JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original accused nos. 1 under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case no. 8 of 2012, wherein, the appellant alongwith other co-accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 3 04B , 306 and 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (old) (' IPC ', for short) and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the appellant under Section 498A of IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2500/-, in default simple imprisonment for four months. 2. The case of the prosecution leading to file this conviction appeal is as follows : 2.1 The marriage of appellant – husband and deceased Vaishali wife was solemnized on 09.12.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The wife was residing in a joint family consisting of, father in law, mother in law, brother in law and divorcee sister in law. Out of the said wedlock, the baby girl named Avisha was born. 2.2 After the birth of the child, the matrimonial dispute arose, mainly on the ground that, the husband and her in-laws demanded additional dowry in the form of ornaments and cash to be brought from the parental home of the wife. The father of the wife tried to satisfy the demand of the appellant accused and in-laws but unfortunately, he died in the year 2007. The economic condition of the parental home was not so good. After the death of the father, the wife was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and her in-laws as, the family of the wife could not fulfill the demand of additional dowry. She was also subjected to harassment on the daily household works. She used to inform about the harassment to her mother PW-6. She was tired with the said matrimonial dispute and constant demand of dowry and she was in distress and under depression. On 29.06.2011, the wife of the appellant called her brother PW-21 and informed him about the harassment meted out to her by the accused. She used to inform about the harassment to her mother PW-6. She was tired with the said matrimonial dispute and constant demand of dowry and she was in distress and under depression. On 29.06.2011, the wife of the appellant called her brother PW-21 and informed him about the harassment meted out to her by the accused. However, the brother assured her that he will inform the mother and make a plan to meet her personally. On 30.06.2011, the PW-5 brother Yogeshbhai received a call from the PW-11, who was employee of the Bharuch Railway Department and he conveyed that, the dead body of Vaishali – wife of the appellant, is lying on the railway track. The appellant accused after getting the information, went to the place and took the dead body of deceased Vaishali to the nearest hospital, where she declared brought dead. 2.3 PW-1 – Kamlesh Parmar, being a brother of the deceased Vaishali, lodged an FIR for the alleged suicide committed by her sister, wherein, he alleged the demand of additional dowry and physical and mental harassment caused by the appellant accused to her sister and same was registered as I-C.R.No.119 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 06, 304(B), 498(A), read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . 2.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, PW-43 was entrusted the investigation of the case. During the investigation, the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased recovered from PW-11, who had found the said suicide note from the body of the deceased. The similar suicide note also found by the PM doctor – PW-14 and same was seized in the presence of independent panchas. The appellant accused and the in-laws of the deceased were arrested. The IO PW-17 had recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized the notebook maintained by deceased Vaishali for comparing her natural handwriting with the suicide notes and same had been sent for its examination by handwriting expert. The IO collected the report, which confirmed that, the handwriting of the suicide note was of deceased Vaishali. 3. At the end of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for the offence of dowry death - 304B, abetment of suicide – 306, cruelty – 498A, and demand of dowry under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . The IO collected the report, which confirmed that, the handwriting of the suicide note was of deceased Vaishali. 3. At the end of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for the offence of dowry death - 304B, abetment of suicide – 306, cruelty – 498A, and demand of dowry under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Bharuch under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Upon committal, the sessions case no.8 of 2012 came to be registered. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch framed the charges against the accused appellant and his four family members. The statement of the accused appellant and others were recorded. They did not admit the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of the case: (i) PW 1 – Exh. 14 Kamleshbhai Manharbhai Parmar, complainant (ii) PW 2 – Exh. 16 Sanjaykumar Chhotelal Saroj, panch witness (iii) PW 3 – Exh. 17 Kantaben Fatehsingh Vasava, panch witness (iv) PW 4 – Exh. 18 Navinbhai Bhailalbhai Vanand, panch witness (v) PW 5 – Exh. 21 Yogeshbhai Manharbhai Parmar (vi) PW 6 – Exh. 27 Kashiben Manharbhai Parmar (vii) PW 7 – Exh. 31 Rohitbhai Bijalbhai Bharwad, panch witness (viii) PW 8 – Exh. 32 Amitbhai Arvindbhai Panchal, panch witness (ix) PW 9 – Exh. 33 Kamleshbhai Uttambhai Bhatia, panch witness (x) PW 10 – Exh. 34 Manilal Fulabhal Khristi, panch witness (xi) PW 11 – Exh. 35 Umedlal Moolchand Meena (xii) PW 12 – Exh. 36 Tajuddin Badruddin Malek, Police Head Constable (xiii) PW 13 – Exh. 37 Vishrambhai Lallubhai Pandor, Police Sub-Inspector (xiv) PW 14 – Exh. 39 Dr. Shitalben Sunderlal Ehari, medical officer (xv) PW 15 – Exh. 41 Ramanbhai Bhatlabhai Vasava, Police Station Officer (xvi) PW 16 – Exh. 43 Balvirsingh Mohanbava Rana, investigation officer (xvii) PW 17 – Exh. 46 Kanubhai Narottambhai Patel, investigation officer (xviii) PW 18 – Exh. 51 Kaushikumar Punjalal Vyas, handwriting expert 6. The prosecution also adduced the following documentary evidence: (i) Exh. 15 Complaint (ii) Exh. 19 Inquest Panchanama (iii) Exh. 24 Suicide note by deceased Vaishaliben (iv) Exh. 25 Notebook containing handwriting of deceased Vaishaliben (v) Exh. 26 Suicide note by deceased Vaishaliben (vi) Exh. 28 Panchanama of place of incident (vii) Exh. 29 Panchanama of examination of accused no.1 (viii) Exh. 15 Complaint (ii) Exh. 19 Inquest Panchanama (iii) Exh. 24 Suicide note by deceased Vaishaliben (iv) Exh. 25 Notebook containing handwriting of deceased Vaishaliben (v) Exh. 26 Suicide note by deceased Vaishaliben (vi) Exh. 28 Panchanama of place of incident (vii) Exh. 29 Panchanama of examination of accused no.1 (viii) Exh. 30 Panchanama of examination of other accused (ix) Exh. 40 Post Mortem report along with certificate (x) Exh. 42 Extract of station diary (xi) Exh. 44 Panchanama regarding statement of train guard (xii) Exh. 47 Panchanama of seizure of notebook containing handwriting of deceased Vaishaliben (xiii) Exh. 48 FSL Report by Handwriting Expert (xiv) Exh. 49 Letter by FSL for taking articles (xv) Exh. 50 Opinion (xvi) Exh. 52 Letter by Superintendent of Police to FSL (xvii) Exh. 53 Detailed report by Handwriting Expert 7. After completion of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused appellant stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. 8. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Judge acquitted the accused nos.2 to 5, who are in-laws of the deceased of the charges under Sections 3 04B , 306 , 498A read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . The appellant accused husband also acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 04B , 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , however, he was convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment with fine. 9. The learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence of dowry death and abetment to suicide, came to a conclusion that, there is no evidence against the accused to attract the offence under Section 304B and Section 306 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . While, convicting the appellant – accused husband for the offence of cruelty, the learned trial Court relying on the contents of suicide note Exh. 24, recorded that, the accused appellant had subjected the deceased wife to cruelty, as she was asked by the husband to leave the house. 10. Being dissatisfied, the appellant accused husband has come up with present appeal. 11. 24, recorded that, the accused appellant had subjected the deceased wife to cruelty, as she was asked by the husband to leave the house. 10. Being dissatisfied, the appellant accused husband has come up with present appeal. 11. Oral evidence on record : 11.1 The PW-1, 5, 6 are the close relatives of the deceased. PW-1 is the brother, who has lodged the complaint Exh. 15, whereas, PW-5 is the younger brother of the deceased and PW-6 Kashiben is the mother. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the appellant husband relying on the contents of the suicide note Exh. 24 and 26. The learned trial Court did not have considered the oral evidence of the close relatives and further held that, the oral evidence would not sufficient to prove the charge of cruelty. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that, there is no need to refer and discuss the oral evidence of the close relatives. 11.2 So far as cause of death is concerned, the Doctor PW-14, who had conducted the postmortum has opined that, the death of the deceased may be accidental or suicidal. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence, held and observed that, this is a case of suicide, as deceased was not happy with her matrimonial life and committed suicide by jumping in front of train. We are also agreeing of the finding of suicide recorded by the trail Court and therefore, there is no need to re-examine the evidence of PM doctor. 11.3 PW-18, Mr. Kaushik Vyas, being a handwriting expert, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the natural handwriting of the deceased with the handwriting found on the suicide note. The handwriting of the deceased mentioned in notebook maintained by her was seized and recovered by the IO and same was referred to the FSL, along with the suicide note Exh. 24 and 26. The handwriting expert PW-18, by his report Exh,.53, opined that, the authorship of the natural writing and disputed are of the deceased. Thus, it is proved and established that, before the deceased could commit suicide, she wrote herself a short note, stating therein the reason for the suicide. Exh. 24 and 26. The handwriting expert PW-18, by his report Exh,.53, opined that, the authorship of the natural writing and disputed are of the deceased. Thus, it is proved and established that, before the deceased could commit suicide, she wrote herself a short note, stating therein the reason for the suicide. Exh. 24 and 26 are not distinct and different suicide note but it is written in two copies and their contents are same and common and therefore, as such, there is a single suicide note found from the different part of the body of the deceased. 