The presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act can only be raised if the prosecution proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the husband or relative.

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. Both the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 306 as also under Section 498A I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and three years respectively by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barwaha in S.T. No. 184 of 1991 by order dated 19.4.1993. They were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence under Section 306 and Rs. 500/- each for offence under Section 498A I.P.C., failing which to suffer imprisonment for six months and three months respectively. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred this appeal.

2. According to the prosecution, deceased Neelum @ Meenakumari was wife of appellant No. 1 Bholakumar. Appellant No. 2 Smt. Rajkumari is mother-in-law of the deceased. Appellant No. 1 was married to the deceased in the month of May, 1989. The deceased lived with her husband appellant No. 1 at various intervals and ultimately in December, 1989 she was sent by her father to the place of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 came alongwith the deceased and stayed at Sarafa Bazaar in Barwaha town in the house of one Babulal Jain. After 7-8 days, while living at Barwaha, the deceased caught fire and an alarm was raised by appellant No. 1. On hearing the alarm, P.W. 3 Amarsingh came there and on an inquiry being made by Amarsingh, appellant No. 1 stated that his wife caught fire in the kitchen. P.W. 3 Amarsingh then took out a blanket and covered the deceased by it. In the meanwhile, other people also came there. P.W. 1 Dr. Haridas was one of them and he suggested that the deceased be taken to the Hospital. She was then admitted in M.Y. Hospital, Indore where she succumbed to the injuries, on 15.1.1990.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused used to harass the deceased for a gold chain and a wooden sofa set. The deceased was also subjected to cruelty, and when the deceased asked appellant No. 1 to take her to her parent's place, she was assaulted and because of that, she poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire.

4. Case of the defence is of false implication. According to appellant No. 1, on the date of incident he came from duty at about 9.00 p.m. and thereafter went to Bazaar to purchase certain articles and he reached at his residence at about 10 p.m. According to him, when he was taking rest and his wife was cooking meals, suddenly he went to the kitchen and found his wife burning. He tried to extinguish fire by covering the deceased by a blanket. He has further stated that his palm and hand were also burnt in the process. According to his defence, he sustained injuries while saving his wife and he was also treated in M. Y. Hospital.

5. Prosecution, in support of its case has examined altogether seven witnesses No. witness has been examined on behalf of the defence.

6. P.W. 1 Dr. Haridas has stated that he was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Barwaha on 9.1.1990 and the deceased had come for examination and treatment. He found burn injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W. 2 Govind Prasad is the father of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that his daughter Meenakumari was married to appellant No. 1 Bholakumar in the month of May, 1989. He has further stated that after marriage when he went to bring his daughter, both the appellants refused to send her. He has further stated that both, the deceased and father of appellant No. 1 have stated that unless appellant No. 1 will agree, they will not send his daughter. He has further stated that once appellant No. 1 came to his house along-with the deceased and after staying for one night, both of them returned to their home. Whereafter, according to this witness, in the marriage of his eldest son, the deceased had come and stayed for about 15 days and thereafter appellant No. 1 came and took her. According to this witness, when appellant No. 1 had come to take her, the deceased had stated that they have seen her for the last time. The said stateme