The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider all circumstances of the case before drawing any presumption of abetment of suicide, as emphasized by the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.-

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 56/2001, whereby they have been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI of five years and fine of Rs. 2,500 each, in default of payment of fine, further RI of three months.

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 2.9.2000 at 1 p.m. in the afternoon Laxminarayan Kushwah came to Police Sta­tion Madhoganj and informed that in his house the accused persons are tenants and the wife of accused Bala Rao, namely, Kiran (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') has put her life to an end by hanging her­self on the ceiling fan. This he saw by peep­ing from the window. The said report was registered as Marg Intimation Report un­der Section 174, Cr.P.C. The investigating agency came to the spot, opened the door and recovered the dead body of the deceased which was holding a note-book. After pre­paring necessary Panchnama, dead body was sent for post-mortem. The investigat­ing agency prepared spot map and investi­gated the matter.

3. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the compe­tent Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial Court for its trial.

4. Learned trial Judge on the basis of averments made in the charge-sheet, framed charge punishable under Section 304B IPC and in the alternative charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, were framed against the appellants which they denied and requested for trial.

5. In order to prove the charges, prosecu­tion examined as many as 13 witnesses and placed Exs. PI to P27, the documents on record. The defence of accused/appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set-forth in their statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. However in sup­port of their defence they did not examine any witness.

6. Learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the accused/appellants did not commit the offence punishable under Section 304B and the prosecution has also not proved the of­fence under Section 498A IPC and eventu­ally acquitted them from these charges. However, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused/appellants have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, as a result of which con­victed them and passed the sentence which I have mentioned here-in-above.

7. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. By inviting my attention to the state­ment of prosecution witnesses, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that PW1 Lata Jadhav, who is the mother of the deceased though had spoken against the appellants, but, if her evidence is scru­tinized minutely it would reveal that after the death of the father of the deceased, this lady remarried and thereafter she also gave birth to a child soon before the incident. By inviting my attention to the evidence of PW2 Manoj alias Bobby and PW11 Ajay Tegre, who are Mama (maternal uncles) of the de­ceased as well as the statement of PW5 Smt. Babita, who is Mami (maternal aunt), it has been argued that after the death of the fa­ther of the deceased, her mother (PW1 Lata Jadhav) remarried to one Narendra Verma. It has been further argued that the deceased was brought up by abovesaid maternal uncles and indeed they solemnized her mar­riage. By inviting my attention to the testi­mony of PW6 Kamal Singh, who is landlord of the appellants as well as the evidence of PW7 Laxminarayan, it has been argued that behaviour of the appellants towards the deceased was cordial and, therefore, learned trial Judge erred in convicting the appel­lants since no offence under Section 306 IPC has been found to be proved.

9. The further contention of learned coun­s