not have told before her mother about the cause of incident. It is PW.8 who got this complaint filed through the mother of the deceased. Husband of the PW.8 is a police constable. The doctor has admitted that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Therefore, she could not have told before her mother about the cause of incident. It is PW.8 who got this complaint filed through the mother of the deceased. Husband of the PW.8 is a police constable. The deceased was suffering from neurological disorder therefore she unable to bear the same, for her own cause she has committed suicide. The independent witnesses neighbors i.e., PWs.3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.10, the sister of the deceased has admitted that she has not spoken to the deceased. Therefore, the real cause for commission of suicide is not forthcoming from the prosecution case papers and evidence on record. Since the child of the deceased was not returned to the parents of the deceased, they have filed this false case. Neither the cruelty nor the physical harassment is proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the accused for the above said of fences. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has argued that the learned judge has given cogent reasons in paragraph No.24 of the judgment at page No.17, the deceased died within seven years of her marriage in an unnatural circumstances, therefore presumption under Section 113A of the evidence Act is very much applicable. The fact of cruelty is proved beyond reasonable doubt it is accused No.1 being husband has admitted the commission of suicide by the deceased, hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, when there is no proof of physical or mental cruelty caused to the deceased by the accused, the presumption under the above said section cannot be drawn. The burden of proof is on the prosecution has not been discharged. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are as follows: "Point No.1: Whether the prosecution had proved before the trial Court beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had caused physical and mental cruelty to the deceased to which lead the deceased to commit suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage and therefore the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC had been proved against accused No.1? Point No.2: Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial court is perverse, capricious and against to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record and therefore, it is liable to be set aside? Point No.3: What order? 8. Findings of this Court on the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the negative. Point No.2: In the affirmative. Point No.3: for the following reasons. 9. On perusal of the Ex.P.1 it looks like a well thought drafted complaint to cover the delay in filing the complaint. A foundation was laid to give explanation, as to why the other witnesses were not told by the deceased, about committing of suicide on account of cruelty, caused to her by her husband and in-laws. In the complaint, there is no allegation that the cruelty was caused on account of not meeting any illegal demand of accused. No specific reason as such it is stated in the complaint as to why the accused persons were causing cruelty to the deceased. Though the complainant is said to have gone to the hospital along with her daughters and son-in-law. She stats very cleverly that, she sent all of them out and enquired her daughter alone. According to the complainant, since she has a daughter, if she makes allegation against her husband, her daughter will be troubled and therefore the injured has not stated the cause for the incident before anybody including the police and tells it before her mother alone. Though the Hospital intimation is found in the records, does not appear to have been marked. It discloses that the deceased was admitted to hospital on 23.11.2006 at 8.20 p.m. with a history of sustaining burn injury while preparing food. Then in the same document the fact of death of the deceased in the hospital on 28.11.2006 is mentioned. Therefore, prima facie on perusal of the complaint and manner in which the reasons are assigned therein would certainly go to show that the complaint was filed after some kind of deliberation and after thought. 10. Rest of the facts, conducting of inquest panchanama, spot ponchanama and subjecting the dead body for postmortem examination etc., are not seriously disputed. Marriage invitation and photographs are produced. Marriage itself is not in dispute. 11. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. 10. Rest of the facts, conducting of inquest panchanama, spot ponchanama and subjecting the dead body for postmortem examination etc., are not seriously disputed. Marriage invitation and photographs are produced. Marriage itself is not in dispute. 11. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence she has stated that already two complaints were filed against the accused for causing cruelty to the deceased. On the assurance of the accused as they will look after her daughter well, complaints were withdrawn. Then she has further stated that for about one or two months, he looked after her daughter well and thereafter accused No.1 left the deceased and he absconded for about three months. After returning, the deceased and accused No.1 started residing separately at Siddapur and they were living happily. It is further stated by PW.1 that after receiving intimation regarding her daughter was admitted to hospital on account of burn injuries; she went to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and found that her daughter was not in a position to speak. She stayed there for three days and returned to Sirsi. Then on the same day, her relative informed her that her daughter died in the hospital. Thereafter she filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police as per Ex.P.1. Except a bold statement that her daughter committed suicide on account of harassment caused by the accused persons, absolutely no specific allegations are stated. That means the statement made in the complaint at Ex.P.1 that she had sent her daughters and others outside the room and questioned her daughter who informed the cause of incident etc. are given go back. 12. In the cross-examination of