JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra at Dharamshala in RBT S.C. No. 52-P/VII/10 has come up in appeal to this Court on the grounds inter alia that the same being based upon hypothesis, conjectures and surmises is not legally sustainable. The prosecution evidence has not been appreciated in its right perspective and as a result thereof wrong conclusions drawn. The cogent and reliable evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1 Anu Kumari, PW-2 Pawan Kumar, PW-3 Manohar Lal, PW-6 Kalpana Devi, PW-11 Prem Lata and PW-12 Ashwani Kumar has been ignored without assigning any reason. The evidence as has come on record by way of official witnesses, including PW-10 Dr. Atul Gupta and PW-13 SI SHO PS Shahpur and the Investigating Officer Raj Kumar has also not been considered to the reasons best known to the learned trial Judge. The evidence qua the demand of dowry by the accused from the deceased has been ignored for want of any complaint qua the same by the complainant ignoring the fact that in such like cases, the parents avoid to indulge in litigation and rather to adopt the conciliatory procedure to settle the dispute. The factum of the deceased was married with the accused in January, 2007 and she committed suicide on 14.9.2009 well within 7 years of her marriage with the accused has not been taken into consideration. In view of the evidence qua cruel and mal-treatment meted out to the deceased having come on record by way of testimony of the mother, sister and other relatives of the deceased prove the guilt of the accused as it is the near relations who alone can say something in such like cases. The presumption that it is the accused who has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased can be legally drawn in such like cases and it was for the accused to have otherwise proved his innocence. He, allegedly failed to discharge the onus on him, therefore, he has been sought to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498 A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. He, allegedly failed to discharge the onus on him, therefore, he has been sought to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498 A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Deceased Pooja Devi was married with accused in January, 2007 since her mother Smt. Veena Devi was widow, therefore, the accused agreed not to demand any dowry. Therefore, in the marriage, no dowry was either demanded by the accused or given. Pooja, allegedly committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her person on 13.9.2009 at 8:30 PM. Information to this effect was received from HHC Ajit Singh posted at that time in Medical College Tanda in Police Station Shahpur that Pooja was admitted with burn injuries on her person and she has expired. The information so received was entered in Daily Diary, copy whereof is Ext. PW-13/A by PW-13, the then Insp. SHO, PS Shahpur. Subsequently, he accompanied by other police officials left for Medical College, Tanda. He prepared inquest papers Ext. PW-10/B. He also moved an application Ext. PW-10/A to Sr. Medical Officer for conducting post mortem of the deceased. The post mortem was conducted and the report Ext. PW-10/C collected. The dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He, thereafter recorded the statement Ext. PW-13/B of Veena Devi, the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis whereof, FIR Ext. PW-8/C was recorded. He got the dead body photographed vide photographs Ext. PW-13/D to Ext. PW-13/K. The spot map Ext. PW-13/L was also prepared. He had taken into possession the stove (Ext. P-5), match box (Ext. P-6), 14 match sticks (Ext. P-7) from kitchen vide memo Ext. PW-13/L. The kerosene oil was found spreaded on the floor of the kitchen. He had taken in possession the plastic canny (Ext. P-8) vide memo Ext. PW-3/A. The burnt blankets (Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-4) were also taken into possession from the courtyard along with broken pieces of bangles Ext. PW-3/B. The statements Ext. PW-13/N of PW-3 Manohar Lal, Ext. PW-13/O of PW-2 Pawan Kumar and Ext. PW-13/P of PW-6 Kalpana Kumari were recorded as per their version. The case property was handed over by him to the MHC Anjan Paul (PW-8). On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PW-3/B. The statements Ext. PW-13/N of PW-3 Manohar Lal, Ext. PW-13/O of PW-2 Pawan Kumar and Ext. PW-13/P of PW-6 Kalpana Kumari were recorded as per their version. The case property was handed over by him to the MHC Anjan Paul (PW-8). On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PA and on completion of the investigation, he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 3. Learned trial Judge on going through the challan and documents annexed therewith has concluded that a prima facie case under Section 498-A and 306 IPC is made out against the accused. Charge against him was, therefore, framed accordingly. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. The prosecution in order to sustain the charge against the accused has examined 13 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1 Anu Kumari, the younger sister of deceased Pooja, PW-2 Pawan Kumar, a neighbour, PW-3 Manohar Lal, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Pargod, PW-5 Girdhari, the owner of the vehicle in which Pooja was taken to hospital for treatment, PW-6 Kalpana Devi, a resident of the same village, PW-11 Prem Lata, maternal Aunt of the deceased and PW-12 Ashwani Kumar, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dehria, the local Gram Panchayat of the parental house of the deceased. 5. The other material prosecution witness is PW Veena Devi, the mother of the deceased. As a matter of fact, she is the complainant in this case, however, her statement could not be recorded in the trial Court as the prosecution failed to produce her in the witness-box. This Court while allowing the application filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by the appellant-State has directed learned trial Court to take all steps for securing her presence and record her statement. The same thereafter was ordered to be sent in a sealed cover. Consequently, the statement of Veena Devi has been recorded on 2.9.2016 and the same received in this Court. 6. The remaining prosecution witnesses are PW-4 Ajit Singh, Photographer, PW-7 HHC Ajit Singh, posted at that time in police booth of Medical College Tanda, PW-8 Anjan Pal, the then MHC, Police Station, Shahpur, PW-9 Const. Shadi Lal, who had taken the case property to RFSL, Dharamshala, District Kangra, PW-10 Dr. Atul Gupta, the then Registrar, Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Tanda and PW-13 Insp. SHO Raj Kumar, Police Station Shahpur. They all are formal witnesses. 7. Shadi Lal, who had taken the case property to RFSL, Dharamshala, District Kangra, PW-10 Dr. Atul Gupta, the then Registrar, Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Tanda and PW-13 Insp. SHO Raj Kumar, Police Station Shahpur. They all are formal witnesses. 7. On the other hand, the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. while admitting that the deceased was married to him in the year 2007 and that after her death, PW-13 Insp. SHO Raj Kumar has taken into possession, Stove, Match Box, Match Sticks, Plastic Kerosene Oil Canny, burnt pieces of towel and blankets, bangles etc. from his kitchen/house, has denied the remaining incriminating circumstances appearing against him either being wrong or for want of knowledge. According to him, the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. He, however, opted for not producing any evidence in his defence. 8. Learned trial Judge, on hearing the Public Prosecutor and also the learned defence counsel as well as on appreciation of the evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, therefore, has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. Learned Addl. Advocate General has argued with all vehemence that prosecution evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of prosecution witnesses amply demonstrates that it is the accused who had been torturing and harassing the deceased not only physically but mentally also at the pretext of dowry and it is due to that she has committed suicide in the matrimonial home in a period less than 2 years of her marriage with the accused. Learned Addl. Advocate General has, thus urged that it is the accused who has abetted the commission of suicide by Pooja, the deceased. He, therefore, has been sought to be convicted and sentenced for the offence he committed. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel representing the accused has urged that no iota of evidence has come on record to show that the accused after the marriage started demanding dowry from the deceased. Also that for want of evidence that he had been torturing and maltreating her, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against him. It has, therefore, been submitted that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. 10. Also that for want of evidence that he had been torturing and maltreating her, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against him. It has, therefore, been submitted that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. 10. Admittedly, the deceased was married in the month of January, 2007 with the accused. A male issue was born out of this wed-lock to the deceased who as per the prosecution evidence presently resides with the accused. There is again no dispute so as to Pooja died an unnatural death. The only disagreement, however, is that as per the prosecution story, it is the accused, who on account of his harassment and cruel treatment meted out has abetted the commission of suicide by her whereas the defence of the accused is that while cooking food on kerosene oil Stove, her clothes caught fire and irrespective of he made every possible effort to save her, she died. The question that it is the accused alone who has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased or she died accidental death on account of her clothes having caught fire while cooking food on stove has to be decided on reappraisal of the evidence available on record. However, before that it is deemed appropriate to discuss as to what constitute the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC. A bare reading of Section 498 A reveals that sine qua non to establish the commission of such an offence is subjecting the wife with cruelty by her husband or his relatives 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. We can draw support in this regard from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Pardeep Singh and another, (2013) LatestHLJ 1431 (HP). The relevant text of this judgment reads 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. Pardeep Singh and another, (2013) LatestHLJ 1431 (HP). The relevant text of this judgment reads 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." 