NAOLEKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision-petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court dated 17/1/1991 directing applicant to be made an accused in the Sessions Trial No. 64189 having satisfied that a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant and against issuance of warrant for her presence in the Court on 8/2/1991. ( 2 ) ONE Satyanarayan Somani is facing trial under Section 306,498 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant Pushpa Somani is a wife of Purushottam Somani brother of Satyanarayan. Sushila Bai was married to Satyanarayan about 14 years ago. Sushila Bai committed suicide by setting herself on fire on 13/3/1988. Pushpa Somani, the applicant, lodged a report of the incident in the Police Station on 13/3/1988. The applicant was cited as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet. ( 3 ) DURING the trial three prosecution witnesses were examined, Dr. Singh (P. W. 1) who had conducted the post mortem, Amravati (P. W. 2) who was said servant and Ku. Puja (P. W. 3) daughter of Satyanarayan. At that stage of the proceedings the prosecution moved an application under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that according to the police papers statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that Satyanarayan was having illicit relations with Pushpa, the applicant and as such Pushpa should also be made an accused in the trial. The Sessions Judge issued notice to the applicant as to why she should not be made an accused. Aggrieved by that order of issuance of notice a revision petition was filed in the High Court The High Court by its order dated 25/10/1989 has directed the Presiding Judge of the trial Court to hear arguments of both the parties on the question, if at all Pushpa Bai should be made a co-accused along with Satyanarayan. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, the prosecution had examined Kashiram who is a witness to the inquest of the dead body, Jayanarayan Jhanwar (P. W. 5) brother-in-law of deceased Sushila, Smt. Shobha niece of Sushila (P. W. 6), and Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) brother of deceased. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, the prosecution had examined Kashiram who is a witness to the inquest of the dead body, Jayanarayan Jhanwar (P. W. 5) brother-in-law of deceased Sushila, Smt. Shobha niece of Sushila (P. W. 6), and Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) brother of deceased. ( 5 ) ON account of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such Woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. For the purposes of this section under the explanation, cruelty is defined under clause (a) to mean any willful 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 ). Thus any willful conduct that is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide shall be an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) SECTION 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to any court to take cognizance and add any person, not being an accused before it, and try him along with other accused where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed and he may be arrested or summoned for the said purpose. Where the Court proceeded under this section, the proceeding shall be commenced afresh against that person and the witnesses shall be re-heard. ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH this provision gives ample power to take cognizance by the Court at any stage to add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with other accused, but such extraordinary power should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reason exists for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action had not been taken originally. Reliance is placed on Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan. Reliance is placed on Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan. ( 8 ) THUS it is necessary to examine the statement of the witnesses recorded during the trial by the Court and to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The word evidence as used in Section 319 Cr. P. C. , means statement of the witness recorded before the Court, the entire statement of the witness i. e. examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The Court has to arrive at a conclusion about the prima facie case of commission of particular offence on appreciation of entire evidence and not only the statement made by the witnesses in examination-in-chief. ( 9 ) DR. Singh (P. W. 1) is the doctor who has conducted a post mortem, Surajnarayan Jhanwar (P. W. 5) is the brother-in-law of the deceased who stated that 2 to 3 months prior to death of Sushila Bai she had come to the house of Madan Gopal Chandak and when inquiry was made Sushila Bai has stated that accused Satyanarayan is not a man of good character and is having illicit relations with the applicant. It has been further stated that in her presence her husband had relation with her Devrani, the applicant. On put to cross-examination he stated that police has interrogated him but he has not informed them about the illicit relationship. Harda Police called him twice and he has not said anything about the illicit relationship as he thought it not to be proper to inform the police about it. He has further admitted that there is omission in his case diary statement that Sushila Bai had informed him that the accused was having illicit relations with her Devrani in her presence and on complaint being made she was ill-treated. Smt. Shobha Malie (P. W. 6) has stated that at the time of Sankranti, Sushila had come to Udaypura and at that time she informed her that her husband is having illicit relations with the applicant. In cross-examination she has admitted that accused Satyanarayan has four brothers and all of them are living jointly in the same house. She has informed about the illicit relations between Satyanarayan and the applicant only to her husband after sometime when this was informed to her by Sushila, and she has not informed anybody else. In cross-examination she has admitted that accused Satyanarayan has four brothers and all of them are living jointly in the same house. She has informed about the illicit relations between Satyanarayan and the applicant only to her husband after sometime when this was informed to her by Sushila, and she has not informed anybody else. Her statement was recorded by the police after three months and she remain silent for all these months. Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) is brother of deceased. He stated that in the month of January 1988 Sushila Bai had informed that Satyanarayan has illicit relations with applicant Pushpa Somani. This fact was informed by him to his wife only and none else. He had not informed that fact to the police although he was present at the place of Sushila Bai on the date she died. Eight days after the death of Sushila Bai he made complaints to the officials. On 9. 4. 1988 he had made a report, Ex. P-12, but the fact of illicit relations does not find place in it. ( 10 ) AMRAVATI Bai (P. W. 2) is a maid servant. She stated that Pushpa and Purushottam were sleeping in the hall and child of the deceased was weeping to whom Pushpa Bai told that his mother (deceased) is sleeping on the upper storey. Then Pushpa went to the upper storey. Push pa shouted Bhabhiji Darwaja Khole but the door was not opened. Then Pushpa Bai came down and called Purushottam and others. Purushottam tried to persuade deceased to open the door. The applicant then telephoned at the shop. Thereafter Pushpa Bai went upstairs and found that smoke was emitting out from the room. Pushpa threw water, then the door was opened and Pushpa rapped a blanket over Sushila. Thereafter the doctor came. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid evidence of the witnesses show that the fact of illicit relation of Pushpa with accused Satyanarayan was not intimated to the police by the close relatives i. e. Suraynarayan Jhanwar (P. W. 5), Shobha (P. W. 6) and Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) of the deceased Sushila Bai immediately after the incident of long thereafter. It has been admitted by Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) that although he had made report (Ex. P. 12) to the officials dated 9/4/1988 it does not contain the act of illicit relationship. It has been admitted by Gopal Rathi (P. W. 7) that although he had made report (Ex. P. 12) to the officials dated 9/4/1988 it does not contain the act of illicit relationship. The fact that all the members of the family of the applicant were living jointly for so many years in a same house. The steps taken by the applicant immediately after finding out that Sushila Bai has set fire to herself do not make out a prima facie case that the applicant had illicit relations with accused Satyanarayan. ( 12 ) FOR constituting an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that it must come in the evidence, that willful conduct of the accused was of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. if the factum illicit relations of the applicant with the husband of the deceased, is of doubtful nature, there is no other evidence on record to indicate willful conduct on the part of the applicant which can be said to have driven Sushila to commit suicide. ( 13 ) ON the consideration of the evidence on record so far led by the prosecution, I am of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant for her having committed an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, I set aside the order dated 17/1/1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Harda in Sessions Trail No. 64189 directing joining applicant as accused in the trial and for issuance of warrant for her presence. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed. .