Honble PUNCHHI, J. – Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 is filed by Mahendra Singh, the husband and his mother Radhabai, the mother-in-law of the deceased Khemabai. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1989 is Gayatribai, the sister-in-law of the husband of the deceased Khemabai. These three appellants stand convicted under Sec. 306 IPC where- under they have been sentenced to three years RI each. Insofar as the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 are concerned, they have undergone the sentence imposed on them. Sentence of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1989 stands suspended under orders of this Court after the appellant has undergone sentence of barely about ten days. The charge under Sec. 306 IPC is basically based on the dying declaration of the deceased which when translated reads as follows: ``My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husbands elder brothers wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law, Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Sec. 306 IPC, under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC, because it provides for abetment of suicide. Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisome- nt of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Abetment has been defined in Sec. 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Sec. 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sus- tainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge. (3). It was, however, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State that since the occurrence took place on 14.3.1984, Sec 498-A IPC had priorly on 25.12.1983 been brought on the Statute-book and that the appellant could well have been charged under the said provision which may now be applied in substitution. That appears to be so. But at this distance of time, we think it would be imprudent to substitute the charge and could out incidences of cruelty inflicted on the deceased by the husband or relatives of the husband and determine whether any wilful conduct is attributed to the appellants which were likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her (whether physically or mentally). Prejudice would, in our view, be writ large if we involve the appellants under Sec. 498A IPC in substitution. Even otherwise, substantial justice has been done when the husband and his mother, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1989 have undergone the sentence imposed on them. Their appeal would stand disposed of as infructuous. The sister- in-law also has undergone some sentence though not much. The appeal of the sister-in-law would therefore stand allowed and she is acquitted of the charge. She is on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled.