JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal, arising from the acquittal judgment and order under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, 3 rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta in Sessions Case no.2 of 2007. The offence was registered under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Upleta Police Station, Rajkot. 2. The charge was drawn below Exh.1 by the Presiding Officer on 17.4.2007 to note that the complainant’s daughter Bhavnaben had married to accused no.1 one year prior to the incident. Accused nos.2 and 3 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the accused no.1 while accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.1. The charge further notes that the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law, accused nos.2 and 3 were staying besides them and the deceased was staying along with the accused-husband and accused no.4 – mother-in- law. During that period, by instigation of each other, they used to harass her during her matrimonial life that she does not know how to do the household work, nor has she brought anything from her parental house. The charge states that because of such cruelty, the accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby, on 20.7.2006 at about 20:00 hrs. at Vadla Village, she took the last step by consuming poisonous medicine. 3. Mr. Rohan H. Raval, learned APP has submitted that the evidence has not been appreciated in right perspective. The prosecution had examine 13 witnesses in support of the case. The documentary evidence was also available on record to corroborate the oral evidence. Mr. Raval has submitted that the judgment suffers from perversity as there are not legal or factual aspects on record. Mr. Raval has also stated that the learned Judge was required to draw the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since the suicide was after four months of marriage. Mr. Raval has further stated that it was the duty of the accused to explain how and under what circumstances, the death of the deceased had occurred in their residence and what was the reason for her to commit suicide. Mr. Raval has further stated that it was the duty of the accused to explain how and under what circumstances, the death of the deceased had occurred in their residence and what was the reason for her to commit suicide. Learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of law and has failed to consider the evidence on record that after marriage, all the four had mentally and physically harassed the deceased by stating that she was not knowning any work and the cruelty subjected to her was the cause of inducement to commit suicide. 4. Learned APP has submitted that the complainant-Budhiben, wife of Nathabhai was examined vide Exh.21 who has supported the FIR, which was produced at Exh.22, which clearly mention how the incident had occurred. The learned Judge has erred to disbelieve and discard the evidence by coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP has submitted that the case has been proved by the inquest Panchnama, scene of offence, FSL report, Muddamal, inspite of that, the learned Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of Dr. Laxmanbhai Kababhai Parmar who was examined at Exh.25 who has fully supported the prosecution case with regard to injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The case has been clearly proved that because of mental cruelty by the accused, she has committed suicide by consuming poison and though ample evidence was on record, the learned Judge has erred in not considering the witness. 5. Countering the arguments, Advocate Mr. Sandip M.Patel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has examined almost about 13 vital witnesses, but none of the witnesses could prove the case of any cruelty or any cause, which would be noted of any abetment of suicide. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel has submitted that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has noted that the cause of delay of one and a half month in giving the complaint has not been properly explained. Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel has submitted that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has noted that the cause of delay of one and a half month in giving the complaint has not been properly explained. Mr. Patel has submitted that though if at all there was any evidence of cruelty, then, the parents had all the occasion to give the complaint under such alleged cruelty or dowry demands, no such attempt had been made by any of the witnesses rather the evidence shows that the consumption of the medicine was under such mistaken belief and the medicine which was consumed later was found to be a poisonous medicine. Mr. Patel further stated that specific instance of cruelty and dowry demand are required to be proved to draw inference of presumption in the case to be proved under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC, which the prosecution has miserably failed to do so. Thus, supporting the judgment of the learned Trial Court, Mr. Patel has submitted that the evidence has been rightly appreciated and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order to upset the finding. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the principles have been noted as under:- “The following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court.” 