JUDGMENT :- Petitioners have impugned order dated 21st October, 1995 passed by the learned VI Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon convicting the petitioners for offence punishable u/ss.306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer. RI for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer SI for six months on each count. The substantive sentences are directed to be run concurrently; and the order of the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dated 21-1-1998 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in the present petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts in nutshell are, that petitioner No.1 Madhukar married Mangala (deceased) on 10-3-1983 at AmbeWadgaon. Tq.-Pachora, Dist.-Jalgaon. After marriage, deceased was nicely treated for about 2-3 years. However, as she did not conceive a child, ill-treatment commenced after expiry of 2-3 years. Mangala used to visit her parental house on the auspicious occasions of "Dussera”, "Diwali" or such other occasions. On these occasions, petitioner No.1 never used to go to the house of his father-in-law for fetching Mangala and, as such, his brother Madhavrao' used to take her back to her matrimonial house. As usual, deceased had been to her parental house in the year 1990 (the year is wrongly mentioned by Madhavrao as 1991 because deceased Mangala died on 31st July, 1991). On that occasion, petitioners and other members of their family had asked Mangala to bring one tola of gold, tape-recorder, radio, bicycle etc. As usual, none came to take her back. Thus, her brother, Madhavrao took her back to the matrimonial house. However, as the articles were not brought, petitioners refused to allow· Mangala to stay at their house. As such, Madhavrao had to take her to the house of Dattu (PW-2) at Ambe-Wadgaon. From there, he took his sister to their house at Pune. After waiting for some time, Mangala, initiated proceedings on 2-1-1990 for maintenance, being Maintenance Petition No.1/1990 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Pune, alleging ill-treatment on the ground of her infertility and not fulfilling demands for bringing gold and other household articles. It appears that about 2-3 months after filing of maintenance petition, there was an amicable settlement· between the parties. As a result, compromise pursis dated 7-3-1991 was produced before the Court and consequently proceedings for maintenance were withdrawn. It appears that about 2-3 months after filing of maintenance petition, there was an amicable settlement· between the parties. As a result, compromise pursis dated 7-3-1991 was produced before the Court and consequently proceedings for maintenance were withdrawn. Three-four months thereafter, i.e. on 31st July, 1991 in the morning, petitioner No.2 subjected Mangala to cruelty in as much as she abused her by hinting at Mangala's infertility. This led to quarrel between the two. At that time, no other members of the family were present. After some time petitioner No.1 returned to his house. Petitioner No.2 informed him about the quarrel. Petitioner. No.1, was infiltrated. He sought explanation from Mangala and dealt blows on her chest. As the torture became unbearable, Mangala consumed insecticide rogor. On account of the consumption of poison, she started losing her consciousness. At that time PW-1 Dr. Bhaskar Patil of Nachankhede, Tq.. Jamner, gave her first-aid. Deceased was, then, taken to Rural Hospital at Pahur. While she was under treatment ASI Sonar (PW -8) recorded her dying declaration in the presence of Dr. Wankhede (PW -5). Deceased disclosed that she was being subjected to cruelty on account of infertility. On the day of occurrence, she was insulted by her mother-in-law and assaulted by her husband, therefore, she committed suicide. This dying declaration is treated as FIR and the offence came to be registered under section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code came to be registered against petitioners. Subsequently, Kisan Dhondu Patil (PW-4) who is Special Sxecuti ve Magistrate, recorded her dying declaration (Exh.36), in which same facts were briefly repeated by the deceased. During the treatment, deceased expired. Therefore, Section 306 of IPC was added to the list of penal sections. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioners. 3. On conclusion of trial, learned VIth Asstt. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon found that petitioners did subject deceased Mangala to cruelty and thereby instigated her to commit suicide. In this view of the matter, the Id. Judge convicted petitioners of the offence punishable u/ss.306 and 498-A read with section 34, IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for 2 years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each count in default to suffer RI for six months. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. In this view of the matter, the Id. Judge convicted petitioners of the offence punishable u/ss.306 and 498-A read with section 34, IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for 2 years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each count in default to suffer RI for six months. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.64/1995. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence handed down by the ld. trial Judge. These two orders are impugned by the petitioners in the present Revision. 5. Shri. P. P. Chavan, Adv. h/for Shri. M. S. Phatak, learned counsel for petitioners has challenged the verdict of the lower Courts only on the ground that appreciation of evidence in respect of dying declarations of deceased Mangala, by the lower Courts is perverse. According- to learned counsel, no reliance can be placed on the so called dying declarations as they were not properly proved. For this purpose, reference is made to the evidence of PW -1 Dr. Bhaskar Patil, to show that at the time of his examination deceased was unconscious. According to learned counsel, evidence of Dr. Patil show that deceased could not have made any statement subsequently as she had already lost consciousness. It is further contended that there are several contradictions between two dying declarations which make them unreliable. The first contention that as deceased had already lost consciousness, she could not have made dying declaration, is not appealing. Evidence of Dr. Bhaskar Patil who had given first aid merely shows that at the time of his examination the patient was in serious condition. As the diagnosis of poisoning was obvious, he had administered saline and injection Dexona. He advised the petitioners that patient should be shifted to the Government Hospital. This is how deceased was shifted to Rural Hospital at Pahur where she was under treatment of PW -5 Dr. Wankhede. During the course of cross-examination of Dr. Wankhede, it has come on record that in the case of poisoning a patient is given Electrolytes which makes the patient delirious and disoriented. It is for this reason that saline is administered to the patient. Besides this, other treatment has been given