SURJIT SINGH, J.

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 27.4.2000, of learned Sessions Judge, whereby respondents Amar Nath, his wife Smt. Geeta Devi and son Hans Raj, who were tried for offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for allegedly harassing Kanta Devi wife of respondent Hans Raj and abetting the commission of suicide by her, have been acquitted.

(2.) Deceased Kanta Devi was married to respondent Hans Raj, more than seven years prior to 25.5.1997, on which date she consumed poison and ended her life. She gave birth to two daughters. One was aged about 6 years and the other about 2 years at the time of her death. Some one informed the police about the death of Kanta Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Devi by poison. Police reached the village late in the evening. Next morning, inquest was conducted and report Ext. PH was prepared. Dead body was sent to government hospital, Dalhousie, for postmortem examination. PW-6 Dr. N.K. Soorya conducted postmortem examination and noticed that apparent cause of death was poisoning. Opinion was confirmed on receipt of report Ext. PE of Chemical Examiner, to whom viscera was sent.

(3.) On 27.5.1997, statement Ext. PA was made by the father of the deceased, namely Prithi Chand, on the basis of which case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. PG. As per statement Ext. PA, deceased on visits to her parents place, used to complain that she was being harassed and ill-treated by the respondents, on account of her having given birth to two daughters and to no male child and also she was being pressurized to make her father agree to their proposal for the marriage of their second son with her sister. It was also reported that proposal for the marriage of a brother of respondent Hans Raj with another daughter of Prithi Chand, the father of the deceased, was turned down, because Prithi Chand did not want his second daughter to be married in the same house.

(4.) Police investigated the case and challaned the respondents. Case was committed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate to the Sessions Court, which charged the respondents with offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, and tried them on their pleading not guilty.

(5.) Prosecution examined nine witnesses, including father of the deceased, namely Prithi Chand and a neighbour of Prithi Chand, namely PW-2 Pritam Singh. Respondents denied that the deceased was ill-treated by them or ever harassed. Learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that charge had not been substantiated.

(6.) We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel, representing the respondents, and gone through the record.

(7.) But for the testimony of the father of deceased, namely Prithi Chand, examined as PW-1, a neighbour of Prithi Chand (PW1), namely Pritam Singh examined as PW-2, there is no evidence, indicating that the deceased was ill-treated or harassed. As a matter of fact, even the testimony of PW-1 Prithi Chand, father of the deceased and PW-2 Pritam Chand, a neighbour of the father of the deceased, is too vague to lead to a definite conclusion that the deceased was subjected to harassment or ill-treatment, as alleged. No specific instances of alleged ill-treatment or harassment find mention either in statement Ext. PA, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. of the father of the deceased or in the testimony of the father of the deceased and the neighbour of the father of the deceased, in their statements in the Court. Nature and kind of ill-treatment and harassment is also not testified by them.

(8.) Prosecution version that the deceased used to be harassed, on account of her giving birth to second daughter and also on account of her father PW-1 Prithi Chand, declining the offer of marriage of his second daughter Rekha with another son of respondent Amar Nath is self contradictory. If the respondents were annoyed with the deceased, on account of her having given birth to two daughters, one after the other, it is not believable that they would have insisted for the marriage of second daughter of Prithi Chand with another son of respondent Amar Nath. This is especially so, when PW-1 Prithi Chand has testified that respondents used to say that the deceased was such a woman who could never give birth to a male child and if this is so, how could have they expected her sister to bear a male child.

(9.) In the FIR Ext. PG, it is recorded that deceased used to complain about the ill-treatment and harassment during her visits to her parents place, but, when in the witness box, PW-1 Prithi Chand stated that the deceased was not being allowed to visit his house for the last two years and that she used to complain about the ill-treatment at the hands of the respondents, whenever she met him, while going to a doctor to seek treatment. This statement in the Court is not believable not only on account of being contradictory to what he stated in the FIR, but is otherwise also doubtful, because when asked about the sickness, the deceased was suffering from and the name of doctor she had been taking treatment from, he expressed ignorance.

(10.) Again, in the FIR Ext. PG it is recorded that when PW-1 Prithi Chand and other persons from the village went to the house of the respondents, on getting the news of death Smt. Kanta Devi, they were informed by respondent Geeta Devi that the deceased and her husband Hans Raj had a quarrel, whereafter the deceased took poison, but PW-2 Pritam Chand, a neighbour of PW-1 Prithi Chand, who claims to have accompanied the father of the deceased to the house of the respondents, stated that it was the father of respondent Hans Raj, who had said that the deceased had taken poison, after a tiff with her husband.

(11.) In view of the above stated position, we do not think that the trial Court has acquitted the respondents, taking a view not supportable by the evidence on record. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.