Judgment Siba Prasad Rajkhowa, J. 1. THE accused appellant along with his father and mother stood charged u/s. 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (and also u/s. 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having abetted the commission of suicide by the appellants wife Urmila Chowdhury on 19-2-1987 at 7(h) 29, Gorapada Sarkar Lane, P.S. Ultadanga, Distt. 24- Parganas and for having subjected said Urmila Chowdhury to constant physical and mental torture which compelled her to commit suicide, in Sessions Trial No. 2(7)88 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore. THE learned Sessions Judge, by his impugned judgment and order dated 25-5-1989 found the accused/appellant guilty u/s. 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 6 months on the first count and sentenced to him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years on the second count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. THE learned judge found the other two accused not guilty and so he aquitted thcm. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence accused Hira Chowdhury has come up in this appeal. 2. THE prosecution case as disclosed from the First Information Report, Ext. 1 filed on 19-2-1987 at Ultanga Police Station, Calcutta by Khagendra Nath Pradhan who is a tenant under the appellants father at 7(H) 29, Gorapada Sarkar Lane, is that the accused/appellant along with his parents, his brother Moti Choudhury, his wife Urmila and their 3-year old son Bapi lived together at the aforesaid premises. Urmila often used to say that she had to do all the household works and that none of the other members of the family did anything. She alone had to do cooking, washing of utensils and clothes, wiping the floors etc. Her husband was very much addicted to playing Satta (gambling). He did not give her a single rupee as pocket money and when she told him about the hard labour he created a lot of disturbances. Urmila used to say that her husband used to tell her to do all the works otherwise she could go away anywhere she liked. Her husband was very much addicted to playing Satta (gambling). He did not give her a single rupee as pocket money and when she told him about the hard labour he created a lot of disturbances. Urmila used to say that her husband used to tell her to do all the works otherwise she could go away anywhere she liked. On 15-2-1987 accused Hira Chowdhurys father Nagina Chowdhury told him that his son had been destroying everything owing to addiction to Satta. He used to go out with pockets fun of money and he returned home as a pauper. On 19-2-1987 at about 10 a.m. he heard that Hira and Urmila had a dispute. Urmihhad said that she would not be able to cook for so many people and Hira had told her she could go away anywhere. On that very day at about 12 noon he heard that Urmila was found in a burnt condition in her room and the boys of the neighboured had taken her to the R.G. Kar Hospital. It transpired that she had died in the hospital. After due investigation police submitted charge against the accused/appellant and against his parents. The trial ended in the conviction of the accused/appellant and acquittal of his parents as already stated above. 3. SHRI Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. According to the learned counsel there is no evidence that the appellant had abetted the commission of suicide by his wife Urmila. Not only that, the learned counsel further contends that the very fact of commission of suicide by Urmila remains a doubtful proposition. The contention of the learned counsel is that it may not be a case of suicide, but that it may be an accidental death by catching fire. Not only that, the learned counsel further contends that the very fact of commission of suicide by Urmila remains a doubtful proposition. The contention of the learned counsel is that it may not be a case of suicide, but that it may be an accidental death by catching fire. His further contention is that the evidence on record is unsufficient to come to a finding that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband who is the appellant before us in the order to attract the punishment u/s. 498A of the I.P.C. Elaborating his argument Sri Dutta has submitted that there is none who had seen the deceased catching fire and there is no evidence that the deceased had been doused in kerosene oil as there was no such smell when the charred body of the deceased was discovered. So he contends that there is no positive proof that the deceased had committed suicide by setting fire to her wearing clothes after dousing the same with kerosene. The submission of the learned counsel that there was no smell of kerosene is found to be, not correct. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence on record. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.16 Prasanta Kumar Banerjee, Inspector of Police who is the Investigating Officer that as per Ext. 3 he seized the following articles on 19-2-1987 from the room of accused Hira Chowdhury in the 1st floor room of premises No.7 (H)29, Goropada Sarkar Lane which is the residence of Nagina Chowdhury: 1) One partly filled tin-made container with kerosene oil 2) Semi-burnt piece of clothe with smell of kerosene oil 3) One partly filled safety matchbox 4) One burnt stick of a match. As such, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel. P.W.13 Dr. Jitendra Nath Roy who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries on the dead body: 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree bum involving (a) whole area of face, (b) whole area of right side, superior extremities, (c) whole area of left side, superior extremities, (d) whole area of abdomen, (e) whole area of the back of the chest, (f) whole area of the back of the lumber region, (g) whole area of right side inferior extremities, (h) whole area of left side inferior extremities. In his opinion death was due to the effect of bum injuries as found by him and these were ante mortem in nature. He did not give any opinion whether the death was suicidal, homicidal or accidental. It is natural that he could not give such opinion. However, the occurrence took place in the living room of accused Hira Chowdhury. The occurrence did not take place in the kitchen. So the possibility of death by accidental fire is ruled out. There is also no evidence to suggest that it was a case of homicide. However, P.W.1 Khagendra Nath Pradhan who is the de facto complainant has stated in his evidence that 2nd wife (thereby meaning Urmila) of accused Hira died by setting herself on fire on 19-2-1987. This statement of P.W.1 remains unchallenged by the defence. So from the facts and circumstances of the case with particular reference to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.13 and P.W. 16 we have no hesitation to come to the finding that deceased Urmila had committed suicide by setting fire to herself. 4. NOW let us see whether the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and curelty and if so whether such ill-treatment and cruelty were of such a magnitude that the deceased was driven to commit suicide or in other words whether the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. The cruelty referred to in Section 498A, I.P.C. means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. P. W.2 Panchu Roy is the father of the deceased. As per his evidence he gave his 4th daughter Urmila in marriage to accused Hira Lal in 1982. For the first 2 years after marriage his daughter had good relationship with the accused person but thereafter she reported to him that her husband used to assault her. P. W.2 Panchu Roy is the father of the deceased. As per his evidence he gave his 4th daughter Urmila in marriage to accused Hira Lal in 1982. For the first 2 years after marriage his daughter had good relationship with the accused person but thereafter she reported to him that her husband used to assault her. She also used to complain to him that she was not looked after properly by accused Hira Lal and her father-in-law. She came to his house for the last time 9 months before her death. She stayed in his house till 20 days before her death and then left to her matrimonial home. She again came back to his house 5/6 days thereafter and asked for Rs. 5000/- from him saying that the money was needed by her husband for starting a factory for manufacturing of ball pens. He could not pay the money. So she left for her matrimonial home in the evening of the same day. He wanted to intervene on one occasion to sort out the differences between his daughter and. the members of her matrimonial home, but it did not yield any result. In his cross-examination, among other things, he has stated that he made the attempt for sorting out the difference between his daughter and the inmates of her matrimonial home 3 years after the marriage of his daughter and whenever he visited his daughter at her matrimonial home he found her in shabby condition and he had also an impression that she did not get proper food although he had no personal knowledge as to why his daughter had been shabby in her dresses and why she did not take food. However he enquired of his daughter as to the reason why she was shabbily dressed and why she gave a look of suffering from starvation. In reply she told him that she was not being properly looked after by the inmates of her matrimonial home. He had denied the defence suggestion that his daughter did not ask for money for enabiling her husband to run the factory for manufacturing ball pens. In reply she told him that she was not being properly looked after by the inmates of her matrimonial home. He had denied the defence suggestion that his daughter did not ask for money for enabiling her husband to run the factory for manufacturing ball pens. From the evidence of P.W.2 as recounted above, four things stand out- (1) that for the first two years, after the marriage Urmila had good relationship with the accused persons and thereafter she had been subjected to physical assault by her husband (accused Hira): (2) that an attempt was made by the father to patch up the differences between deceased Urmila and her husband and the other inmates of her matrimonial home, (3) that deceased Urmila was not properly looked after at her matrimonial home and she gave a look of suffering from starvation and that (4) 14/15 days before her death Urmila had come to her fathers home and asked for Rs. 5000/- as demanded by her husband for starting a factory for manufacturing ball pens. Let us see whether these statements of P.W.2 found corroboration in the evidence tendered by other prosecution witnesses. P.W.3 Smt. Rekha Roy is the younger sister of deceased Urmila. Her evidence is that her elder sister used to complain to them that she had been subjected to torture by the accused persons and that she was not properly looked after in her matrimonial home. P.WA is Smt. Asha Devi. She is a neighbour of P.W. 2. Her evidence is that she knew her neighbour's daughter Urmila who was married to accused Hira Lal. Urmila often reported to her that she had been assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law and that she was not given proper food and cloth by the accused persons. Of course, she has stated that she had no personal knowledge as to how deceased Urmila was treated in her matrimonial home. P.W.5 Smt. Lila Roy is the mother of deceased Urmila. Her evidence is that Urmila had told her that her husband was a drunkered and a gambler and that he used to beat her whenever she asked for money. Once on a visit to the house of the accused she found Urmila having marks of assault on her body. So she enquired of the matter as to how she received those marks. Urmila stated before her that her husband had assaulted her. Once on a visit to the house of the accused she found Urmila having marks of assault on her body. So she enquired of the matter as to how she received those marks. Urmila stated before her that her husband had assaulted her. Urmila further told her that she was not getting proper food in her matrimonial home. On this incident of assault she lodged a diary with Ultanga Police Station. Urmila came to their house about 15 days prior to her death and asked for Rs. 5000/- to enable her husband to purchase a machine in connection with her husband's business. But they could not give her the money. That G.D. entry No.809 dated 11-6-1986 was brought on record by prosecution and was marked Y for identification and the signature of Urmila was marked Ext. 2/1. P.W.6 Ram Chandra Routh Roy and P.W.7 Ramanuj Singh are also neighbours of P.W.2. Their evidence is more or Jess similar to the evidence of other witnesses discussed above. Urmila is no more in this world. Her statements made before the witnesses may, therefore be taken as admissible relevant facts as per provision of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. P.W.3 being the younger sister of the deceased and P.W.5 being the mother of the deceased are close relations of the deceased. But we find that this close relationship has not blinded them to make absurd and false statements. They have spoken about what Urmila stated before them in a very natural way and there is nothing to disbelieve in their evidence. P.WA, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are independent witnesses and they are close neighbours of P.W.2. They have just stated what deceased Urmila had told them. They have no enmity with the accused. So there is nothing to disbelieve in their evidence also. The fact that the deceased along with her mother went to the Ultanga Police Station on 11-6-1986 to lodge a diary for assault on her by her husband IS itself sufficient to hold that the accused had subjected his deceased wife to cruelty. Normally a wife would not come to a police station to file a case of assault against her husband. It only shows that the wife took this extreme legal step because of constant ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband. Normally a wife would not come to a police station to file a case of assault against her husband. It only shows that the wife took this extreme legal step because of constant ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband. Taking the evidence as an organic whole we have no hesitation to come to a definite finding that deceased Urmila was subjected to cruelty by the accused within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Our findings above lead us to the question whether the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Section 113-A of the evidence Act lays down that, when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. This section was inserted by Act. 46 of 1983 - The occurrence in the instant case before us took place on 19-2-1987. The marriage between the deceased and the accused! appellant took place in 1982. So we find that this rule of evidence is applicable to the case in hand. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the physical assault as disclosed by the G.D. entry took place on 11-6-1986. Thereafter deceased Vrmila came to her fathers house and stayed there for 9 months and she left her father's house to her matrimonial house 20 days before her death. According to the learned counsel, this shows that for the period of 9 months before her death, Urmila could never be subjected to cruelty by her husband. That is true. But the learned counsel has not taken notice of the fact that as per evidence Urmila came back to her father's house about 5,16 days thereafter and asked for Rs. 5000/- from her father saying that the money was needed by her husband for starting a factory for manufacturing pens. As the father could not give that money she returned to her matrimonial home that very evening. 5000/- from her father saying that the money was needed by her husband for starting a factory for manufacturing pens. As the father could not give that money she returned to her matrimonial home that very evening. After about 14/15 days from that day, Urmila committed suicide at her matrimonial house. By referring to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the evidence on record it can never be said that the accused appellant had instigated his deceased wife to commit suicide. Moreover the physical assault on 11-6-1986 can not be said to be the proximate cause of committing suicide. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. The poignant picture of cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused has vividly appeared before us from the evidence on record. First 2 years of conjugal life passed of peacefully. Thereafter the cordial relation between husband and wife began to sour. Urmila had to do all the domestic works single handed. She was ill-treated and subjected to physical assault when she protested. She was not getting sufficient food which resulted in slow starvation, thereby giving an ematiated look. She was harassed to meet an unlawful demand for money and this demand took place just a fortnight ago since before her death. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we presume, as per provision of Section 113A of the Evidence Act that the suicide of deceased Urmila had been abetted by her husband who is the appellant before us. The result is that we find no merit in this appeal. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case we hold the view that a lesser sentence would meet the ends of justice. As such, while upholding the conviction of the accused appellant, we reduce the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 306 I.P.C. to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years only and also reduce the amount of fine from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/- only in default further imprisonment for 3 months. There shall be no modification in the sentence awarded under Section 498A, I.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently. The pre-conviction detention of the accused appellant shall be set off as per provision of Section 428, Cr. P.C. 5. THE appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as indicated above. Appeal dismissed.