PW.1, she admitted that she used to visit the house of accused. Her other daughters were also visiting them. Two years after the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, the complainant had given two complaints. She admitted that she had filed complaint to the police in order to see her daughter, when accused makes separate house for their living. The deceased and accused were residing separately. There were other adjacent houses to their house. None of those neighbors appears to have given any statement regarding the alleged cruelty caused to the deceased. According to her, her daughter informed her on the next day after the incident that she had sustained burn injuries. The deceased and accused were residing separately. There were other adjacent houses to their house. None of those neighbors appears to have given any statement regarding the alleged cruelty caused to the deceased. According to her, her daughter informed her on the next day after the incident that she had sustained burn injuries. She does not know when her daughter Pushpa had come to know about this incident. She do not know whether her other daughters immediately went to KIMS Hospital after hearing the news. It is admitted that herself and another son-in-law had asked the accused to handover the grand daughter of PW.1 to them. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1, ingredients of section 498-A or section 306 of IPC are not at all made out. 13. PW.2 is another son-in-law of the complainant. There is a material improvement in his evidence that the deceased was telling him that her husband was always harassing her to give money. Therefore, on 2-3 occasions he had given Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. He was informed that the deceased was pushed to the wall by the accused and caused head injury. These facts are not at all spoken by the PW.1. Even after deceased and accused started living separately, again she was harassed. The nature of harassment and overt-acts by each of the accused are not at all spoken by this witnesses and mere bold allegation is made. Accused No.1 said to have gone to Bengaluru for about three months. He was working in Sagar. Then people of the complainant side brought the accused to Siddapur police station and gave one more complaint against him. 14. Pw.2 further deposed that after receiving intimation regarding deceased sustaining burn injury he went to the hospital along with others and saw that the deceased was not in a position to speak. All the witnesses have returned from the hospital but none of them gave any complaint to the police regarding the incident. He admitted that on the same day he had gone to Siddapur, where the house of accused was there and then went to police station. He has neither enquired any neighbors nor gave any complaint to the police. Then Police informed him that the deceased has sustained burn injuries and has been taken to Hubli Hospital. By that time other family members had already gone there. He has neither enquired any neighbors nor gave any complaint to the police. Then Police informed him that the deceased has sustained burn injuries and has been taken to Hubli Hospital. By that time other family members had already gone there. Though he had come back to Siddapur two days prior to the death of Smt.Manjula, but he has not given any complaint. Though he denied that Smt.Manjula was suffering from nerve disaster but according to him, after the marriage since she had sustained injury, she was given treatment. He also admitted that after the death of Manjula they had demanded female child, but accused No.1 refused. But according to him, accused No.1 agreed to give child, if the case is withdrawn. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that on account of refusal of giving of female child i.e., daughter of deceased Manjula to the complainant's party possibility of filing a complaint of cruelty and abetment to commit suicide cannot be ruled out. 15. Pw.3 is said to be a nearby resident of house of the accused. According to her the neighbors raised voice stating that the deceased has sustained burn injuries. Then immediately she went there and she found that the deceased lying with burn injuries. She covered her body with a blanket. When she went there, only 3rd accused was there. Then first accused was summoned that means at the time of incident accused No.1 was not there nor accused No.2. According to her there was cordial relationship between the accused and the injured. She does not know why the deceased got burnt herself etc. She also shown material objects i.e., MO.1 and 2 at the scene of offence. According to her third day after the incident, the police had come scene of offence and taken objects from there. Complaint it self is filed after the incident. 16. Pw.4 is another neighboring witness. She also found that Smt.Manjula had sustained burn injuries and she was lying in the backyard of the house below a coconut tree. Then the PW.3 came and summoned an autorikshwa and took injured to the hospital and accused No.1 is also said to have gone to the hospital along with injured. She also did not know the cause of the incident. Though she has not supported the case of the prosecution, but she was not treated as hostile. 17. Then the PW.3 came and summoned an autorikshwa and took injured to the hospital and accused No.1 is also said to have gone to the hospital along with injured. She also did not know the cause of the incident. Though she has not supported the case of the prosecution, but she was not treated as hostile. 17. Pws.5 and 6 are the attesters of the mahazar at Exs.P.2 and 3. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. 18. Pw.7 is also the inquest pancha witness and he has also not supported to the case of the prosecution. 