L. RATH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner along with his mother faced trial under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on account of commission of suicide by the wife of the petitioner Mayarani married to him on 7. 6. 1986. The death occurred on 31. 10. 1987. On trial the mother of the petitioner was acquitted but the petitioner being found guilty of all the charges was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 498a, I. P. C. further rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 306. I. P. C. and also rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with all the sentences directed to run con-currently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed, the present revision has been filed assailing the conviction and the sentence.

( 2 ) THE skeletogenous facts are that after her marriage on 7. 6. 1985 the deceased stayed with her mother-in-law for about 1 years or 2 years whereafter she came to stay with the petitioner at Rourkela where he was employed. The suicide having occurred on 31. 10. 1987, the matter was reported by P. W. 15 on the next day at about 1 p. m. in the sector-is Police Station, Rourkela where upon U. D. Case No. 15 of 1987 was registered and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, the investigating officer seized two letters Exts. 4/1 and 6/1 purported to have been written by the deceased to her father and a suicide note left by her in a diary exhibited as Ext. 512 in the case. On the report of the investigation officer the F. I. R. was registered under sections 498- A and 306, I. P. C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

( 3 ) AS is fairly conceded by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the conviction of the petitioner is exclusively based upon the evidence P. Ws. 10, 11, 12 and 13 and Exts. 4/1, 6/1 and 5/2 P. W. 10 is the mother of the deceased, P. W. 11 is the father and P. Ws. 12 and 13 are the two brothers of the deceased. It is the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner that their evidence is not believable and that there is no acceptance evidence of Exts. 4/1, 6/1 and 5/2 to have been authored by the deceased and that at any rate these documents were not put to the petitioner during his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. .

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY there is no direct evidence of the petitioner abetting the suicide of his wife, but the death having occurred within seven years of the marriage, both the trial as well as the appellate courts have drawn presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act the petitioner to have abetted the suicide. For conviction under Section 498-A of I. P. C. as also under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the evidence as earlier stated has been relied upon. So far as section 113a of the Evidence Act is concerned, it is explicit that the aid of the provision can be taken only if it is shown not only that the suicide occurred within seven years of the marriage but that either the husband or his relatives had subjected the lady to cruelty: Hence it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that in fact the victim had been subjected to cruelty by the accused. The only evidence in that regard is available from Exts. 4/1, 5/2 and 6/1. The evidence that these documents were written by deceased Mayarani however comes only from P. Ws: 11, 12 and 13. It is however pointed out by Mr. Panada that these witnesses were examined by the police only on 1. 8. 1988, i. e. about ten months after the occurrence. A reference to the evidence of the investigating officer P. W. 17 does snot show him to have breathed a word as to the reason of such delayed examination. These writings had been seized on 1. 11. 1987 and 2. 11. 1987 and hence there could be no earthly reason as to why investigation regarding these writings was delayed for a period of ten months. Such grossly delayed examination of the witness justifiably