11. We may also make reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, (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. 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." 12. Be it stated that in a case of torture and harassment of a daughter-in-law, in her matrimonial home, the allegations normally remains confined within four walls of the house and it is difficult to produce the evidence specific in nature. Be it stated that in a case of torture and harassment of a daughter-in-law, in her matrimonial home, the allegations normally remains confined within four walls of the house and it is difficult to produce the evidence specific in nature. Anyhow, the onus to prove that suicide was abetted by the accused alone is on the prosecution and to raise presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act, one of the ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty is required to be proved first by the prosecution. The evidence qua the degree of cruelty as meted out to the deceased was such a high that she could not make any distinction between the urge to live and the pangs of death should also be there on record. It is only in that eventuality commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC can be inferred. 13. In the case in hand, the material prosecution witness is Veena Devi, the complainant. During the course of recording her statement and noticing that she was not able to understand the questions, her daughter Anu Kumari (PW-1) whose statement was already recorded by learned trial Court, requested to act as an interpreter to this witness and her statement recorded with her help. The complainant has given the instances of cruelty when one month prior to her death, the deceased demanded money from her. According to her, she had given Rs. 1,000/- to the deceased for her day to day expenses and a further sum of Rs. 300/- towards bus fare etc. The deceased, according to this witness had been demanding money time and again. She, however, told her that for want of source of income, she was not able to meet their demands. The other instance is that the accused asked the deceased to bring bed from her mother, however, when she expressed her inability to provide the same, the accused made the deceased to sleep on floor. Now, if coming to the instances of cruelty disclosed by PW-1 Anu Kumari, she allegedly used to go to the house of the deceased. One month prior to her death, she had gone to the house of the deceased and stayed there for 2-3 days. The accused administered beatings to the deceased and ousted her from the house. She along with the deceased, therefore, slept in the kitchen on floor. One month prior to her death, she had gone to the house of the deceased and stayed there for 2-3 days. The accused administered beatings to the deceased and ousted her from the house. She along with the deceased, therefore, slept in the kitchen on floor. The deceased told her that the accused had been beating her for want of dowry. The above instances of cruelty alone have come on record by way of the testimony of the complainant and PW-1 Anu Kumari. If their statements in cross-examinations are seen, it is crystal clear that deceased used to cook food on kerosene oil stove. The accused and deceased had been visiting the house of the complainant once after 2-3 months. According to them, the deceased was taken to hospital by her in-laws. The people told that the deceased had expired due to bursting of stove. The statement of the complainant has been recorded with the help of the so called interpreter none else but PW-1 Anu Kumari whose statement was already recorded during the course of trial. The testimony of PW-1 Anu Kumari in cross-examination that the deceased visited her house for about 12 times after marriage shows that the relations were cordial as had the accused been cruel to the deceased, such number of visits by PW-1 Anu Kumari and the deceased to the house of each other were not possible. Not only this, according to PW-1 Anu Kumari, the accused had also been visiting her house after the marriage. As regards sleeping on floor, PW-1 Anu Kumari admitted that it generally happens in their houses that they sleep on the floor. Nothing has come in the statement of the complainant nor in that of PW-1 Anu Kumari that the accused demanded dowry in their presence. PW-1 Anu Kumari has stated in her cross-examination that the accused never demanded dowry in her presence. As regards the complainant, her statement reveals that it is the deceased who had been demanding money from her. Admittedly, at the time of marriage with the deceased, the accused had not taken any article in dowry. 