JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This appeal has been filed chal lenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.243/2007 dated 10/12/2010 by V Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum wherein appellant/accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under: PW.3-Sri.Bhimray of Indal Nagar, Shindolli is complainant whereas, PW-4 Smt.Sharada is his wife and they are having six daughters and a son. Of the six daughters deceased Rajashree married the accused/appellant under love affairs by registered marriage against the wish and desire of her parents and started residing with accused at Vaibhav Nagar locality of Belgaum in a rented house and accused is an employee of Indal Factory. 3. After the marriage, the husband and wife have led a marital life for few months and thereafter the appellant/accused was addicted to bad vices of drinking alcohol and began to ill-treat his wife deceased Rajashree without looking her properly and offering her physical, mental torture. She did not begot any child during the wedlock of three years' duration and he used to inform the ill-treatment, harassment to her parents over phone and they used to advice her to tolerate the situations to lead the life and face it. Inspite of it, the accused person had not stopped his illegal activities of torturing his wife. 4. On 23.07.2007, some one from Vaibhav Nagar locality, Belgaum telephoned to the house of Pattanshetty who is the neighbor of complainant and informed that on previous night, deceased Smt.Rajashree has committed suicide by hanging herself to the hook of the roof by means of veil. He immediately accompanied by his wife in a rickshaw rushed to Vaibhav Nagar locality of Belgaum and notice the dead body of his daughter deceased Smt.Rajashree lying on the cot having ligature marks over the neck. People assembled therein were talking that yesterday night she has committed suicide by hanging herself to the roof by means of veil and they tried to rescue her life by taking the body down on cot, but could not succeed. Thus, on account of cruelty, torture offered by the accused person, deceased Smt.Rajashree fed up in the life has committed suicide and on Ex.P.3 complaint of complainant, the criminal law was set into motion. 5. The Investigating Officer after inspection has filed charge sheet. Thus, on account of cruelty, torture offered by the accused person, deceased Smt.Rajashree fed up in the life has committed suicide and on Ex.P.3 complaint of complainant, the criminal law was set into motion. 5. The Investigating Officer after inspection has filed charge sheet. Thereafter, the learned IV JMFC exercising power under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to Sessions Court, Belgaum for trial. The charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC were framed against the accused person. But the accused person has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in order to establish it's case examined 16 witnesses as PW1 to PW16 and producedEx.P1 to Ex.P17 and got identified five material objects at M.O.1 to M.O.5. 7. On closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused person was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he has denied the evidence incriminating against him and he did not chose to lead defence evidence. 8. The trial Court framed points for consideration and after hearing arguments has convicted the appellant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 9. The appellant/accused has chal lenged the said Judgment of conviction and sentence in this appeal on the following grounds: a. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to come to conclusion that the appellant/accused is guilty of the offence alleged. c. Learned Sessions Judge has appreciated and enlighten that the evidence in the required manner and reached to the wrong conclusion. d. There is absolutely no evidence on the record to show how the appellant/accused allegedly subjected the deceased Smt. Rajashree to cruelty extending the benefit of Section 113A of Evidence Act to the case of the prosecution in the absence of any evidence about subjecting the said Smt. Rajashree to cruelty is completely wrong and observation of learned Sessions Judge is based only on presumption and assumptions. e. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in believing the entire said testimony of parents of deceased. f. The reasoning quoted by the learned Sessions Judge is totally erroneous and the same has led to miscarriage of justice. e. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in believing the entire said testimony of parents of deceased. f. The reasoning quoted by the learned Sessions Judge is totally erroneous and the same has led to miscarriage of justice. g. The trial Court failed to observe that the prosecution has not led sufficient cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish the appellant/accused is guilty of the offence al leged. h. The prosecution has utterly fai led to prove recorded evidence on the important and material aspects. The evidence on record is unbelievable. The learned Sessions Judge has erred to believe the interested version of the interested witnesses who are the parents of the deceased. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for appellant/accused (Amicus Curiae) and learned HCGP for State. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that except the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 there is no other evidence of the neighbourers of the deceased regarding illtreatment by the accused to the deceased. The parents of the deceased i.e. PW.3 and PW.4 are in enmity with accused/appellant as deceased has married him against their wi ll and it was a inter-caste marriage and therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be believed. He further argued that there is no material to raise presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act and learned Sessions Judge has on assumption and presumption casting the burden on the accused to explain the death of the deceased, has convicted him. 12. On the contra, the learned HCGP has argued that the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is sufficient to establish cruelty by the accused to the deceased and the same has lead the deceased to committed suicide and accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and the learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant/accused. 