( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18/12/1990 passed by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Criminal Appeal No. 571-DB of 1988. By the impugned judgment, the High court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1988 by judgment dated 26/10/1988. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to suffer 3 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code, 10 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 Indian penal Code and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased Alka was the wife of the appellant and the marriage of the deceased had taken place on 12/12/1985. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 8/12/1986. Alka was admitted in the medical College Hospital, Rohtak and died in the said hospital on 7/1/1987. From the analysis of the contents found in the viscera of the deceased, it transpired that aluminium phosphate usually used in pesticides was the cause of the death. The brother of the deceased, Satpal was the only witness who came and deposed to the effect that Alka was subjected to humiliation and mental torture on account of demand for dowry. It may be stated that the co- accused, Lajwanti, the mother-in-law of the deceased died before the trial commenced. The learned trial Judge accepted the deposition of the brother of the deceased who was the complainant in the case and came to the finding that the deceased had been harassed for more dowry shortly before her death. It may be indicated here that the learned trial Judge, however, noted that there is no direct evidence for a clear demand of the dowry but from the facts stated in the deposition that in connection with the Jamni, the gifts given by the parents of the deceased were not accepted because they did not contain gold and also on other occasions the deceased was treated with cruelty and was humiliated, the learned trial Judge came to the finding that even in the absence of direct evidence in connection with the demand for dowry, the evidence of the brother of the deceased should be accepted that there was demand for dowry for which the deceased had been dealt with cruelty by the members of the family of the husband. Since the cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is of a wide amplitude, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A indian Penal Code and the learned Judge was also of the view that the presumption under sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was also attracted in the facts of the case. Therefore, the charges under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code must be held to have been proved against the accused.

( 2 ) AS indicated, the High court upheld such conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal. Mr U. R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Uma Datta, learned counsel has contended that no case for conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out because there is no evidence on the basis ofwhich the court can come to a conclusive finding that the deceased had committed suicide. Simply because aluminium phosphate, a poison was found in the viscera of the deceased, it cannot be held that the deceased had consumed the said poison for the purpose of committing suicide. Unless accidental consumption of such poison and administration of such poison by someone are ruled out, the case of suicide cannot be held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the case for conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide could not and did not arise and the courts below failed to appreciate the lacuna in the prosecution case. Mr L