Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. Savita Rani (deceased) aged about 28 years at the time of her death, had been married to Mukesh Kumar Chopra in December 1982 and two children, aged about eight years and six years, had been born from the marriage. The relations between the couple were, however, strained which led to a divorce by compromise between them. As a result of the compromise, Savita Rani was paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in lump sum. Mukesh Kumar Chopra was supplier of general merchandise at Karnal and was working in association with Ravi Kumar accused. After her divorce, Savita Rani was remarried with Ravi Kumar on 15.11.1991. The couple then started to live on the first floor in the house of Om Parkash at New Colony, Ladwa with the ground floor being occupied by the landlord. It appears that sometime after this marriage as well, the relations between the couple got strained. As per the prosecution story this all happened on account of the fact that the accused had his eyes on the sums of money that had been received by Savita Rani as a settlement from her first husband. As per the prosecution story, on the evening of 17.2.1992 the couple quarreled and a severe beating was administered to Savita Rani by Ravi Kumar, but the quarrel was soon settled by the intervention of the neighbours. On 18.2.1992 at about 9/9.30 A.M. Om Parkash was taking tea, when he saw the accused running away. A short while later, Saroj Rani, a Sweepress, who was working for both the families went up-staris and then came running down-stairs shouting that smoke as well as shrieks were coming out of the kitchen of the house of the accused. Vijay Kumar, Gulshan Kumar, Som Nath and some others rushed up-stairs and found the door of the house bolted from the outside and on further opening the door they found Savita Rani lying in a badly burnt condition and crying for her mother. She was immediately brought to the Civil Hospital, Ladwa, but because of her precarious condition was referred to the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra where she died after a short while. The preliminary investigations were conducted by ASI Ram Singh, who inspected the place of incident and took into possession a bottle of kerosene oil and a match box etc. She was immediately brought to the Civil Hospital, Ladwa, but because of her precarious condition was referred to the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra where she died after a short while. The preliminary investigations were conducted by ASI Ram Singh, who inspected the place of incident and took into possession a bottle of kerosene oil and a match box etc. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Balbir Bhardwaj (PW-2) on the next day and on the completion of the investigation, the case was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A charge, however, was framed under Sections 306 and 498-A thereof by the trial Court holding that no offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could be made out. 2. The prosecution in support of its case, relied on the evidence of PW-1 Dr. P.R. Pruthi of the Civil Hospital, Ladwa, who deposed to the effect that Svita Rani had been brought to the hospital in a serious condition; PW-2 Dr. Balbir Bhardwaj, who had conducted the post-mortem on her dead body and opined that the burn injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; PW-3 Shri Kuldip Jain, Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of Savita Rani on 18.2.1992 in the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra; PW-10 Om Parkash, the learned and neighbour of the couple, who supported the prosecution story; PW-11 Dinesh Kumar and PW-12 Shyama Devi, the brother and mother of the deceased respectively, who deposed to the ill-treatment that had been meted out to the deceased and to whom the deceased had made an oral dying declaration that she had attempted to commit suicide as she had got fed up with the frequent beatings administered to her by her husband, i.e., the present accused and because he often demanded money from her; and PW-13 ASI Ram Singh, the Investigating Officer. 3. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he had got married to Savita Rani on the specific pleadings of her parents after she had been divorced by her first husband and that she had got annoyed with him as he had objected to her continuing with her vocation of running a Beauty Parlour in her house after on at least one occasion he had found some boys sitting in her room, on which he had expressed his displeasure. The fact that he had ever demanded any money or maltreated the deceased was, however, denied. No defence evidence was, however, produced. 4. The trial Court held that from a bare reading of the dying declaration, more particularly, the one given before Shri Kuldip Jain, Judicial Magistrate, it was clear that no case of abetment to suicide was made out as such a quarrel between the husband and the wife was common place. It was held that the dying declaration made to Dinesh Kumar (PW-11) and Shyama Devi (PW-12) was also not entirely proved as they had tried to embellish it and had several improvements vis-a-vis the one recorded by Shri Kuldip Jain. The Court, however, held that as there appeared to be some quarrel between the couple, a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code alone was made out. The trial Court, accordingly, while acquitting the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him under Section 498-A thereof and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 196-DBA of 1993 has been filed by the State of Haryana impugning the acquittal of the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 18-SB of 1993 has been filed by the accused and Criminal Revision No. 256 of 1993 by Dinesh Kumar, the brother of the deceased. All the matters are being disposed of by this judgment. 