13. On going through the grounds raised and arguments advanced, the following points arise for my consideration: i. Whether prosecution has proved that the appellant/accused being husband of the deceased Smt.Rajashree after her marriage and prior to 22.07.2007 subjected her to cruelty, torture etc. which is of such a nature is l ikely to drive her to commit suicide and committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC? which is of such a nature is l ikely to drive her to commit suicide and committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC? ii) Whether prosecution has further proved that on 22.07.2007 between 9.30 p.m. to 11p.m. deceased Smt.Rajashree on such abetment of her husband committed suicide and the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC? 14. My answer to the above points are in the negative for the following reasons: The deceased Smt.Rajashree married the accused three years prior to her death and it was her love marriage against the will and wish of her parents and accused belongs to Christian Community. It is also not in dispute that after marriage deceased Smt.Rajashree was residing with the accused in a rented house. It is also not in dispute that deceased Smt.Rajashree has committed suicide after three years of her marriage in the rented house in which she was residing with accused/appellant. It is also not in dispute that deceased committed suicide by hanging with the help of veil and the same has been established by the evidence of doctor(PW.13) who has conducted post mortem and submitted post mortem report as per Ex.P.13. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has raised presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act on the basis of oral testimony of parents of the deceased who are examined as PW3 and PW4 as the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage. When presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act has to be applied has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of MANGAT RAM V. STATE OF HARYANA, (2014) AIR SC 1782 , at Para No.26 which reads as under: 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 113-A 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 498-A 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. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was a dowry demand, nor the reasoning adopted by the Courts below would be sufficient enough to draw a presumption so as to fall under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257 :( AIR 2004 SC 2790 : 2004 AIR SCW 1283 ), wherein this Court has examined the scope of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and Sections 306, 107, 498-A etc. and held that, unlike Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on the proof of circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. This Court held that, under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subject her to cruelty. Even though those facts are established, the Court is not bound to presume that suicide has been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A, therefore, gives discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption having regard to all other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty, it can 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. 16. Under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subjected her to cruelty. The burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498A of IPC is by the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased committed suicide and accused abetted the suicide. The burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498A of IPC is by the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased committed suicide and accused abetted the suicide. It is therefore, to be ascertained whether evidence on record is sufficient to establish that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 17. The trial Court has placed much reliance on PW.3 and PW.4 who are the parents of the deceased to establish cruelty by the appellant. Whether the testimony of PW.3 and PW.4 are trustworthy has to be considered. PW.3 is father and PW.4 is mother of the deceased Smt.Rajashree. PW.3 has stated that his daughter Rajashree has married accused/ appellant by registered marriage and after marriage she was residing with accused in Vaibhav nagar in a rented house. He has further stated that the deceased when she was residing along with her husband in Vaibhav Nagar was not looked after properly by her husband and always he used to quarrel with her and he did not know for what they are quarreling and whenever there was a phone call his daughter used to tell him that her husband used to quarrel with her. In the cross examination of the PW.3, it is elicited that the marriage of the deceased with accused is love marriage and it was against the will and wish of the parents as accused belongs to different caste and they have objected for the marriage of the deceased Rajashree with accused as he belong to Christian community. It is also elicited in the cross examination of PW.3 that after marriage deceased Rajashree has not visited their house and they have also not visited her house. It is also elicited that the relation between the deceased and her parents was disconnected after her marriage with the accused/appellant. PW.3 has stated that they belong to Lingayath caste and accused belongs to Christian community and they married each other against his will. PW.4 has stated that her daughter occasionally used to make a phone call to her to tell her that her husband used to come to house by drinking and assaulting her. PW.3 has stated that they belong to Lingayath caste and accused belongs to Christian community and they married each other against his will. PW.4 has stated that her daughter occasionally used to make a phone call to her to tell her that her husband used to come to house by drinking and assaulting her. In the cross examination of PW.4, it is elicited that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was against the will of PW.4 and deceased left her house and married accused on her own will and they did not give any consent for the marriage as the accused belongs to different caste and they have not attended the marriage of the accused with the deceased. 