JUDGMENT : The appellant was an accused in S.C.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions and Mahalir (Fast Track) Court at Thiruvannamalai. He was prosecuted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Polur Sub-Division, Kadaladi Police Station in Crime No.310 of 2005, for having caused cruelty and abetting suicide towards her wife, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 2. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked exhibits Exs.P.1 to 10. On the side of the defence, no witness has been examined and none of the document was marked. 3. The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant/accused found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and accordingly convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him under Section 498A IPC to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 306 IPC to undergo Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence the appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused-Lourduraj and the deceased-Christy got married on 13.04.2005 as per their religious practise. Two months, they lived happily at the appellant's native place-C.Nammianthal Village. Prior to 20 days from 10.07.2005, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased to get it from her father to start a canteen business. On 08.07.2005, the deceased-Christy along with the appellant went to her parents house at Tiruvannamalai, where the deceased informed to her mother, Shanthi – P.W.2 about the requirement of Rs.3 lakhs to the appellant, for starting canteen business. At that time, father of the deceased went outside. Therefore, she informed the same to her mother and withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from her Bank deposit. On the same day itself, she returned to her matrimonial home. After coming to know the demand of the appellant, P.W.1-Francis, father of the deceased agreed to give Rs.1 lakh to the appellant and expressed his inability to give remaining Rs.2 lakhs, since he recently done the marriage of his deceased daughter. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a call to his daughter, at that time, appellant's sister-Priya attended the call and informed him that Christy went to rest room. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a call to his daughter, at that time, appellant's sister-Priya attended the call and informed him that Christy went to rest room. After sometime, the appellant's mother called P.W.1 and informed about the death of his daughter. Immediately, P.W.1-Francis, P.W.2-Shanthi, P.W.3-John Bosco and other relatives went to C.Nammianthal Village where they seen the deceased lying in a cot. P.W.1 took the body of the deceased to his native place at Tiruvannamalai and done the last rites. Since the appellant's family members, including the appellant not participated in the funeral, having suspicion on them, P.W.1-Francis, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the respondent police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Mr.Purushothaman, Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.13 received the Ex.P.1-Complaint and registered a case initially under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C., against the appellant/accused, appellant's mother-Philomina and sister-Priya, in Crime No.310 of 2005. He forwarded the said complaint to the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District and other authorities concerned. Upon receiving the FIR, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Polur Sub Division – Rajasekar (P.W.16) took the case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.6) in the presence of the witnesses Murugan-P.W.4 and Susairaj. On 11.07.2005, he made arrangement to exhume the body of the deceased from the burial ground and informed to Anbarasu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai-P.W.15, through Nagamani, Head Constable-P.W.11. In the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Administrative Officer and Scientific Officer, body of the deceased was taken out from the buried place. Since there was rain, they took the body to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, there, Doctors, K.Mahadevan-P.W.6 and K.Anuradha-P.W.7 conducted post mortem. After completion of post mortem, Ex.P.3-Post mortem certificate was issued and the Doctors opined that the deceased would appear to have died of ASPHYXIA. Before that, P.W.15-RDO conducted enquiry and gave a report under Ex.P.5.Subsequently P.W.16-Rajasekar got transfer to Chennai. Hence the successor of P.W.17-Panneerselvam, took up the investigation and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 498A and 306 IPC before the Trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution had not explained the delay in registering the First Information Report. Hence the successor of P.W.17-Panneerselvam, took up the investigation and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences under Section 498A and 306 IPC before the Trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution had not explained the delay in registering the First Information Report. On hearing the death news of the deceased, P.W.1 went to the matrimonial home and took the body and thereafter he completed the last rites for his deceased daughter; since no one has attended the funeral of the deceased from the side of the appellant, P.W.1 got doubt about the death of his daughter and lodged the complaint, belatedly, after 3 days from the date of death. It is an afterthought, that too after doing all the last rites by burying the body, father of the deceased lodged complaint; further, according to P.W.1, prior to the incident, the appellant/accused demanded Rs.3 lakhs through his daughter, to meet his business expenses; however, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant had demanded Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased family; even, there is no evidence to show that the appellant aided the deceased for committing suicide; the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC; there is no evidence to show that the appellant assaulted the deceased and there is no injury on the body of the deceased; on the side of the prosecution, no evidence was adduced that which act of the appellant had driven the deceased to commit suicide. Evidence of the RDO-P.W.15 clearly shows that the death of the deceased has not been occurred due to demand of dowry. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide on her husband's house, and there is no eye witness for the alleged occurrence. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence found guilty of the appellant and convicted him, which is contrary to the facts and evidence on record and it is liable to be set aside. Thus, he pleaded to set aside the conviction and sentence and allow the criminal appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, out of which, P.Ws.1, 2 and 14 speaks about the demand of dowry by the appellant/accused. P.W.1- Francis, is the father of the deceased. P.W.2-Shanthi, is the mother of the deceased. P.W.14-Victoria, sister of the deceased. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, out of which, P.Ws.1, 2 and 14 speaks about the demand of dowry by the appellant/accused. P.W.1- Francis, is the father of the deceased. P.W.2-Shanthi, is the mother of the deceased. P.W.14-Victoria, sister of the deceased. P.W.3-John Bosco, is the husband of P.W.14. After the marriage, the appellant/accused demanded Rs.3 lakhs to start a canteen business. However, at the time of marriage it was stated by the appellant/accused that he was doing canteen business at Tirunelveli, along with his brothers. Due to his marriage, need to spend sometime with the deceased, his brothers not disturbed him to join in the business for a period of three months. But all of a sudden, the appellant demanded Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased, to get it from her parents, to start a new canteen business. However, on the demand of Rs.3 lakhs, P.W.1, accepted to give Rs.1 lakh to start the business. Even after without satisfying with that amount, appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased. P.W.1-father and P.W.2-mother of the deceased have clearly spoken about the quarrel held between the accused and the deceased. Ingredients of the offences have been proved by letting sufficient evidence and the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.14 are very much enough to prove the demand of dowry and the harassment of the appellant/accused towards the deceased wife. Further, the Ex.P.3-Post Mortem Certificate, would show that the deceased appeared to have died of ASPHYXIA. Therefore, the Trial Court well considered the evidence of the prosecution and found guilty and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above and there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. Being no merit in the appeal, she pleaded to dismiss the same. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels, in the light of the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of the oral evidences of the prosecution, viz., P.W.1-Francis P.W.2-Santhi, P.W.14-Victoria, it reveals that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was done prior to three months from the date of death of the deceased. It's an arranged marriage. 9. On perusal of the oral evidences of the prosecution, viz., P.W.1-Francis P.W.2-Santhi, P.W.14-Victoria, it reveals that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was done prior to three months from the date of death of the deceased. It's an arranged marriage. P.W's.1 and 2 have clearly deposed about the sridhana articles given to their daughter, at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, it was stated by the appellant/accused that he was doing canteen business at Tirunelveli. However, on 10.07.2005, the appellant/accused demanded Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased to get it from her parents, to start a new canteen business. Though the father of the deceased agreed to give Rs.1 lakh only, expressed his inability to give Rs.3 lakhs to them. 10. In this case complaint was given by P.W.1 on 10.07.2005. On receiving the complaint, a case was initially registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 174 (3) Cr.P.C., Since, the deceased committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage, the appellant/accused was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Now, the issue is, whether the commission of suicide by the deceased had been abetted by her husband/appellant. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide within a period of 7 years. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is available to the prosecution. 11. I have carefully assessed the facts and the evidences adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. For the purpose of finding whether cruelty has been meted out by the victim had infact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. 12. In this case among the 17 prosecution witnesses, 3 witnesses, viz., P.W.1-Francis- father of the deceased, P.W.2-Santhi-mother of the deceased, P.W.14-Victoria-sister of the deceased spoken about the demand of Rs.3 lakhs by the appellant/accused from his wife, to get it from her parents. In this regard, P.W.1 deposed before the Trial Court as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 13.In this regard, the evidence of P.W.2-Shanthi runs as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 14. Further the evidence of Victoria-P.W.14 runs as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 15. Apart from the above stated three evidences, there is no evidence against the appellant/accused with regard to demanding of dowry or cruelty caused towards the deceased. The evidence of P.W.14 states that appellant informed her sister to die, if she does not bring Rs.3 lakhs from her parents. Further the evidence of Victoria-P.W.14 runs as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 15. Apart from the above stated three evidences, there is no evidence against the appellant/accused with regard to demanding of dowry or cruelty caused towards the deceased. The evidence of P.W.14 states that appellant informed her sister to die, if she does not bring Rs.3 lakhs from her parents. This fact is not corroborated by the father of the deceased, P.W.1 and mother-P.W.2. According to P.W.14, this fact has been informed to her by her father, but P.W.1 did not depose the same before the Trial Court. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.14 that unless her sister brings Rs.3 lakhs, her husband told her to die, cannot be believed. Further, P.W.1 and 3 did not depose before the Court about the cruelty meted out by the deceased daughter. 16. P.W.15-Anbarasu, Revenue Divisional Officer, in his evidence stated that deceased had not died due to demand of dowry and his evidence runs as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 17. This evidence was corroborated by Panneerselvam, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.17) and the same runs as follows:- 18. From the above said oral evidences of the prosecution, it reveals that there is no evidence of any physical harm having been caused by the appellant/accused to the deceased, nor any act of mental cruelty committed by him. For attracting the presumption under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act, it must be proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC. Perusal of evidences show that necessary ingredients of cruelty and harassment by the appellant were not established. 19. Before invoking the provision of Section 306 IPC, it is necessary to establish that (i) the deceased committed suicide, (ii) she had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 20. Only in the event of those facts are established, the presumption in terms of Section 113 A of the Act could be raised. In the instant case, prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. In case of alleged abatement of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. The Trial Court has erroneously accepted the prosecution story. In the instant case, prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. In case of alleged abatement of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. The Trial Court has erroneously accepted the prosecution story. The realities of life have to be kept in mind, while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. Further, P.W.1 lodged the complaint with a delay of three days. Immediately, after hearing about the death of the deceased, he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and brought the dead body to his house and done the last rites. Since the appellant and his family members are not participated in the funeral of the deceased, only after three days from the date of death, he got suspicion over the appellant and his family members. Therefore, he lodged the complaint after three days. Evidence of the P.W.1, in this regard runs as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 21. This evidence reveals that P.W.1-father of the deceased did not suspect on the date of death of his daughter initially and he lodged the complaint subsequently on 10.07.2005. It evident the afterthought of P.W.1-Francis and leads to suspecting the genuineness. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted for the charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 22. Accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court made in S.C.No.15 of 2009 dated 11.02.2008 on the file of the Sessions cum Mahalir Fast Track Court at Thiruvannamalai, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted from the charges. Bail bond executed if any, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid by the appellant shall be returned to him. 23. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed.