Ajay Kumar Nirankari, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 27/12/1996 passed by Sessions Judge in S.T.No.78/1995, whereby the trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC.

2. The Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that on the information furnished by PW-2 Khushilal regarding the death of Smt.Halke Bai, a merg under Section 174 of Cr.P.C was registered as merg no.4/94 at police station Dehgaon District Raisen. During merg inquiry the police authority recorded the statements of parents of deceased, wherein they alleged that Halke Bai was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, as a result of which she committed suicide. Consequently, FIR in crime no.5/1995 under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered.

3. The police authority after registration of FIR commenced the investigation, prepared the spot map, recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents under Section 306/34 of IPC alleging that the marriage of deceased Halke Bai with accused Kamar Singh had been solemnized about 3-4 years prior to the date of incident in accordance with hindu rites and rituals. It was further alleged that after some time of marriage the accused persons harassed and illtreated the deceased for payment of Rs.10,000/-as dowry. When the said demand was not fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment, as a result of which she committed suicide.

4. The Judicial Magistrate on perusal of charge sheet committed case and forwarded the same to the Sessions court for trial and thereafter the said case was registered as S.T.No.78/1995 in the Court of Sessions Judge, District Raisen(M.P). Learned trial court framed the charges under Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC. The accused persons refused to accept the charges and wished to face trial.

5. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined total 8 prosecution witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and also exhibited the documents exhibit P-1 to P-9. The accused persons in their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C stated that they are innocent person and they have not committed the alleged offence. They never harassed or illtreated the deceased for demand of dowry. The deceased was suffering from internal disease, due to which she committed suicide. The accused persons neither chose to examine any witness in support of their defence no produced or exhibited any documentary evidence.

6. Learned trial court vide impugned judgment held that prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to hold the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted from said charges. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the State preferred this appeal on the grounds as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the State argues that learned trial court committed illegality and perversity in not drawing the presumption of dowry death. He further contends that the prosecution by way of occular evidence, duly established its case that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. As a result thereof, the deceased committed suicide under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the respondents be convicted for the alleged offences by setting aside the impugned judgment.

8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. Now the sole question arises for out adjudication is whether the trial court is fully justified in acquitting the accused/respondents from said alleged offences.

10. PW-6 Daulatram and PW-7 Komal Bai in their depositions before the trial court stated that after some time of marriage, the accused persons started subjecting the deceased to cruelty harassment and illtreatment for demand of dowry. This fact was disclosed by the deceased whenever she came to their house after suffering such cruelty and harassment. Thereafter, the deceased has died. In their cross examination the aforesaid witnesses admitted the fact that one of the in-laws of deceased had ever demanded money from them. They also admitted that prior to death of deceased they had not made any complaint before any competent authority regarding the demand of dowry and illtreatment. PW-4 Ramesh Chandra who is the brother of deceased in his deposition before the trial court stated that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Kamar Singh about 6-7 years prior to the date of incident.

11. After some time of marriage the deceased was subjected to cruelty, harassment and illtreatment. In his cross examination, he stated that Kamar Singh had demanded Rs.10,000/-for purchasing of buffalo. The said demand was allegedly made in the presence of his mother and father(PW-6 and PW-7). He also stated that about three years prior to the date of incident the deceased had informed him that the accused persons were demanding dowry: however he had not made any complaint regarding the said illegal demand of dowry and harassment.

12. The post moretem of deceased was conducted by a penal of doctors and exhibit P-1 is the post mortem report. As per the post mortem report, a ligature mark was found on the neck of deceased, extending upward from the left to the right side and the mark of knot was present on the back right side of neck.As per the opinion of panel of doctors the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging except for the ligature mark. No injury was found on any part of body of the deceased. PW-1 Dr.S.S.Kushwah who is member of panel of doctors conducted the post mortem of deceased. stated in his deposition before the trial court that apart from the the ligature mark on the neck there was no mark of any bodily injury on any part of the body of deceased.

13. PW-2 Khushi Lal who was the Chowkidar stated that on receiving the information he reached the house of accused persons and saw the deceased lying on floor and there was no black nylon rope present on the neck of deceased. In his cross examination in response to a question he stated that he was very well aware about the incidents occurring in the village.

14. Section 304-B of the IPC pertains to dowry death, while Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act provides for a presumption as to dowry death. Section 304-B and 113-B of Indian Evidence Act are reproduced as under:-

          [304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

          Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

          (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] "

          " 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

          Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].

15. In the present case in hand, no material is available on record to establish the fact that the deceased was subjected to harassment or ill- treatment for demand of dowry soon before death. Section 306 deals with the abetment of suicide. The abetment is defined under Section 107 of I.P.C. Section 306 and Section 107 of I.P.C. are reproduced as under:

          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.

          107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

          First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

          Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

          Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

          Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

16. On a bare perusal of the material available on record there is no evidence establishing or proving the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. There is also no material to establish that the deceased was abetted to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned trial court rightly recorded its findings and declined to draw the the presumption of dowry death as well as abetment to commit suicide. Learned trial court is fully justified in holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents for commission of the said offences.

17. Upon an overall analysis of the facts, perusal of the record and appreciation of the material available on record we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned judgment is just speaking and well reasoned.

18. We do not find any substantial force or material in the grounds raised by the appellant nor in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing, so as to warrant interference in the well reasoned and speaking judgment.

19. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

20. Record be sent back to the trial court.

21. A copy of this order be kept in the record of the trial court.