18. It is also elicited in the cross examination that they decided that Rajashree should get marry as per their wish and at one point of time the marriage of deceased Rajashree was fixed with a person of Athani and eight days prior to date of marriage accused went to Athani, stayed in lodge and told relatives of the bride groom that Rajashree is pregnant and she is not good and therefore the said marriage was broke down. It is also elicited in the cross examination of PW.4 that after registered marriage of Rajashree with the accused they had filed a complaint against the accused, that he has kidnapped Rajashree in Madhavnagar Police station and Police closed the said complaint after enquiry. It is also elicited from the PW.4 that after marriage with accused Rajashree has not visited her house not even once and they have also not visited the house of the Rajashree at any point of time. On looking to the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW.3 and PW.4, it quite clear that PW.3 and PW.4 are not happy with the marriage of deceased Rajashree with accused as he belongs to different caste and they cutoff the relationship with the deceased Rajashree and they have not visited her house and deceased Rajashree has also not visited their house. Therefore, under these circumstances, the deceased making a phone call to her parents and intimating about the ill treatment by the accused appears to be not trustworthy as PW.3 and PW.4 parents of Rajashree are angry against the accused. Therefore, under these circumstances, the deceased making a phone call to her parents and intimating about the ill treatment by the accused appears to be not trustworthy as PW.3 and PW.4 parents of Rajashree are angry against the accused. Therefore, evidence of the PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be believed regarding cruelty by the accused to the deceased which they came to know over telephone call made by the deceased Rajashree to them. 19. Pw-1 who is the neighbor of accused and deceased has deposed that he do not know how accused was treating his wife and he has not seen any quarrel between the accused and deceased. PW.2 another neighbor of the accused and deceased has stated that accused and deceased Rajashree are residing in the opposite house and he did not know anything about any ill-treatment by accused to the deceased. PW.8 is also another neighbor of accused and deceased and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.10 is a landlord of the house wherein the accused and deceased are residing as tenants. HE has deposed that accused and deceased were residing in his house as tenants since nine months prior to her death. He has further deposed that he did not know how accused is treating his wife in house. He further stated that the accused and deceased were leading happy married l ife. PW.11 is the wife of PW.10 and she deposed that she did not know how accused was treating his wife Rajashree when they residing in their house as tenants. 20. Pw.14 is also another neighbor and she has deposed that she do not know how was the relationship between accused and the deceased prior to death of deceased. 21. As evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 requires corroboration as they are interested witnesses and as they were not happy with the marriage of deceased with the accused as they belong to different caste. The neighbours PW.1,2,8, 10, 11 And 14 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of any corroboration, evidence of PW.3 and 4 cannot be believed. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased by coming drunk to the house. The neighbours PW.1,2,8, 10, 11 And 14 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of any corroboration, evidence of PW.3 and 4 cannot be believed. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased by coming drunk to the house. Even though, the death of deceased is within a period of seven years from the date of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised as the prosecution has not established the cruelty. 22. "A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment." The same has been observed in MANGAT RAM's supra. 23. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the assumptions and presumptions and placing reliance on a weak evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 has raised presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act and committed error in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge placed the burden on the accused/appellant to show the cause for death of the deceased as he was residing with her and as the accused has not establish the same, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly presumed that the appellant/accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 24. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC against the appellant and consequently, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC. Amicus curiae fees is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Bail bonds executed by appellant-accused and surety stands cancelled.