JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The applicant was tried for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but was convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The applicant filed appeal against the said conviction and sentence for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide judgment dated 15-5-1998. The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of the two courts below in this revision. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that in this case, three dying declarations have been recorded which show that the applicant had burnt herself and these dying declarations by itself do not establish cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; that the evidence on record is bereft of details relating to beating as also relating to imputations of chastity as against the applicant and such evidence is not sufficient to hold the applicant guilty for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon (Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and others v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1993 Cri.L.J. 3019, it is urged that mere harassment is not cruelty and that the courts below on the basis of totally insufficient evidence, have convicted the applicant which calls for interference even in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. On the point of sentence, it is urged that the applicant is a Government servant and that the sentence imposed is very harsh and that in the event of the applicant being found guilty, he be released on probation. It is also stated that the applicant had tried to extinguish fire due to which his hands were burnt and that the incident took place ten years. 3. Learned A.P.P. urged before me that sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in revision though total absence of evidence can be a ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. It is also stated that the applicant had tried to extinguish fire due to which his hands were burnt and that the incident took place ten years. 3. Learned A.P.P. urged before me that sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in revision though total absence of evidence can be a ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, according to learned A.P.P., the evidence of P.W. 1 Dadarao and P.W. 2 Vishram which could not be shaken during cross-examination, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the applicant under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On the question of sentence, it is urged that no interference is called for, as the sentence imposed, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be disproportionate so as to interfere with the same in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He, therefore, contends that the revision be dismissed. 4. In this case, the incident in question took place on 4-11-1991 between 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. and the deceased wife died on 8-11-1991. The marriage had taken place in the year 1987. Dying Declaration (Exhibit 42) was recorded at 12.25 p.m. and was concluded at 12.45 p.m. by the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate could not be examined since he had expired and as such, prosecution examined P.W. 6 Dr. Vivek Fadke who was present at the time of examination of the deceased. The Executive Magistrate, according to P.W. 6 Dr. Fadke, had asked him to examine Lalita (deceased) to know whether the patient was fit to give dying declaration. He had accordingly examined her in the presence of Executive Magistrate and found that she was well oriented in time and space and was fully conscious. He accordingly issued Certificate (Exhibit 41). The Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration in his presence and the dying declaration was recorded as per the say of the patient. After dying declaration was recorded, the Executive Magistrate read over the same to the patient and she admitted the contents after which the Executive Magistrate obtained thumb impression of the patient. He admitted that the dying declaration which was shown to him and was Exhibit 42, was the same. He further stated that after the dying declaration was recorded, he again examined the patient and found that she was fully conscious. He admitted that the dying declaration which was shown to him and was Exhibit 42, was the same. He further stated that after the dying declaration was recorded, he again examined the patient and found that she was fully conscious. He stated that patient was fully conscious through recording of the dying declaration and he issued Certificate (Exhibit 43). In cross-examination he replied to a suggestion that he did not advise pain killer medicine before recording of dying declaration. He admitted that the Executive Magistrate did not make any endorsement below the dying declaration that it was read over to the patient and she admitted the contents. However, besides this, it was not even suggested to the said witness Dr. Fadke that the statement was not read over by the Executive Magistrate and admitted by the patient. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Fadke inspires confidence. In this dying declaration the deceased had stated that she demanded money for purchase of grocery from her husband to which he refused upon which there was quarrel and she poured kerosene and set herself on fire. She has further stated that her husband was in the house, but he came only when she was fully burnt. She had further stated that he regularly beat her and was suspecting her chastity. It appears that ASI Abdul Aziz (P.W. 5) also recorded the statement of the deceased which was treated as First Information Report. In that statement also the deceased had stated that she was assaulted; her husband took money belonging to her due to which she set fire to herself and that the applicant was suspecting her chastity. The third statement of the deceased was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar (P.W. 8). In respect of this statement, Dr. Murlidhar Javare (P.W. 4) has stated that Certificate (Exhibit 31) was issued after examination was over. Therefore, the statement cannot be said to be recorded in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, besides the said statements wherein the deceased had stated that the applicant was suspecting her chastity and also regularly used to beat her, there is evidence of P.W. 1 Dadarao and P.W. 2 Vishram. Therefore, the statement cannot be said to be recorded in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, besides the said statements wherein the deceased had stated that the applicant was suspecting her chastity and also regularly used to beat her, there is evidence of P.W. 1 Dadarao and P.W. 2 Vishram. P.W. 1 Dadarao is the neighbourer who has stated that accused used to beat Lalita; he had witnessed accused beating Lalita; accused used to say that Lalita was of bad character and that the accused beat Lalita when they were residing in the house of Ramdas Tayde. He has further stated that he had reached to the scene of offence on hearing the sound "BACHAO-BACHAO" and that time when he asked Lalita as to what had happened, Lalita replied that accused beat her and harassed her. She further stated that her husband beat her in the previous night and in the morning, there was quarrel. The evidence of this witness could not be shaken at all during cross-examination. In fact, there was no cross-examination at all on these aspects. P.W. 2 Vishram, father of the deceased had stated that Lalita used to tell him that accused used to abuse, beat her and indict her chastity. He further stated that accused used to advert that Lalita was unable to procure child. He had got the accused and Lalita examined medically and the doctor told that there was nothing wrong with Lalita and the defect was with accused. There was absolutely no cross-examination on these aspects and the testimony of the father of deceased has stood the test of cross-examination. 6. From the evidence on record, it is established that the applicant not only used to beat deceased, but he also suspected her chastity and also made imputations that she was not able to bear a child whereas according to P.W. 2 Vishram, he got both the accused and Lalita medically examined and the doctor found that there was nothing wrong with Lalita. Imputing chastity to a woman, by itself, amounts to mental cruelty. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in (Sarojakshan Shankaran Nayar and others v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1995 Cri.L.J. 340 has observed that section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code extends protection to woman from the whims and caprices of man. Imputing chastity to a woman, by itself, amounts to mental cruelty. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in (Sarojakshan Shankaran Nayar and others v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1995 Cri.L.J. 340 has observed that section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code extends protection to woman from the whims and caprices of man. "Cruelty" as defined in section 498-A means 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 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. The Division Bench further observed that the expression cruelty postulates such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injuries to her life. In the case under consideration before me, there is evidence on record that the applicant used to beat the deceased and even on the day of incident and on previous night, she was beaten. In addition, the applicant was imputing chastity as also the imputation that she could not bear child. These allegations by itself amount to mental cruelty. 7. In the light of the evidence on record, I do not consider that any interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. On the question of sentence also, I do not find any sufficient reason to take a lenient view of the matter as argued by learned Advocate for the applicant. Besides this, the sentence cannot be said to be grossly disproportionate so as to interfere with the same in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision and the revision is hereby dismissed. Applicant shall surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today. In case the applicant does not surrender during this period, the trial Court shall take coercive steps. Revision is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. -----