JUDGMENT : Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 24.07.2009, in Sessions Case No.413 of 2008, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused No.1 (A-1) guilty of the alternative charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B IPC and accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC as such acquitted them under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.413 of 2008 arose out of PRC No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.100 of 2007 of Tenali I Town Police Station. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet, filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Tenali in the above Crime, is as follows: A-1 is the only son of A-2 and A-3. Previously, A-1 married LW.15 – Kondisetty Sailaja Rani of Nagaram village and she got divorce from A-1 through Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali vide HMOP No.232 of 1997, dated 17.02.1998. Subsequently, A-1 loved another woman by name Lakshmi of Nagayalanka Village, Krishna District and married her. Suppressing the aforesaid two marriages, he married another woman third time by name Lakshmi of Chebrole. After some time, Lakshmi of Chebrole died under suspicious circumstances. Basing on the report given by the parents of Lakshmi, a case in Crime No.57 of 1999 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC was registered against A-1 and his parents and investigated into. As material witnesses turned hostile, it was ended in acquittal. After some time, Lakshmi of Chebrole died under suspicious circumstances. Basing on the report given by the parents of Lakshmi, a case in Crime No.57 of 1999 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC was registered against A-1 and his parents and investigated into. As material witnesses turned hostile, it was ended in acquittal. While the matter stood thus, A-1 to A-3 suppressed the factum of previous marriages of A-1, except the marriage of A-1 with Lakshmi of Chebrole, and A-2 and A-3 contacted LW.12 – Pulivarthi Sitharamaiah and with his mediation, they could secure alliance of Kondisetti Durga Bhavani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by convincing her parents i.e., LW.1 and LW.2 namely Manipakam Durga Prasad and Manipakam Padmavathi and believing the gullible words of accused, they performed the marriage of their eldest daughter – deceased with A-1 on 25.05.2002 at Guduru Village of Krishna District. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased presented Rs.50,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma. After some time, A-1 and the deceased led happy marital life and they were blessed with a daughter by name Prizee and son by name Immanuel. Later, A-1 to A-3 began harassing the deceased to cruelty both mentally and physically so as to get additional dowry. A-1 was addicted to bad vices and used to beat the deceased to bring money from her parents. Deceased used to inform the same to her parents. LW.1, though adjusted some amount, initially, disclosed his inability to meet the demands of accused later. However, at the compulsion of accused and in order to avert cruelty against her daughter, LW.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the accused for Rs.30,000/- 3 years ago and was paying monthly interest but the accused continued to harass the deceased. Recently, 20 days prior to 17.09.2007, when the accused sent the deceased to her parents house, LW.1 sent back her with Rs.5,000/-. Even on 17.09.2007 also A-1 quarrelled with the deceased for petty issue, beat her and went away. The deceased got disgusted with her life, decided to put an end to her life at the noon, bolted the doors of the room from inside and committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree to the ceiling fan. At 03:00 p.m. after returning from school LW.8 – Kondisetti Sai Kiran and LW.9 – Kondisetti Prizee knocked the doors. The deceased got disgusted with her life, decided to put an end to her life at the noon, bolted the doors of the room from inside and committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree to the ceiling fan. At 03:00 p.m. after returning from school LW.8 – Kondisetti Sai Kiran and LW.9 – Kondisetti Prizee knocked the doors. As they did not receive any response, they reported the same to A-2, who informed the same to LW.10 – A. Venkata Ramaseshagiri Rao and LW.11 – Pamulapati Dhanunjaya Rao, who knocked the doors, peeped through window and found the deceased hanging to the ceiling fan. On coming to know about the information, LW.26 – SI of Police, Tenali I Town Police Station, rushed to the house of accused along with LW.22 – Revenue Inspector, Tenali and broke open the doors and got the dead body of the deceased removed from hanging. On receiving the information about the occurrence, LW.1 on 17.09.2007 at 10:00 p.m. came to Tenali I Town Police Station and presented a report explaining the cause of death of the deceased. Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.26 – SI of Police registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B R/w.34 IPC. Subsequently, LW.27 – Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Tenali, took up investigation and examined all the witnesses. On 18.09.2007, he visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and observed the same. LW.21 – Tahsildar, Tenali held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared inquest report accordingly. Photographs of the scene of offence were also taken. The Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased opined that the deceased appears to have died of asphyxia due to hanging. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and numbered it as PRC No.3 of 2008. After appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, PRC No.3 of 2008 was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter it was numbered as S.C.No.413 of 2008 and made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. 6. After appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, PRC No.3 of 2008 was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter it was numbered as S.C.No.413 of 2008 and made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. 6. After appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali, a charge under Section 304-B IPC alternatively a charge under Section 306 IPC and a charge under Section 498-A IPC were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During the course of trial, before the Court below, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to PW.10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-13 and Ex.C-1 were marked. Accused got marked Ex.D-1 – promissory note during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. Further, prosecution got marked MO.1 and Mo.2. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence. 9. The learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur FAC XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tenali, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found appellant/A-1 guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC, convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. As pointed out earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, exonerated A-1 to A-3 of the charge under Section 304-B IPC and A-2 and A-3 of the charge under Section 306 IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. 10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused (A-1) filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in convicting and sentencing him under Section 306 IPC. 11. Though the prosecution has alleged the offences under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC against the accused but there is no Appeal filed by the prosecution as against the findings of the trial Court that the charge under Section 304-B IPC was not established by the prosecution against A-1 to A-3 and charge under Section 306 IPC was not established against A-2 and A-3. Hence, the scope of this Appeal is confined only to decide whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved the offence under Section 306 IPC against the appellant/A-1. 12. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved that A-1 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased by putting her to physical and mental harassment, in the manner as alleged by the prosecution? 2) Whether the judgment, dated 24.07.2009, in Sessions Case No.413 of 2008 in convicting A-1 under Section 306 IPC is sustainable under law and facts and whether are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 13. PW.1 was the father of the deceased. His evidence in substance was that on 24.05.2002, the marriage of the deceased was performed with A-1 at Gudur Village of Krishna District. They paid Rs.50,000/- to A-1 towards pasupu kumkuma. He was told that the first wife of A-1 died. Later, he came to know that his daughter was his 4th wife. He came to know that his first wife, who is native of Nagaram of Repalle deserted A-1 and took divorce from him. His second wife died and third wife was killed. About one and half years ago, deceased and A-1 lived happily. Later, A-1 started harassing his daughter to bring additional dowry. She intimated the same to him. He used to go and request them to look after his daughter properly and to live amicably but there was no change in the attitude of A-1 even after she gave birth to one son and one daughter. 20 days prior to her death, she came to him and informed that they are demanding additional dowry and they are beating her. He convinced her and gave Rs.5,000/- and sent away. On 14.09.2007, his daughter again phoned to him and informed that she was again beaten and harassed for additional dowry. Next day also she telephoned to him and stated that she is apprehending danger in the hands of accused. He informed that he will make arrangements for money. On 17.09.2007 at about 03:00 or 03:30 p.m. his depot officials informed him that his daughter committed suicide. Then, they reached to the house of accused. He found the dead body hanging to the ceiling fan. By the time he reached there, police were there. He informed that he will make arrangements for money. On 17.09.2007 at about 03:00 or 03:30 p.m. his depot officials informed him that his daughter committed suicide. Then, they reached to the house of accused. He found the dead body hanging to the ceiling fan. By the time he reached there, police were there. When he went and informed to the Police, Ex.P-1 written report was given by him. Police examined and recorded his statement. Next day inquest was conducted over the dead body of deceased. This is the substance of the evidence of PW.1. 14. Prosecution examined PW.2 – mother of the deceased and she spoke of the marriage between A-1 and deceased on 24.05.2002 and presentations at the time of marriage. For about one and half years they lived amicably. Later, the deceased daughter was informing her that she was beaten as the dowry amount said to be paid was not sufficient. Couple of times they went to the accused and requested A-1 not to harass the deceased. Even after birth of two children, A-1 continued the harassment and they requested him not to harass the deceased. Ultimately, about one year eight months ago, they received a phone call that her daughter died by hanging herself. They reached the house of accused at 07:30 or 08:00 p.m. By then, the Police were already there. Police asked as to who are the parents of deceased. Thereafter, her husband went and gave a report. They learnt that the marriage of the accused with deceased was his fourth one. 15. Prosecution examined PW.3, who was neighbour, and his evidence was that on the date of offence at 12:30 or 01:00 p.m., when he was taking food, A-1 and his father A-3 came and stated that the deceased bolted the door from inside and was not responding to their calls. He went and knocked the door. She did not respond. They suspected that the deceased committed suicide and asked A-1 to complain to Police. Then Vijaya Krishna Murthy (A-3) gave two telephone numbers one belonged to Avanigadda RTC depot and another number belongs to the relative of the accused. He advised A-1 to give a complaint to Police. He does not know whether A-1 gave complaint or not. Police came there and examined him. According to him, the girl was found dead by hanging. 16. He advised A-1 to give a complaint to Police. He does not know whether A-1 gave complaint or not. Police came there and examined him. According to him, the girl was found dead by hanging. 16. Prosecution examined PW.4 – mediator who mediated the marriage between the accused and the deceased and he spoke of the fact that A-3 asked him about the girl i.e., the deceased and requested him to make alliance to perform the marriage of A-1 with the girl and he told him that the parents of the deceased were not in a position to give any dowry to which A-3 stated that he is not interested in dowry as such he mediated the issue. Accordingly the marriage between the deceased and A-1 was performed. 17. PW.5 was a neighbour and his evidence is that Police asked him to act as a mediator and he broke upon the doors and they found one lady hanging under the ceiling fan and she was found dead. The saree with which the deceased hanging was cut and the dead body was brought to ground. MO.1 is the saree piece. MO.2 was the broken bolt. He and LW.16 – P. Lakhmi Narayana were present at the time of observation of the scene of offence. 18. Prosecution examined the Tahsildar as PW.6 to speak that he conducted inquest. According to him, on 18.09.2007 at the request of Police, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. During inquest, as per the statements of the witnesses, they were of the view that the deceased was harassed by her husband to bring additional dowry as such she committed suicide. 19. Prosecution examined PW.7 – Medical Officer and he was the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tenali. At the request of MRO, he along with one Dr. M. Saradabai jointly conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased on 18.09.2007 at 03:30 p.m. They found the following external injuries: 1) An old scar of abrasion seen on the left thigh anterior aspect. 2) An in duration on right side back of chest and right side hip. 3) An old scar of abrasion seen on left wrist. 4) A ligature mark is seen in front of neck between chin and Larynx. The base is pale and hard. 5) Post-mortem apothecial (spots) haemorrhage are seen in lower extremities. 2) An in duration on right side back of chest and right side hip. 3) An old scar of abrasion seen on left wrist. 4) A ligature mark is seen in front of neck between chin and Larynx. The base is pale and hard. 5) Post-mortem apothecial (spots) haemorrhage are seen in lower extremities. 6) Congestion of conjunctiva are seen. Ex.P-4 is the post-mortem certificate and Exs.P-5 and P-6 are the final opinions from Forensic Department. Ex.P-7 is the final opinion of the post-mortem, as per which the deceased appears to have died of asphyxia due to hanging. 20. PW.8 was the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-8 is 16 photoes. Ex.P-9 is the CD. 21. PW.9 was the D.S.P., Tenali who spoke of his investigation in this case. 22. PW.10 was the SI of Police. According to him on 17.09.2007 at about 09:00 p.m. while he was on rounds, he had news about the death of a girl in suspicious circumstances. He instructed the staff and Revenue Inspector to be present at the scene of offence. He went to the scene of offence. Parents of the deceased and public were there. They found the door was locked inside and people were peeping through the window. He broke open the door and entered into the house. He got the photographs taken and the saree through which the dead body was hanging was cut and dead body was brought down. He asked his constable to come back to police station. Within 5 minutes, PW.1 came and presented Ex.P-1 report. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.100 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-B R/w.34 IPC and sent the FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P-13 is the FIR sent to Court along with the original complaint. 23. Sri D. Balakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, would strenuously contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having recorded an order of acquittal under Section 304-B IPC proceeded to convict the appellant/A-1 under Section 306 IPC. A-2 and A-3 were exonerated of the charge under Section 306 IPC and all the accused were exonerated of Section 304-B IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased died by hanging herself. A-2 and A-3 were exonerated of the charge under Section 306 IPC and all the accused were exonerated of Section 304-B IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased died by hanging herself. According to the post-mortem report, there were other injuries and there were injuries caused to her during course of hanging with saree and injury Nos.1 and 2 are older than injury No.2. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated A-1 under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC but erroneously convicted him under Section 306 IPC. Absolutely, there was no abetment of suicide of deceased by A-1 within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. In fact, there was no question of A-1 or his parents making any demands on the deceased to get additional amounts for the reason that in fact A-2 lent an amount of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.D-1 to PW.1 at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1. Ex.D-1 was admitted during the course of his cross-examination. So, when PW.1 was unable to meet the marriage expenditure of his second daughter, he took the amount from the accused, it is rather surprising that accused would make a demand to the deceased to get additional amounts. PW.1 had no financial capacity to pay any amounts to A-1 even at the time of marriage. Absolutely, there was no abetment of suicide. Prosecution did not establish the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC and, in support his contention, he would rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, LAWS (SC)-2020-10-9 and Mariano Anto Bruno and another v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that absolutely there was no basis for prosecution to allege that A-1 caused any cruelty so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated him under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC convicting A-1 under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that absolutely there was no basis for prosecution to allege that A-1 caused any cruelty so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated him under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC convicting A-1 under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 24. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State, would contend that the prosecution did not prefer any Appeal as against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and further against acquittal of A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306 IPC but the evidence on record is quietly sufficient to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC. It appears that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the allegations under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC but conviction was not recorded under Section 498-A IPC and in fact when the conviction was recorded under Section 306 IPC, there was no need to record any conviction under Section 498-A IPC. Absolutely, there was no order at all exonerating A-1 under Section 498-A IPC. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the conviction of A-1 under Section 306 IPC is sufficient because it also contains the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. The contention of the appellant that A-1 was acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not sustainable. He would further submit that though the prosecution did not establish the allegations of demand for dowry, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but on account of the fact that there is no appeal filed by the prosecution he would confine his arguments to the extent of allegations under Section 306 IPC. Ex.P-1 report and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 would reveal that A-1 used to beat the deceased. So, it is a case of physical violence. The evidence of the Medical Officer coupled with the postmortem findings would disclose that there were injuries on the person of the deceased though they were not fresh in nature but they were tallied with the evidence of PW.1 that 20 days prior to the death of deceased she complained that the accused beat her by demanding additional dowry. The evidence of the Medical Officer coupled with the postmortem findings would disclose that there were injuries on the person of the deceased though they were not fresh in nature but they were tallied with the evidence of PW.1 that 20 days prior to the death of deceased she complained that the accused beat her by demanding additional dowry. Further on 14.09.2007 also she complained the same against the accused and on the next day the deceased informed him that she was apprehending danger in the hands of the accused. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge looking into the post-mortem examination regarding the physical violence done against the deceased was of the considered view that the case would fall under the cover of Section 306 IPC. The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were based on the over all evidence as such the conviction under Section 306 IPC is sustainable under law and facts and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 25. It is to be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the allegations of demand for dowry etc., In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated A-1 to A-3 under Section 304-B IPC and further exonerated A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. There was no finding that the learned Additional Session Judge exonerated A-1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC but his conviction was not recorded under Section 498-A IPC. There were findings by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC will always be present in a case of offence under Section 304-B IPC and if the offence is falling short under Section 304-B IPC, the Court has to see whether the offence under Section 306 and 498-A IPC is made out and came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 306 IPC is proved against A-1. There is no finding in the judgment as to the conviction and sentence of accused under Section 498-A IPC. It is to be noted that the prosecution did not come up with any Appeal for a separate conviction under Section 498-A IPC. 26. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer here Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, which runs as follows: “306. It is to be noted that the prosecution did not come up with any Appeal for a separate conviction under Section 498-A IPC. 26. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer here Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, which runs as follows: “306. Abetment of suicide — If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”. “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation —For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 27. So, in view of Section 498-A IPC, cruelty means any willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive a married woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought of to convict and sentence A-1 under Section 306 IPC. Under the circumstances, simply because the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not convict and sentence A-1 under Section 498-A IPC, his conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be erroneous. So, the proper course now is to see as to whether the evidence on record proves that A-1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide in the manner as alleged. 28. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment. So, the proper course now is to see as to whether the evidence on record proves that A-1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide in the manner as alleged. 28. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment. As seen from Ex.P-1 report lodged by PW.1, there is a clear whisper that A-1 used to beat the deceased and subjected her to physical violence. This statement was also made by PW.1 in his evidence. During the course of evidence, he put forth two instances i.e., 20 days prior to incident the accused demanded additional dowry and beat the deceased and another episode was on 14.09.2007 the deceased expressed danger in the hands of accused. There is evidence of PW.3 – mother of the deceased also complaining that accused used to beat the deceased. As seen from the evidence of Medical Officer i.e., PW.7, injury No.1 is old scar of abrasion on the left thigh of anterior aspect, injury No.2 is an in duration on right side back of chest and right side hip and injury No.3 is old scar of abrasion on left wrist. 29. During the course of cross-examination, he deposed that injury No.3 might be due to struggle. Injury Nos.1 and 3 are older than injury No.2. It is to be noted that injury No.4 was a ligature mark in front of neck between chin and larynx and injury No.5 is post-mortem petechial hemorrhages in the lower extremities. Injury No.6 is congestion of conjunctiva. By virtue of the evidence of PW.7 coupled with the post-mortem report, the prosecution was able to establish that some days prior to the death the deceased received three injuries i.e., injury Nos.1 to 3. It is to be noted that both the deceased and A-1 were residing together. Though the evidence of PW.1 in cross-examination reveals that with regard to the previous harassment since 4 years they did not give any complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act and they did not give any other complaint when her daughter was harassed, it is not going to affect the case of prosecution in any way. In a case of this nature, the report would come into picture when the alleged harassment reaches to the un-bearable extent. In a case of this nature, the report would come into picture when the alleged harassment reaches to the un-bearable extent. Hence, though there was no report lodged by PW.1 or the deceased prior to her death with regard to the so called acts alleged against A-1 but on this ground the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. The prosecution was able to prove the physical violence against the deceased by virtue of injury Nos.1 to 3 noted in the post-mortem examination. Those injuries were corresponding to the episodes which occurred 20 days prior to the incident and on 14.09.2007 as spoken to by PW.1. So, the prosecution was able to prove before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the factum of physical violence against the deceased. The kith and kin of the deceased were the proper persons to speak about the physical violence meted out by the deceased in the hands of accused. PW.1 and PW.2 were no other than the parents of the deceased. It is to be noted that the place of death was in the house of A-1. The cause of death was by hanging. It was a case of suicide undoubtedly. There was evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 to speak to the fact that A-1 used to beat the deceased. The death of the deceased was within 7 years from the date of her marriage. 30. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer here Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act relating to presumption in case of suicide by a married woman: “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman — When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation — For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.” 31. Explanation — For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.” 31. The evidence on record would prove that the deceased was subjected to physical violence in the company of A-1. She died within a period of 7 years in the house of A-1 by hanging herself. So, it enables this Court to draw a presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that A-1 abetted the commission of suicide. 32. This Court has gone through the aforesaid two decisions cited by learned counsel for the Appellant. In Gurcharan Singh (supra), the facts were that originally charges were framed under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Though there was no charge under Section 306 IPC, on the ground that the evidence on record would prove that the deceased was driven to commit suicide by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home A-1 was convicted by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On Appeal to the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, was of the view that the evidence on record would not prove the offence under Section 306 IPC. In my considered view the facts in the above decision stand on a different footing. 33. Here is a case that the deceased was subjected to physical violence and there were external injuries on her body. A-1 and the deceased were residing together. The incident was happened in the house of A-1. There was evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the physical violence against the deceased in the hands of A-1. The facts in Gurcharan Singh (supra) are distinguishable from the case on hand. 34. Turning to the other decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno (supra), when the charges were under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and looking into the evidence available on record, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the prosecution did not prove the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. 35. Coming to the present case on hand, the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to physical violence as such there were three injuries which were prior to her death. 35. Coming to the present case on hand, the evidence on record is sufficient to say that the deceased was subjected to physical violence as such there were three injuries which were prior to her death. The prosecution need not prove that those injuries were caused to the deceased on the date of offence. It is sufficient on the part of prosecution to prove that A-1 caused injuries to the deceased while subjecting her to cruelty. Having regard to the above, even the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno (supra), is distinguishable from the present case on hand. 36. The simple question in this case is whether A-1 abetted the deceased in commission of her suicide. As this Court already pointed out, the prosecution could succeed by proving the cruelty in the form of causing any injury or danger to life, limb or health of the deceased. In fact, explanation to Section 498-A reveals that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of a woman would amount to cruelty. In my considered view, the evidence on record proves the acts of violence against the deceased by A-1. A-1 had no probable say during the course of cross-examination of Medical Officer explaining the circumstances in which injury Nos.1 to 3 were found on the person of the deceased, which is within the exclusive knowledge of A-1 being the husband of the deceased to put forth a probable say or plausible cause as to how the deceased received such injuries. In my considered view, though the learned Additional Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal under Section 304-B IPC against A-1 to A-3 and further acquitted A-2 and A-3 under Section 306 IPC but the learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in proper perspective looking into the injuries sustained by the deceased and came to a right conclusion that the evidence on record proved the offence under Section 306 IPC against A-1. 37. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 306 IPC against A-1 beyond reasonable doubt as such I do not see any ground to interfere with the same. 38. 37. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 306 IPC against A-1 beyond reasonable doubt as such I do not see any ground to interfere with the same. 38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 for the offence under Section 306 IPC in Sessions Case No.413 of 2008, dated 24.07.2009, on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali. 39. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court to the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali and on such certification, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to carry out the remaining sentence imposed against the appellant/accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.413 of 2008, dated 24.07.2009, and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record, if any, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge on or before 09.01.2024. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.