19. PW.8 is the elder sister of the deceased. According to her after the marriage her sister become pregnant and the accused were not happy with the said fact. They were insisting her to remove the pregnancy. This is another material improvement in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. According to her the accused were stating that the female child born does not belong to accused No.1 and therefore they used to cause cruelty to the deceased. When for some time her sister came to their house at Shivamogga and accused did not join them for about 3 months. According to her, her sister was giving Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- to accused No.1 on some occasions. After receiving intimation regarding the incident, they went to the Hubli KIMS Hospital. According to her she enquired the injured she told her that accused No.1 to 3 came behind her and poured kerosene and she sustained burn injuries. This is the case neither made out by the prosecution nor stated by any other witnesses even according to PW.1 when she enquired the injured nobody was there. She has also stated that the deceased was not at all in a position to speak. Therefore, the evidence stated by PW.8 is a very serious material improvement, which raises serious doubt in the minds of the Court. 20. In the cross-examination of PW.8, she admits that her husband is a police constable since 30 years. When she enquired Smt.Manjula in the hospital, her husband was with her. If that is the case, then she ought to have filed a complaint as the information stated by injured in respect of heinous cognizable of fence of attempt to murder. According to her Siddapur police have not enquired her. Hubli police had come and noted something. When she enquired Smt.Manjula in the hospital, her husband was with her. If that is the case, then she ought to have filed a complaint as the information stated by injured in respect of heinous cognizable of fence of attempt to murder. According to her Siddapur police have not enquired her. Hubli police had come and noted something. They have not filed any complaint when the accused insisted to remove the pregnancy. She does not know whether the injured had taken any treatment. As such, she denied that the deceased was suffering from nerve disorder. She admits that accused No.1 is an auto driver before marriage of her sister. Though raji panchayath was held 2-3 times after the marriage but there is no evidence to substantiate the said fact. She admits that they were insisting accused No.1 to live in Shivamogga and they will get him an employment, for that accused No.1 had refused. Thereafter a complaint was filed. She denies that the police had advised accused No.1 and his wife to live separately from accused No.2 and 3. But separate living is admitted by other witnesses. Therefore, the evidence of PW.8 cannot be believed at all. On the other hand it contradicts the evidence of other witnesses. 21. Then PW.9 is the pancha witness to Ex.P.2. He admits that he is stock witness of the police station and he singed nearly 2-3 panchanamas. But he denied the same. 22. Pw.10 is the daughter of PW.1 and elder sister of the deceased. According to her she has heard that the accused were insisting not to have a child now. On account of the deceased became pregnant, they used to beat to the deceased. All these facts have heard by her, but from whom is not disclosed. Therefore the evidence stated by her is totally hearsay evidence and has also suffers from material improvements and contradicts. The evidence of other witnesses. She deposed that the deceased and accused were residing separately for some time. According to her the deceased was telling her that her husband has not providing daily needs and she is eating green grams. Even prior to six months to the incident, they were residing separately. Then she further deposed that the accused was not coming to the home at night when child was sick etc. According to her the deceased was telling her that her husband has not providing daily needs and she is eating green grams. Even prior to six months to the incident, they were residing separately. Then she further deposed that the accused was not coming to the home at night when child was sick etc. After receiving intimation she went to Siddapur and found that deceased was taken to Hubli hospital there also she went and talk to her. She only recognized her when on hearing of her voice. She was not able to see, when she questioned. She told her that on account of the cruelty caused by her husband and in-laws, she got sustained burn injuries. Inspite of that she has not filed any complaint. When admittedly the deceased was not in a position to speak at all, I find that the evidence of PW.10 cannot be believed even without reference to the cross-examination. However, in the cross-examination, she deposed that when she talk with the injured nobody was there. Whereas, the complainant herself has stated that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Though she claims to have stated to the police on 24th itself Smt.Manjula had told her and she was in a position to speak. But the Investigating officer has not made any attempt to record the statement of the injured. The Taluka Executive Magistrate was not summoned to record the statement of the deceased when she was alive. Though she was accompanied by her husband and her elder sister etc., but they have not filed any complaint to the Police. Hence, I find that this evidence is also does not prove and alleged of fences. 23. PW.11 is the Investigating Officer. He stated in his evidence that on 23.11.2006 he received the intimation at Ex.P.4. He obtained an endorsement from the doctor that the injured was not in a position to speak. If that is the case, then all the evidence stated by the complainant and her daughters and son-in-law etc cannot be believed. Therefore, the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before her mother is not at all proved. No such case has been made out in the case of the prosecution. Then inquest panchanama was conducted and handed over the same for further investigation. Therefore, the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased before her mother is not at all proved. No such case has been made out in the case of the prosecution. Then inquest panchanama was conducted and handed over the same for further investigation. He admitted that he had received intimation regarding, the injured has been admitted to the hospital with a history of burn injury to an extent of 90%. Though he had gone to Siddapur Hospital but has not met any relatives of the deceased. 24. PW.12 is another Investigating Officer who received the complaint at Ex.P.1 and registered the crime and then got conducted inquest panchanama of the dead body, spot panchanama and seized of MO.1 and MO.2 and then recorded the statement of witnesses etc. He claims to arrested the accused seized the documents like photographs and marriage invitation card etc. Other accused obtained anticipatory bail only accused No.1 was arrested, the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory report was taken at Ex.P.6. He has obtained the documents pertaining to the scene of offence. Though the information received from the hospital was entered in the station house diary. But no case was registered, though it disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. Though PW.1 was in a position to speak when the complaint was filed, yet the further statement was recorded on the next day. He has not enquired any doctor and he has not enquired whether the deceased was not in a position to speak or not. He has not gone to the hospital during the four days period, when the deceased was alive. He does not know when the earlier two complaints were filed against the accused and he is not aware where those documents are there. Therefore, on appreciating the evidence on record, I find that the serious lapses in the investigation. Therefore, they cannot ignore too. 25. PW.13 is the doctor who had conducted the inquest panchanama of the dead body and had given report at Ex.P.5 which is not disputed. 26. PW.14 is the doctor who had first admitted the injured in the Siddapur Hospital with a history of burn injuries. He had given first aid. Then Police had asked him to certify that the injured was in a position to speak or not. But he has given endorsement at Ex.P.4 that the injured was not in a position to speak. PW.14 is the doctor who had first admitted the injured in the Siddapur Hospital with a history of burn injuries. He had given first aid. Then Police had asked him to certify that the injured was in a position to speak or not. But he has given endorsement at Ex.P.4 that the injured was not in a position to speak. Thereafter the injured was sent to KIMS hospital Hubli for further treatment. He admitted that even prior to the incident he knew the deceased and her husband. According to him they used to come for treatment. He admitted that the deceased was coming to him as she was suffering from neurological disorder. He admits that he has not neurophysician. According to him he was informed by accused No.1 that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on account of stove burst. He has not given any wound certificate. He admitted that he has not written in the MLC register that the injured was not in a position to speak at all. The said evidence also does not in any way corroborate the case of the prosecution. 27. PW.15 is the relative of the deceased who had gone to see the injured in the hospital. She has seen the dead body of the deceased and singed the mahazar at Ex.P.3. 28. Therefore on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I find that the prosecution had measurably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt none of the ingredients of section 498-A or section 306 of IPC were made out. The reasons assigned by the leaned Sessions Judge in coming to the conclusion would only goes to show that the conviction is moral conviction and not a legal conviction. On what basis, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the alleged offences are proved is not at all stated in the judgment. No reasons are assigned as to why the evidence is to be believed. Unless and until the prosecution had proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. It cannot asked to apply the presumption provided under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Therefore, I find that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is perverse, capricious, against the facts and evidence available on record. 29. Unless and until the prosecution had proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. It cannot asked to apply the presumption provided under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Therefore, I find that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is perverse, capricious, against the facts and evidence available on record. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbabu and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 17 SCC 526 held that unless there is direct evidence to show that the accused was aiding or instigating the deceased to commit suicide, or entered into conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution has relied upon Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, under which the court may presume on proof of circumstances enumerated therein, and having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that the suicide had been abetted by the accused. The explanation to Section 113-A further clarifies that cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the IPC. Under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word "cruelty" in Section 498-A IPC. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. The court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein this Court observed: This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the above said circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression 'may presume' suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -'the other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'may presume' used in Section 113- A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says - 'Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it. " On such slender evidence, therefore, we are not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC." 30. Looking from any angle the conviction is not at all sustainable in law, facts and evidence on record and accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative. Hence, this Court is passed the following: ORDER 1. Appeal filed by the appellant /accused No.1 under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C is allowed. 2. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.20010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Sirsi at Sirsi in S.C.No.61/2007 convicting appellant accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 is hereby set aside. Appellant/Accused No.1 is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 3. Bail bond stands cancelled. 4. Fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded. 5. Office is directed to send back the records along with copy of this judgment to do further needful action.