6. Mr. All the matters are being disposed of by this judgment. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on behalf of the State and Shri T.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the complainant, Dinesh Kumar, have argued that from a bare reading of the dying declaration which has been believed by the trial Court, a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was also made out against the accused. It has also been pleaded that the marriage seemed to have gone sour within 4-5 months therefrom and as the accused was habituated to excessive drinking and often beat his wife, she had been compelled to commit suicide in desperation. 7. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, the learned counsel for appellant Ravi Kumar has, however, supported the view of the trial Court to the extent that there was no evidence to show that the accused had instigated Savita Rani to commit suicide and that the quarrels between the couple were the usual quarrels between any couple, which should not have compelled her to commit suicide. He has also pointed out that there was no finding whatsoever that the accused had ever demanded any sums of money or that he had ever misbehaved with his wife, so as to make him liable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. To my mind, the trial Court was right in having rejected the dying declaration made to Dinesh Kumar and Shyama Devi PWs. Admittedly the dying declaration made to them was subsequent in point of time to the one made to Shri Kuldip Jain, Judicial Magistrate. The trial Court had held that the possibility that improvements had been made in the second dying declaration to involve the accused even more deeply in the incident could not be ruled out. The trial Court has, to my mind, rightly relied on the dying declaration made to Shri Kuldip Jain, Judicial Magistrate. This dying declaration, when translated, is reproduced below :- "Stated, that I am divorced from my previous husband and the said divorce was got done by my husband Ravi. In the divorce settlement, my previous husband had given me Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 9,600/- for my expenses. This dying declaration, when translated, is reproduced below :- "Stated, that I am divorced from my previous husband and the said divorce was got done by my husband Ravi. In the divorce settlement, my previous husband had given me Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 9,600/- for my expenses. I had obtained divorce from my previous husband at the instance of Ravi but subsequently, I came to know that Ravi did not have a good character. As a result, I used to have quarrels with him. Today, at about 9/10 a.m. I closed myself in a room without bolting from outside & set myself on fire. I thought that on seeing myself on fire, Ravi, who was sitting outside, would save me but when I was fully on fire, Ravi, instead of saving me, bolted the door from outside and ran away. I have set myself on fire. On the preceding night Ravi had given me a severe beating and I was miserable. I have nothing else to say." 10. A reading of this statement as a whole would reveal that it does not refer to any cruel behaviour on the part of the accused and in all what it says is that after her marriage she had come to know that Ravi Kumar did not have a good character and as a result thereof she used to quarrel with him. As per the sequence she further stated that on the preceding night Ravi Kumar had given her a severe beating and she was miserable and she accordingly set herself on fire and that Ravi Kumar instead of saving her had bolted the door from the outside and then run away. The trial Court has given a finding that the dying declaration to the effect that it talks about the bolting of the door is a clear concoction and Ravi Kumar could not have been present in the house at the time when the incident took place. It is also evident that in the quarrels that may have taken place between the couple, the deceased herself was equally a party as clearly admitted by her. The suggestion as to the defects she found in Ravi Kumars character, has also not been spelt out in the dying declaration. It is also evident that in the quarrels that may have taken place between the couple, the deceased herself was equally a party as clearly admitted by her. The suggestion as to the defects she found in Ravi Kumars character, has also not been spelt out in the dying declaration. It must be emphasised that every domestic quarrel between a couple cannot be taken as a ground for abetment to suicide and that the behaviour of a normal and not a quarrelsome or high strung individual must be taken as the yardstick. To my mind a bare reading of the dying declaration would reveal that even accepting it to be true, there was no occasion for Savita Rani to have committed suicide so as to make her husband liable for abetment. 11. The fact that some cruelty has been caused to the deceased is, however, made out from the evidence of Dinesh Kumar and Shyama PWs. To my mind, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeals and the Criminal Revision are all dismissed.