JUDGMENT Appellant Rameshwar has been convicted under section 306 Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. It is not in dispute that deceased Tulsibai was wife of accused Rameshwar. They were married more then seven years prior to the commission of suicide by the wife by hanging herself in her house in village Gorakhpur, police station Bajag, District Mandla. The prosecution case is that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by her. He used to beat her after drinking liquor. On the date of incident also there was a quarrel between the two. The accused had beaten her after consuming liquor. He used to abuse her and harass her. For these reasons she brought an end to her life. It has been held by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record that the conduct of the accused had become intolerable for the deceased. In this appeal it is argued on behalf of the appellant that section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service as marriage had taken place more than seven years ago. It is also pointed out that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by his wife. Evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. Durgabai (PW 3), Chokelal (PW 5), Chamelibai (PW 7), Gangaram (PW 8). Mohan (PW 10) and Jhallu (PW 11) have been examined by the prosecution to prove the conduct of the accused towards his wife. Durgabai (PW 3) has stated that she is living in the neighbourhood of the accused. He used to beat her after drinking liquor. She used to hear the cries of his wife. The accused was beating his wife every second or fourth day. In cross-examination she has stated that she never went inside the house of the accused. Chokhelal (PW 5) has stated that Tulsibai used to tell him that her husband beats her after taking liquor. He adds that the accused was not giving her excessive beating. Chamelibai (PW 7) is also a neighbour. She has also stated that accused Rameshwar used to assult his wife after taking the intoxicant. His wife was fed-up. Four months before the date of the incident, the accused had beaten her and she had left his house. He adds that the accused was not giving her excessive beating. Chamelibai (PW 7) is also a neighbour. She has also stated that accused Rameshwar used to assult his wife after taking the intoxicant. His wife was fed-up. Four months before the date of the incident, the accused had beaten her and she had left his house. The members of the locality persuaded her to come back and she had returned. In cross-examination she has stated that Tulsibai did not make any complaint to her as she had herself seen the happenings. She has further stated that the accused used to consume liquor every day or alternate day. Gangaram (PW 8) has deposed that he had gone to house at the time of Holi and he had seen the accused beating her. He had intervened to save her. She accused scolded him for his intervention. He is also a neighbour of the accused. He used to hear the cries of Tulsibai. Mohan (PW 10) has stated that on the date of the incident he was taking liquor with the accused. At that time the wife of the accused came there and castigated her husband that instead of going for work to earn something he was busy in taking liquor. The accused did not listen to her and asked her to cook fish for him. He has further stated that the accused used to beat his wife occasionally after drinking liquor. Once he went to his house and tried to pacify them and then he was rebuked by the accused. Jhallu (PW 11) has stated that on date of the incident he had gone to the house or Jagdish for repairing the doors of his house. The accused lives near the house of Jagdish. At about 2 p.m. he was passing in front of the house of the accused. He saw his wife sitting outside the house and at that time she was weeping. The accused took her inside. He has also stated that the accused used to beat his wife after drinking. Rampal (PW 12) is son of the accused and he has not supported the prosecution. He has been declared hostile. From the evidence discussed above it is found that the accused was harassing and ill-treating his wife. He was engaged in beating her as a matter of routine after consuming liquor. Rampal (PW 12) is son of the accused and he has not supported the prosecution. He has been declared hostile. From the evidence discussed above it is found that the accused was harassing and ill-treating his wife. He was engaged in beating her as a matter of routine after consuming liquor. This was not an isolated or stray act on his part. It was a continuous course of conduct on his part to treat his wife with cruelty. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that even if it is held that the accused was beating his wife after drinking, that is not sufficient to hold that she abetted the commission of suicide by her. According to him, the case is not covered by any of the clauses of section 107 IPC. It is difficult to accept this argument. As already stated this is not a case of ordinary quarrel between the husband and wife. The accused was beating his wife since long after consuming liquor and that was a continuous course of conduct. In such a situation the wife will naturally take extreme step as her life had become miserable and intolerable there is a limit to patience and tolerance. In Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh [ AIR 1990 SC 209 ], the Supreme Court has held that such a cruel behaviour of the husband with his wife is covered by the definition of abetment. Even without the aid of section 113A of the Evidence Act, the husband can be held guilty for abetting the commission of suicide by his wife, if he has constantly ill-treated, tortured and physically assaulted her. His cruel behaviour for a long time would be covered by the words "intentionally aids" in section 107 IPC. Cruel conduct of the accused led his wife to commit suicide. Therefore, he has rightly been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. The sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for this offence cannot be said to be disproportionate to the crime. The appeal is dismissed.