JUDGMENT : The accused/appellants herein faced trial for charges drawn under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) readwith Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The learned trial Court i.e the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P, upon, the afore drawn charges, through its decision made on 29.5.2010, upon, Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2009, made an order of acquittal, vis-à-vis, the accused for the charges drawn under Section 306/34 of the IPC. However, the learned trial Court made an order of conviction, upon, the accused for the charges drawn under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. Through a separate order drawn on 5.6.2010, the learned trial Court sentenced the accused, to, undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and, also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, upon the accused, besides in default of payment of fine, the learned trial Court sentenced, the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months, for, commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 3. The State of Himachal Pradesh, is not aggrieved, from the verdict of acquittal as made, upon the accused, by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis charges drawn under Section 306 of the IPC. Consequently, the verdict of acquittal as made upon the accused, in respect of the afore drawn charge acquires, the, completest conclusivity, and, binding effect. 4. However, the accused become aggrieved, from theirs becoming convicted, for the charge drawn against them, under, Section 498-A/34 of IPC. Therefore, they are led to constitute there against the instant appeal before this Court. 5. The brief facts of the case are that one Sonia was married to accused Kamal Kishore on 6.5.2001 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the deceased, and, also demanded an amount of Rs.60,000/- from her. The afore amount was not given by the parents of the deceased to the accused Kamal Kishore, on, account of which the accused started ill-treating her, and, also subjected her to cruelty. When the deceased was pregnant, accused Kamal Kishore took her to her parental house. He also told her that in case she delivers a female child, he will not take her back to her matrimonial home. The deceased gave birth to a female child and accused Kamal Kishore did not come to take her back to her matrimonial house. When the deceased was pregnant, accused Kamal Kishore took her to her parental house. He also told her that in case she delivers a female child, he will not take her back to her matrimonial home. The deceased gave birth to a female child and accused Kamal Kishore did not come to take her back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Dhar Kalan, where a compromise was effected, and, the accused took her back to her matrimonial home. Even thereafter, the accused continued to ill-treat her, and, on account of the ill-treatment being meted to her, she lastly consumed poison and died. 6. After investigation of the case, the challan was prepared and presented in the Court. After receipt of the file on commitment from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dalhousie, the learned trial Court charged the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution evidence was recorded. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were recorded, to, which they pleaded innocence and false implication, and, the accused did not choose to lead evidence in defence. 7. As stated supra since for want of the State of Himachal Pradesh, preferring an appeal against the verdict of acquittal, as became pronounced, upon, the accused by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis charges drawn against them, under Section 306/34 of the IPC, thereupon, the afore verdict of acquittal vis-à-vis the charge (supra), assumes conclusivity and finality. Further consequence thereof, is that since prima-facie, there is inter-connectivity inter-se cruelty physical or mental, with the charge drawn under Section 306/34 of IPC, and, whereon a binding and conclusive verdict, became pronounced by the learned trial Court. Therefore, prima-facie at this stage, the charge drawn under Section 498-A/34 of IPC rather carrying ingredients of physical or mental cruelty being punishable also ought to concomitantly obviously suffer failure. Moreover, when the perpetration of cruelty physical or mental, upon the deceased, by the accused, do constitute instigatory factors, for, the deceased being driven to commit suicide, and, the accused abetting the same. Moreover, when the perpetration of cruelty physical or mental, upon the deceased, by the accused, do constitute instigatory factors, for, the deceased being driven to commit suicide, and, the accused abetting the same. Consequently, the finality for the reasons (supra), as acquired by the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, charge drawn under Section 306/34 of IPC reiteratedly ought also to concomitantly constrain, the learned trial Court to also make an order of acquittal, upon the accused for charges drawn under Section 498–A/34 of the IPC. 8. Be that as it may, even if there is a causal connection inter-se the charges drawn under Section 306, with, the charge drawn under Section 498-A of IPC, and, also dehors any conclusivity being acquired by the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis the charge drawn under Section 306 of IPC, yet even the prosecution if is able to from evidence existing, on record, candidly/unflinchingly prove, that therethrough physical and/or mental cruelty hence became perpetrated upon the deceased by the accused. Thereupon, the prosecution would be able to validate the verdict of conviction, as becomes pronounced by the learned trial Court, upon, the charge drawn under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. 