14. If coming to the testimony of PW-2 Pawan Kumar, neighbour of the accused on hearing cries, he rushed to the house of the deceased and the accused covered her by a blanket. She was crying for help saying that she will never cook food on Stove again. 14. If coming to the testimony of PW-2 Pawan Kumar, neighbour of the accused on hearing cries, he rushed to the house of the deceased and the accused covered her by a blanket. She was crying for help saying that she will never cook food on Stove again. According to this witness, Pooja caught fire while cooking food on the Stove. Though, he has been cross-examined, however, his testimony in examination-in-chief remained un-shattered. PW-3 Manohar Lal Pradhan Gram Panchayat Pargod, resident of Village Lapyana, the same village after having been informed about the incident went to the spot and noticed that the deceased covered by a blanket was crying. As per this witness also, she caught fire while cooking food on Stove. PW-5 Girdhari Lal is the owner of the vehicle in which the deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment. PW-6 Kalpana Devi is also resident of same village i.e. Lapyana. According to her, the accused resides separately from them for the last two years. On 13.9.2009 at 8:30 pm, he knocked the door and told that Pooja has caught fire. She denied in her cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor that the accused told qua the deceased had poured kerosene oil on her body and thereafter set herself on fire. She along with her husband went to the house of the accused and tried to extinguish the fire by putting blanket over the deceased but of no avail. The another witness is PW-11 Prem Lata, the maternal Aunt of the deceased. According to her at the time of marriage of deceased with the accused, it was decided that dowry will not be given. She, however, later on came to know from the deceased that the accused had been torturing her for dowry. When cross-examined, she admitted that nothing was given in dowry at the time of marriage of Pooja and even after that also. The deceased had been visiting the house of her parents with her husband and even resided with them also. The deceased and her husband, the accused came to her place at Barsar in District Hamirpur also after the marriage. The deceased had been visiting the house of her parents with her husband and even resided with them also. The deceased and her husband, the accused came to her place at Barsar in District Hamirpur also after the marriage. PW-12 Ashwani Kumar, the Pradhan Gram Panchayat Dehria, the local Gram Panchayat of the complainant though has stated that the mother of the deceased told him on one occasion that the accused harassed the deceased and had been administering beatings to her on the demand of dowry. He assured her to discuss the matter with the accused. When cross-examined, he has admitted that the complainant is his neighbour. The deceased had been coming to her mother after marriage. He had not taken any action on the oral complaint made by the complainant. 15. The close scrutiny of the evidence discussed hereinabove leads to the only conclusion that the deceased though died an unnatural death but for want of cogent and reliable evidence it cannot be said that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide by her or that she was being tortured or treated with cruelty on the demand of dowry as admittedly the accused has not taken any article in dowry at the time of his marriage with her. Not only this, but his relations were cordial with the complainant and also the other relatives of the deceased, namely, her sister PW-1 Anu Kumari and the family of maternal uncle and other relatives. The deceased and accused both had been visiting the house of the complainant and other relatives frequently. The complainant has not disclosed any instance when the accused demanded dowry from her through the deceased. Her testimony rather only shows that it is the deceased who demanded money from her once or twice. She told her that for want of source of income, it may not be possible for her to fulfill their demand. The demand of bed by the accused is also not established at all. The sleeping on floor cannot also be said to be an instance of cruelty for the reason that in the rural areas, the people generally sleeps on floor also. When the mother of the deceased Veena Devi is a widow, having no source of income, the deceased must be sleeping on floor in her parental house also. The sleeping on floor cannot also be said to be an instance of cruelty for the reason that in the rural areas, the people generally sleeps on floor also. When the mother of the deceased Veena Devi is a widow, having no source of income, the deceased must be sleeping on floor in her parental house also. The present, as such, is not a case where all the ingredients of the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are established. The plea the accused has raised in his defence that while cooking food on the stove, her clothes caught fire appears to be plausible and nearer to the factual position as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses itself while in the witness-box. 16. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and the surety discharged.