YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 7. 1. 1991 by which he convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced both of them to the period already undergone which was one year eight months and seven days. No sentence of fine was passed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged at police station Bhirani by Leelu Ram mentioning that his daughter Meera Devi was married to Parmanand about seven years ago. A male child was born out of this wedlock who was of four years of age at the time of occurrence. It was further stated that Ram Kishan, who was the brother of appellant Parmanand, came at about 8. 00 P. M. and informed that Meera Devi was suffering from colitis and, therefore, he had come to fetch Leelu Ram. Leelu Ram went with Ram Kishan and as soon as they were to reach the village Balwant was coming on a tractor met them and informed that the condition of Meera Devi was very serious. Thereafter they came back and from there a jeep was hired in which Udmi, Leelu Ram, Ram Chandra, Ramji Lal, Moola Ram, and his three sons went. They reached at about 2. 00 A. M. and found that the dead body of Smt. Meera Devi was lying. The father suspected that she was administered some poison. The father made an inquiry and was told by neighbourers that Meera Devi did not suffer from colitis. A case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigated. Both the appellants were arrested and challaned before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sec. 304-B, 306, 498 A IPC and proceeded with the trial during which as many as 16 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Then the accused appellants were examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. They produced two witnesses in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants and sentenced as stated above. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. The short question before me in this appeal is whether the prosecution was able to prove offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused appellants? Offence under Sec. 306 IPC is defined as follows:- " 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. " So it is to be found out from the evidence in this case whether the accused appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. Meera Devi who committed suicide by taking poison. Learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows:- " 113-A 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 of 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. "
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of this provision there is a presumption of abetment by husband and the mother-in-law when Meera Devi committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and both the appellants had subjected her to cruelty during her life time. These Sections read together bring out the following ingredients:- (1) there should be abetment; (2) the presumption can be drawn only when it is shown that the girl committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that the husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty; and (3) regard is to be kept in mind to all other circumstances of the case. The words "may presume" indicate that the presumption is rebuttable. In view of all this the evidence in the present case is to be seen. First of all I have to see as to when Smt. Meera Devi was married to Parmanand or in other words whether she was married within a period of seven years before her death. The first information report lodged by her father i. e. Ex. P/1, mentions that Meera Devi was married to accused appellant Parmanand about seven years before. No exact date has been given, Leelu Ram PW-1 stated on oath that she was married about seven years ago but does not tell the exact date. He states that he is an illiterate witness and definitely he would not remember the date of the marriage, but PW-2 Hari Singh tells the exact date of the marriage of Meera Devi as 20. 6. 1983. This date has not been denied by the accused appellants. It is proved beyond doubt that Meera Devi was married to accused appellant Parmanand within seven years of the date of occurrence. ;