The State appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment dated 04.01.2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. ST 66 (ST/U) of 2013 whereby and where under the respondents were acquitted from the charges leveled against them under Section 498A/306 IPC.

2. Heard Ms S Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the State appellant as well as Mr. Sekhar Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant’s daughter namely, Tulsi Debnath (now deceased) was married with the accused, namely, Milan Debnath as per the Hindu rites and customs. After four/five months of the marriage the accused persons, namely, Shri Milan Debnath and Shri Nimai Debnath, being the husband and relative of the husband of Tulsi Debnath subjected her to cruelty both by physically and mentally torturing upon her and also demanding ornaments, TV, cash money. Both the accused persons namely, Shri Milan Debnath and Shri Nimai Debnath, respondents herein, lastly on 20.07.2010 abetted her to commit suicide by way of physical and mental torture.

4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW 1, Sri Lalit Mohan Debnath, father of the deceased, a police case was registered being Kakraban Police Station Case No.124 of 2010 on 20.07.2010 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of IPC and after completion of the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons, namely Shri Milan Debnath and Shri Nimai Debnath under Sections 498A/306 IPC. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur being the case was exclusively tri able by the court of Sessions. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. In course of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges against the respondent-accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the official witnesses out of which PW1, Lalit Mohan Debnath is the father of deceased Tulsi Debnath and the informant of the case; PW4, Smt. Shefali Debnath is the mother of the deceased and also exhibited some documents. The prosecution proved the FIR as well as the seized materials and the post mortem report. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons declined to adduce any evidence. The defence case is nothing but denial of the prosecution case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial acquitted the accused Shri Milan Debnath, husband of the deceased and Shri Nimai Debnath, father in law of the deceased. Hence this appeal by the State appellant.

6. Learned counsel, Ms Deb Gupta appearing for the State appellant in her usual fairness submits that admittedly the prosecution failed to prove any demand of dowry but the prosecution proved its case under Section 306 IPC as would be evident from the evidence of PW1 and PW4 that deceased Tulsi was abetted to commit suicide by the accused persons. She further submits that the learned trial court committed error while appreciating the evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of PW4 regarding her statement under Section 164(5) CrPC. She finally submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption should be that the accused persons abetted to the commission of suicide of the complainant’s daughter by way of physical and mental torture.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents submits that regarding the allegation of abetment to com