The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to prove allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide, emphasizing the importance of establishing cruelty to invoke the presumption of abetment of suicide under S.113.A of the Evidence Act.

1. Ashok Kumar appellant stands convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to further R.I. for six months under S.306, Indian Penal Code ; and to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 or in case of default of payment of fine, to further R.I. for one month, under S.498.A, I.P.C. for abetting his wife Smt. Kiran Bala to commit suicide. He was tried along with Rajinder Kumar and Nirmala, his maternal uncle and aunt respectively and his mother Smt. Lajo Devi. As a result of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, found that so far as the latter three were concerned, their false implication could not be ruled out. Thus they were given the benefit of doubt. So far as the appellant is concerned, his conclusion was as follows : -

"So far as Ashok Kumar accused is concerned, I am of the considered view that it was he who abetted Kiran Bala to commit suicide and subjected her to cruelty as presumption with regard to abetment of suicide by Kiran Bala is to be drawn in view of the provisions of S.113.A of Evidence Act, as she committed suicide within a period of seven years (months?) from the date of her marriage with Ashok Kumar accused and as such I hold him guilty for offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 498.A of Indian Penal Code and convict him thereunder."

2. Briefly the facts as available on the record are as follows

3. The appellant was married to Kiran Bala deceased on May 4, 1984 and since the marriage they were residing at Abohar in the house of Rajinder Kumar, the maternal uncle of the appellant, as tenants. Rajinder Kumar and Nirmala also lived in the same very house though in a different portion. Lajo Devi, mother of the appellant, was concededly living at Ferozepur.

4. Kiran Bala died on Nov. 18, 1984, and as per the report of the Chemical Examiner, dt/- Dec. 13, 1984 (Exhibit PA) she died by - consuming Dragno Phosphorus compound (insecticide)-

5. During the days of occurrence, Banwari Lal, father of Kiran Bala, was running a Military Canteen at Gwalior and his wife, Kamla, i.e., mother of the deceased was residing at Ferozepur. She received a message on Nov. 18, 1984 at about 5.30 p.m. through Sanjay, brother of the appellant, that Kiran Bala had suddenly died and she should reach Abohar. She informed her Jeth (husbands elder brother) Nagar Mal at Jullundur on telephone about the death of Kiran Bala and asked him to join her at the earliest. Nagar Mal reached Ferozepur on the next day, I.e. Nov. 19, 1984, and then left for Abohar in the company of Kamla Devi and Anil, her son, on reaching Abohar, they found the dead body of Kiran Bala in the house of the appellant and thereafter Kamla Devi went to the police station to lodge a report with the police. The said report is Exhibit PG. It is mentioned therein as to when the deceased was married to the appellant and how she had received the message about her death through Sanjay, brother of the appellant, and that she suspected some foul play on account of the suddenness of the death of Kiran Bala. On the receipt of thin information, ASI Ram Singh, P.W. 6, of Police Station, Abohar, went to the spot and prepared the Inquest Report, Exhibit PE. He recorded the statements of Smt. Kamla Devi, Nagar Mal uncle of the deceased, Anil Kumar her brothel, the appellant, Shashi Bala and Shanti other tenants in the house of Rajinder Kumar. The crux of the statements of the three witnesses, namely, Kamla Devi, Nagar Mal and Anil Kumar, was that the deceased had met a sudden death and therefore the cause of the death should be investigated after getting the postmortem examination on the dead body. What is conspicuously missing from these statements is the fact that the deceased suffered any cruelty or any indifferent treatment at the hands of the appellant or the persons who were tried along with him. The stand of the appellant before the Investigator at the time of the preparation of this re