11.4 The learned trial Court, as discussed above, convicted and sentenced the appellant husband for the offence of cruelty, mainly relying on the contents of the suicide note. Thus, it is necessary to refer the contents of suicide note Exh. 24 and 26, which read thus: “Hello, my name is Vaishali. My last wish is that, after my death, my dead body should be handed over to my parental family and all the things that were given to me, as a dowry, such as, fridge, T.V., safe box, bed, showcase, sofa-set, gold and silver jewellery, dressing table, kitchen set etc., should be given to my parental family, because, I was asked to leave the house and therefore, it would be better that, not a single thing of mine remains with the matrimonial home. I wish that bringing up of my daughter Ayushi should be by my husband and he should care of her. I took this step because, I was tired. Forgive me and please fulfill my wish.” 11.5 PW-16 and 17 are the police officials, who had investigated the case and finally chargesheet came to be filed by PW-17. The testimonies of the police officials did not to discuss in detail, as the entire conviction hinges upon the suicide note Exh. 24 and 26. 12. Submission on behalf of the appellant – accused : 12.1 Mr. Hardeep Mahida, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – accused vehemently submitted that, the trial Court committed a serious error in holding the appellant accused the guilty of the offence of cruelty. 24 and 26. 12. Submission on behalf of the appellant – accused : 12.1 Mr. Hardeep Mahida, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – accused vehemently submitted that, the trial Court committed a serious error in holding the appellant accused the guilty of the offence of cruelty. He would submit that, the trial Court having found the appellant husband not guilty for the offence under Sections 304B and 306 of the IPC , ought not to have convicted him for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC on the same set of facts and evidence. He would further urge that, the contents of the suicide note do not attract the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC . The close relatives of the deceased, have did not depose that, the dispute arose because the deceased was asked to leave the matrimonial home. That, in so called suicide note, it is no where mentioned that, who had asked the deceased to leave the house and what was the motive for asking her to leave the house. Thus, it was submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant accused for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC by adducing cogent and sufficient evidence. That, on the date of incident i.e.30.06.2011, when the incident of suicide took place, the deceased was very much present in the matrimonial home. That, not a single day, she was compelled to leave the house and that is not the case of the prosecution. Despite of this, the learned trial Court presumed that, the appellant husband could have told the same to the deceased. Thus, therefore, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant husband only on the basis of assumption and presumption and same cannot be sustained in eye of law. That, the bald statement made by the deceased that, she was asked to leave the house, was being made in the context of things which were given to the deceased at the time of her marriage. The deceased, in her suicide note, stated that, the things which were given at the time of marriage, should be handed over to her parental family. The deceased, in her suicide note, stated that, the things which were given at the time of marriage, should be handed over to her parental family. That, if there was an intention on the part of the appellant – husband to drive away the deceased from the maternal home, she would have clarified further on this aspect, which shows that, the said statement was made by her not in connection with the alleged act of cruelty, which led her to commit the suicide. 12.2 Mr. Mahida, learned advocate would further submit that, the marriage span was 7 years and 4 months and during the matrimonial life, she never filed complaint to anybody nor, the occasion arose to leave the matrimonial home. In the circumstances, he prayed that, the charge of cruelty, against the appellant is not proved and established and the judgment of conviction be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge of cruelty. 13. Submission on behalf of the State : Mr. L.B. Dabhi, the learned APP appearing for the respondent State has on the other hand, vehemently opposed the appeal. He would submit that, no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the court below in holding that the appellant – accused guilty of the offence of cruelty. He would submit that, the deceased had stated that, she was asked to leave the house and that is why, she committed a suicide leaving behind her a minor daughter. The mother of a child never take a drastic step of committing suicide but the hostile situation was created by the appellant accused as being husband, he failed to resolve the matrimonial dispute and that is why, the husband held responsible for the alleged act of cruelty and harassment. Thus, therefore, it has been urged by the learned APP that, the prosecution has proved its case by adducing cogent evidence and that the considering the evidence in its proper prospective, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentence the appellant accused which does not warrant interference by this Court. In such circumstances, Mr. Dabhi, learned APP prays that, there being no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant accused and same may be dismissed. 14. In such circumstances, Mr. Dabhi, learned APP prays that, there being no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant accused and same may be dismissed. 14. Analysis and conclusion : We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the records and proceedings. The point that arise for our consideration, is to whether the accused appellant committed acts of cruelty, as defined under Section 498A of the IPC and the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant – accused for the offence of cruelty ? 14.1 The case of the prosecution hinges upon the suicide notes Exh. 24 and 26. As such there is no two suicide notes but deceased wrote two identical suicide notes and kept it at the different part of her body. At the cost of repetition, we would like to refer the contents of the suicide note, which reads as under : “Hello, my name is Vaishali. My last wish is that, after my death, my dead body should be handed over to my parental family and all the things that were given to me, as a dowry, such as, fridge, T.V., safe box, bed, showcase, sofa-set, gold and silver jewellery, dressing table, kitchen set etc., should be given to my parental family, because, I was asked to leave the house and therefore, it would be better that, not a single thing of mine remains with the matrimonial home. I wish that bringing up of my daughter Ayushi should be by my husband and he should care of her. I took this step because, I was tired. Forgive me and please fulfill my wish.” 14.2 In the above context, it is useful to refer the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC , which reads as follows : “Section 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. [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 purposes 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.]” 14.3 In the case on hand, the fact that, deceased wife committed a suicide by jumping in front of moving train. The railway track, where the dead body was found is at the throw away distance of the matrimonial home. Admittedly, marriage span was 7 years and 4 months. The marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2004. The father of the deceased passed away in the year 2007. During the marriage span, deceased never complained to anybody that she was asked to leave the house. On the contrary, the prosecution case is that, she was subjected to harassment mentally and physically by the husband and in-laws because, they were not satisfied with the additional demand of cash and jewellery. The learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused under Section 304B and 306 recorded that, the allegation of demand of dowry has not been proved and established. 14.4 In order to attract the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC , the cruelty or harassment meted out to the wife by her husband or relatives of her husband, should be to the extent that, it become unbearable for her and which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the wife to commit a suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life. 14.5 In view of the statutory provision and upon careful reading of the suicide notes as referred above, the bald statement of the deceased that she was asked to leave the house without sufficient evidence to show that the appellant husband had subjected the deceased wife the cruelty which was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit suicide would not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 498A of the IPC . The mere a fact that, she was asked to leave the house, would not amount to ‘cruelty’ as defined under explanation to Section 498A of the IPC . There is no evidence against appellant accused to attract the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the contents of suicide notes themselves are not sufficient to convict the appellant accused under Section 498A of the IPC . In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has not led sufficient evidence to show that the appellant husband had subjected deceased wife to cruelty and the evidence of suicide note falls short of the ingredients of Section 498A . Thus, on perusal of the entire records and evidence in consonance with the statutory provision, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the findings of the guilt in the opinion of this Court, are erroneous. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2012 is set aside. The appellant accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The bail bond, if any, shall stand canceled and the fine amount, if paid by the appellant accused, shall be refunded to him.