9. In determining the fact (supra), that whether the charge drawn under Section 498 –A/34 of IPC against the accused, yet survives, this Court, has perused the testimony of PW-1 (Jia Lal). PW-1 in his deposition has stated, that his deceased daughter was married to accused Kamal Kishore, on 6.5.2001. He further testifies, that after 1 ½ month of marriage inter-se the accused, and, the deceased, the accused started demanding dowry of Rs.60,000/- from the deceased. Since PW-1 was unable to mete the afore demand of dowry, he testifies, that his deceased daughter after conceiving rather leaving for her maternal home, and, accused Kamal Kishore telling her, that in case she gives birth to a male child, then he would take her to her matrimonial home, and, in case she gives birth to a female child, he would not permit her to enter the matrimonial home. However, since one Sonia gave birth to a female child, hence accused Kamal Kishore did not permit her to enter in matrimonial home. PW-1 though made an application with respect to the afore factum before the Police Station, Dhar Kalan, however, a compromise borne in Ex. However, since one Sonia gave birth to a female child, hence accused Kamal Kishore did not permit her to enter in matrimonial home. PW-1 though made an application with respect to the afore factum before the Police Station, Dhar Kalan, however, a compromise borne in Ex. PW-1/A, as, drawn in the year 2002, occurred inter-se the deceased and the accused. 10. PW-5 Dr. Vipin Thakur, the author of post mortem report embodied in Ex. PW-5/A, after perusing the report of the FSL concerned, ascribes therein the cause of demise of the deceased Sonia, to, occur from traces of poison being found inside her viscera. However, since the charge drawn with respect to Section 306/34 of IPC, has resulted in a conclusive and binding verdict of acquittal upon the accused, hence the afore factum is not required to be gone into by this Court. 11. However, since the demise of the deceased occurred on 22.9.2007, and, it is deposed by the prosecution witnesses concerned, that the accused used to perpetrate mental cruelty, upon the deceased, in as much, as, theirs making demands of dowry upon her, and, for hers giving birth to a female child. Consequently, it has to be discerned from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, whether they had made a report to the Police Station concerned, with respect to the afore factum, as they had taken to make a report in the year 2002. However, a thorough scanning of the testimonies, of the prosecution witnesses, reveals that, immediately prior to 2007, despite theirs attributing perpetration of mental cruelty, upon, the deceased on accounts (supra), yet the parents of the deceased neither making a report to the police nor the deceased making a report to the police. Consequently when with respect to the afore factum, they had earlier made a report to the police, hence theirs not subsequently in the year 2007, making a report to the police, does nail an inference, that any mental cruelty, as become allegedly perpetrated upon the deceased, by the accused, through theirs making demands of dowry upon her, is completely fallacious, and, also is not supported by any cogent evidence on record. 12. Further more, it is apparent on a reading of the cross-examination of PW-1, that the deceased gave birth to a male child in the year 2005, hence prior to hers committing suicide in the year 2007. 12. Further more, it is apparent on a reading of the cross-examination of PW-1, that the deceased gave birth to a male child in the year 2005, hence prior to hers committing suicide in the year 2007. Since, on account of the deceased giving birth to a female child, the accused had nursed a grievance against her, and, which resulted in a compromise borne in Ex. PW-1/A. Therefore, when the afore nursed grievance, by the accused against the deceased did obviously, on hers giving birth to a male child come to be completely mitigated. Consequently, there was no occasion for the accused to yet continue to torture her for not giving birth to a male child. 13. In summa, it appears that the verdict of conviction, as becomes pronounced by the learned trial Court, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, does suffer from a gross perversity and absurdity, of its, not appreciating the material on record, and also its mis-appreciating the germane thereto material evidence on record. There is merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. The accused stand acquitted of the charge drawn against them under Section 498-A/34 of IPC. The impugned verdict is quashed and set aside. Personal and surety bonds stand cancelled, and, discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.