to neutralise the poison. Wankhede. During the course of cross-examination of Dr. Wankhede, it has come on record that in the case of poisoning a patient is given Electrolytes which makes the patient delirious and disoriented. It is for this reason that saline is administered to the patient. Besides this, other treatment has been given to neutralise the poison. In the present case, poison was already identified as "rogor" therefore, treatment was given in the right direction from the beginning. This is the reason why deceased regained consciousness while she was under treatment at Rural Hospital. It is also seen that Dr. Wankhede examined the deceased before her dying declaration was recorded by ASI Sonar (PW-8) (Exh.44). ASI Sonar has also testified that during the course of recording of dying declaration deceased was conscious and oriented. Evidence of ASI Sonar is further f0l1ified by the evidence of PW-4 Kisan Patil, who is the Special Executive Magistrate. Kisan Patil has recorded second dying declaration in a question-and-answer form. Answers given by the deceased show that she was oriented and could give coherent replies to the questions put to her. The only difference is that on the second occasion, the statement is brief. The purport of dying declaration (Exh.36) is the same as the statement made by deceased earlier to ASI Sonar, who recorded her dying' declaration (Exh.44), If we consider these two dying declarations, contention of learned counsel that there is contradiction in these two dying declarations cannot be sustained. There is no contradiction in these two dying declarations. The purport of both is the same: deceased has conveyed that she was ill-treatment and on the fateful day, by the petitioners. Therefore, contention of learned counsel that the lower Courts committed an error in appreciating evidence in respect of dying declarations or that appreciation of evidence on this point is perverse, cannot be sustained. 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that a Petition for maintenance being Maintenance Petition No.1/1990 was filed by Mangala in the Court of JMFC, Pune. The allegations in this petition show that deceased was subjected to cruelty on the ground that she is infertile, and non-fulfillment of demands in respect of one tola gold and tape recorder on the occasion of Diwali of the year 1990. Therefore, deceased was deserted by her husband. It is also not in dispute that there was settlement between the parties. Therefore, deceased was deserted by her husband. It is also not in dispute that there was settlement between the parties. Therefore, petition for maintenance was disposed of in view of the Purshish dated 7-3-1991 {(Exh.16) in that proceeding}. This evidence lends assurance to the evidence of PW-2 Dattu who is paternal uncle of the deceased. Madhavrao (PW-6) and Ambadas (PW -7). Insults hurled and assault made on the day of occurrence was the last straw. As deceased could no longer bear the insults, she consumed poison. Evidence on record, therefore, justifies conviction of the petitioners for offence punishable u/ss.306 and 498-A read with section 34, IPC. Lower Courts have given emphasis on the dying declarations of Mangala. She was under expectation of death. There is nothing on record to show the possibility of false implication. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that the grievance is made by Mangala only against her husband and mother-in-law. No allegations are levelled against other members of the family. It is well settled by now that in proper cases conviction can be based only on the basis of dying declarations. In this behalf reference can be made to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 1635 in the matter of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P. That was a case of bride burning based on circumstantial evidence. Two dying declarations were relied on by the prosecution in that case. Both were oral dying declarations, one was to a friend and other was to brother of deceased. In para No.2 of the report Their Lordships observed that mere relationship cannot be a ground to discard dying declaration if they are otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In Para No.3, Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus :- ....... A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it comes a very important and reliable piece 9f evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration." 7. The present case stands on a better footing. The first dying' declaration was recorded by ASI in the presence of Medical Officer, who verified by medical examination that Mangala was conscious and oriented. Second dying declaration is recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate., In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with appreciation of evidence in respect of dying declarations as well as on the point of cruelty, by the lower Courts. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for petitioners that conclusions arrived at by lower Courts on the basis of dying declarations are 'perverse, cannot be sustained. 8. Petitioners are invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Court is vested with jurisdiction which is of supervisory nature and is to be exercised for the purpose of preventing miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction can be exercised only if it is shown that the findings recorded by the lower Courts are precise of based on no evidence or that there is any other apparent- illegality or defect in procedure leading to miscarriage of justice. The principles in respect of exercise of this jurisdiction are now well-settled. In this behalf, reference can be made to the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 600 in the matter of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. "128. The principles in respect of exercise of this jurisdiction are now well-settled. In this behalf, reference can be made to the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 600 in the matter of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. "128. The object of revisional jurisdiction under S.401 is to confer power upon superior criminal courts - a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction - in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harashness of treatment which has resulted, on the one hand; or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case, anxious' attention being given to the said facts and circumstances which vary greatly from case to case." 9. In the present case, the evidence of witnesses is properly appreciated by the lower Courts. The findings are recorded on the basis of sound reasoning by both the Courts below. No other ,illegality or defect of procedure is noticed or pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners. In this view of the matter no case for interference is made out. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. Petitioners shall surrender to bail before the trial Court for undergoing remaining portion of sentence on or before 7th April, 2006. Revision dismissed.