JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. The appellants have challenged in this appeal their conviction Under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for eight years on the first charge to appellant No. 1, R.I. for three years on the said charge to appellant No. 2 and R.I. for two years to each of them on the second charge recorded vide judgment dated 10.11.86 passed in S.T. No. 33/86 of Khandwa Sessions Division. The third accused Vinayak was acquitted. 2. It is not in dispute that appellant Vinayak is the son of appellant Chhaba Bai. Deceased Sheela Bai, daughter of Rati Lal (PW-9), was married with Vinayak on 29.11.84. After wedding she came and stayed with her husband for about 2/3 days and returned back to her parents place. After about six months she again joined her husband and stayed in her marital house for 5/6 months. During Deepawali of 1985 she went to her parents place alongwith her brother. After Deepawali she was escorted back to her marital home by her brother Sanjay. On 24.12.85 at about 4/5 a.m. Sheela Bai got burnt with kerosene oil. She was removed to Nepanagar Hospital the same day and was admitted by Dr. Madhuri Khare (PW-4), who examined her. Four days later on 28.12.85 at 4.05. a.m. she succumbed to her injuries. It is also admitted that no dowry was settled when Vinayak was married with Sheela Bai. It is also not in dispute that after she got burnt intimation was sent to Rati Lal and he had come to Nepanagar and Sheela Bai died thereafter. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that Vinayak brought Sheela Bai in a burnt state to Nepanagar Hospital at about 6.00 a.m. Lady Dr. Madhuri Khare was on duty. She sent intimation of this case vide Ex. P-5 to the police. Since Sheela Bai was conscious, the said Doctor enquired as to how she got burnt and the reply given by Sheela Bai admissible as dying declaration was recorded in Ex. P-6. When Doctor Khare examined Sheela Bai, she found that her body was exuding smell of kerosene oil and was 95% burnt. The bed head ticket of Sheela Bai is Ex. P-7. The police on getting the intimation recorded it in Journal (Ex. P-13). Station House Officer R.K. Tiwari (PW-10) reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Sheela Bai being Ex. P-15. The bed head ticket of Sheela Bai is Ex. P-7. The police on getting the intimation recorded it in Journal (Ex. P-13). Station House Officer R.K. Tiwari (PW-10) reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Sheela Bai being Ex. P-15. He was told by Dr. Khare that she had already examined the patient and recorded her dying declaration. These documents were handed over to her by the said Police Officer. Since Vinayak has also burn injuries, he was medically examined. Doctor's report is Ex. P-9. The Investigating Officer reached the spot, prepared map (Ex.P-10) and seized Stove, kerosene oil container, plastic 'Hadi', brass 'Katori' with smell of kerosene oil, two match boxes and a piece of burnt Sari vide Ex. P-ll. Initially the offence was registered Under Section 306 I.P.C. against the appellants and Another crime Under Section 309 I.P.C. was registered against Sheela Bai. After the death of Sheela Bai, inquest was held and the body was sent for autopsy. Doctor Obeja (PW-1) conducted post-mortem examination and gave his report Ex. P-2. Offence Under Section 498A was added and charge-sheet was presented in Court. The allegation is that when Sheela Bai came to her marital home the second time she was taunted by appellant Chhaba Bai and her daughter, the acquitted accused, for her failure to have brought in dowry Handa', watch and ring for her husband. She was tortured on this account. When Sheela Bai went to her parents place during Deepawali she was instructed by appellant No. 1 to bring the aforesaid articles with her. When Sheela Bai told all about it to her father, he assured her that he will explain the situation to the appellants. When Sheela Bai returned back after Deepawali and did not bring with her the aforesaid articles she was asked as to why she did not bring those things with her. The dispute on this account went on till the night of 23rd of December, 1985. Sheela Bai got desperate and burnt herself with kerosene oil as stated above. The appellants defence was that Sheela Bai received the burn injuries by accident. In all five defence witnesses were examined including appellant No. 2. The learned Trial Judge held the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and recorded the impured finding. 4. The dying declaration recorded and proved by Dr. Khare Ex. The appellants defence was that Sheela Bai received the burn injuries by accident. In all five defence witnesses were examined including appellant No. 2. The learned Trial Judge held the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and recorded the impured finding. 4. The dying declaration recorded and proved by Dr. Khare Ex. P-6 is reproduced below: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Her other dying declaration recorded by Investigating Officer Ex. P-15 is substantially to the same fact as the contents of Ex. P-6. Ex. D-2 is the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate which is exculpatory. Therein the deceased had said that she caught fire accidentally at the time of lighting the stove. The learned trial Judge held this document forged and unworthy of credence for the following reasons: (i) The state of mental condition, certified by the Doctor in Ex.D-2, is that she was semi-conscious but responding to answers and, therefore, could give her statement. In the opinion of the learned trial Judge this indicates that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to give her statement; (ii) Before recording of Ex. D-2 the statement of the deceased was recorede by the Investigating Officer in Ex. P-15. On its basis a criminal case of attempting to commit suicide punishable Under Section 309 I.P.C. was registered against her. Therefore, in order to save herself from punishment she gave the exculpatory statement in Ex. D-2; (iii) Accused No.3 as defence witness No.5 admitted in para-21 that when Sudhir Tehsildar came to record the statement of Sheela at about 5.00 p.m. in the hospital, Sheela was unconscious and, therefore, her statement could not be recorded and lastly; (iv) Had the version given in Ex. D-2 been true, kerosene oil would have been found spilled over on the scene of occurrence which was not the case. 5. The finding of the learned trial Judge that Ex. D-2 was a forged document for these reasons is contradictory to his finding that this statement was given by the deceased to save herself from punishment Under Section 309 I.P.C. D.W-5 Vinayak, the husband of deceased Sheela Bai, was accused No. 3 in the trial and acquitted vide the impugned judgment. In paras 21 and 22 of his cross-examination he has categorically stated that when Sudhir Tehsildar came, Sheela Bai was unconscious and her statement could not be recorded by him. In paras 21 and 22 of his cross-examination he has categorically stated that when Sudhir Tehsildar came, Sheela Bai was unconscious and her statement could not be recorded by him. Then a pointed question was put to him if the statement of Sheela Bai purporting to have been recorded by Sudhir Tehsildar was false, he replied in affirmative saying that Sheela Bai had not given any statement to him. There appears to be absolutely no reason why this witness, who was himself an accused in the trial, should not be be believed in this behalf. It is, therefore, held that the learned trial Judge rightly discarded Ex. D-2 as forged and unworthy of reliance. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 S.C. 374 , which deals with a situation where there are more than one dying declarations. Applying the text given in Khusal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 S.C. 22 , we find that the learned trial Judge was justified in accepting Ex. P-6 as the reliable dying declaration of deceased Sheela Bai even though the same is not recorded in question/answer form. This was so because the Doctor on duty, who has recorded this, had put questions to Sheela Bai not in order to record her dying declaration but only to gather the history of the case. In such circumstances, the mere fact that Ex. P- 6 which purports to be a dying declaration has not been recorded in question/ answer form will not make it subject to doubt as the dying declaration of the deceased. 6. Sheela Bai was married on 29.11.84. She met her tragic end on 24.12.85. Therefore, Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act dealing with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman is attracted. Under this provision when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman dying within 7 years from the date of marriage was abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is proved that she was subjected to cruelty by such relations, the Court may presume, having regard ot all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The evidence of cruelty is overwhelming. The evidence of cruelty is overwhelming. The appellants had made the life of Sheela Bai so miserable by their cruel behaviour that she was ultimately forced to end her life. Therefore, considering the evidence on record of such cruelty, the learned trial Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that both these appellants who are mother and sister of Sheela Bai's husband, had abetted the commission of suicide by Sheela Bai. Thus their conviction aforesaid calls for no interference. The sentences awarded are also appropriate. 7. In result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.