6. After hearing both the sides, perused the record and proceedings, deposition of the witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court Judge. The learned Judge has made threadbare examination of the evidence of the witnesses. The glaring fact which comes to the notice is that the incident had occurred on 21.7.2006. However, the complaint has been registered on 6.9.2006. The delay of one and a half month has not been explained. The Investigating Officer – Navalsinh Bhikhubha Jadeja at Exh.39 notes that the complaint was taken one and a half month and prior to that, one written complaint was given and has noted that the statement of witness – Budhiben Nathabhai was recorded on 21.7.2006 and as per her statement, she has not given any statement of any cruelty in the matrimonial house even when she had come on Bhimagiyaras and thereafter, on Ashadhi Bij, the deceased had not informed of any cruelty or any dispute in the matrimonial house. In the police statement, they had stated that the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law were staying together with them. The evidence which comes through the witness father Nathabhai Badhabhai at Exh.23 is only to the effect that the cause of the daughter’s death was the harassment by the husband, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In the police statement, they had stated that the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law were staying together with them. The evidence which comes through the witness father Nathabhai Badhabhai at Exh.23 is only to the effect that the cause of the daughter’s death was the harassment by the husband, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Apart from that, he had not given any other evidence. The witness – Budhiben has stated in her oral evidence that the daughter had come four times and had informed her about the cruelty and also cruelty with regard to the fact that she had brought less dowry. However, such evidence has not been given by the father. It has also been admitted in the cross- examination that on the very next day of the incident, Dy.S.P. had come there and the statement of all the members were recorded. The investigating officer–Bhatiya at Exh.45 has admitted that after registering the offence, the statements of the deceased father, mother and brother and maternal uncle were recorded. Except the statement of the uncle, statements of other witnesses were recorded in the accidental death complaint. The investigating officer also admits the fact that prior to recording the statement of the witness, he had gone through the statement of witnesses recorded earlier. He has also admitted the fact that if at all he was informed the statement recorded earlier to be not true, then, he would have asked for the explanation. He has also admitted that no such explanation has been recorded in the statement of the witnesses. The brother of the deceased Bharatbhai Nathabhai, examined at Exh.24, has also stated that his sister was harassed in the matrimonial house alleging that she was not knowing the domestic work and that she has not brought anything from her father’s house. He states that when her sister would come to their house, she would inform all the family members about such harassment when they would sit all together. He also stated that he would often visit his sister’s place and has admitted that he had never informed to the relatives or any other person about such cruelty suffered by the deceased Bhavnaben. 7. On 21.7.2006, statement of Bharatbhai Nathabhai was recorded, who states that when his father had come to take dead body of his sister at about 9 to 10 hrs. 7. On 21.7.2006, statement of Bharatbhai Nathabhai was recorded, who states that when his father had come to take dead body of his sister at about 9 to 10 hrs. and on inquiry, they were informed that Bhavnaben was ill and erroneously instead of taking medicine, she had consumed some poisonous medicine and therefore, during the treatment, she died. He stated that he had no suspicion or doubt against anyone and that he has no complaint against anyone. 8. The learned Judge has taken comparative examination of all the evidence on record. The delay in filing the complaint itself speaks volumes. The witnesses were not knowing the root cause of the death. The allegation of cruelty has not been proved by any specific instances, nor any specific evidence has been given with regard to dowry demand, no figure of any dowry demand has been brought on record by any of the witnesses. The statement, under the accidental report which was recorded, has not been found doubtful by the Investigating Officer. Thus, he had not received any further clarification. The learned Judge has thus rightly appreciated the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the case of cruelty as well as dowry demand has not been proved. 9. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be attributed only when the allegations of cruelty are proved along with other circumstances of case.Section 113A is for presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman when the question is whether commission of suicide 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 other circumstances of the case that such suicide has been abetted by husband or by such relative of her husband. Merely because the death of the wife has occurred within a period of seven years of marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, nor any presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn as there is no proximate link to raise the presumption since the allegation of dowry demand has not been proved, nor the evidence that has come on record could be substantiated by any specific incident or evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with the demand of dowry, more so when Section 304B of the IPC has not been invoked in the matter. 10. There is no perversity in the reasonings given by the learned Trial Court Judge, nor any illegality as was argued could be shown by the prosecution. The reasoning is consistent to the material on record. Nothing palpably wrong or manifestedly erroneous has been shown, nor anything unsustainable has been demonstrated on record to draw conclusion of any cruelty, which could be under the definition of Section 498A of IPC or could be considered as a abetment for suicide. 11. For the reasons given hereinabove and there is nothing further considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the present appeal stands dismissed.