JUDGMENT D.D.Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M.Ghare, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. S.S.Wandile, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dt. 19.9.2002 in Sessions Trial No.212 of 2001, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The trial Court directed both these sentences to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in the nutshell, is as under : The appellant was married to deceased Ujwala on 31.8.2000. It is the case of prosecution that, after the marriage, the appellant started demanding money from Ujwala. It is further the case of prosecution that the father of deceased namely Vasant Gyanuji Athawale (PW 3) borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from others and deposited the said amount in the bank account of Ujwala in Malkapur Gramin Bank and the appellant was informed that the remaining amount would be paid to him at a latter point of time. 4. On 2.8.2001, deceased Ujwala was admitted in burnt condition in the Main hospital, Akola. The percentage of burns were about 90 %. On 2.8.2001, at about 3 O' clock, father of deceased Vasant came to know that deceased Ujwala received burn injuries and was admitted in the Main hospital, Akola. He, therefore, along with his wife, visited the Main hospital, Akola and inquired with the nurse on duty about the condition of Ujwala. The nurse on duty informed him that Ujwala received about 90 % burn injuries and there was no possibility of her survival. It is the case of prosecution that Vasant thereafter went to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola and lodged the First Information Report (Exh.27). On the basis thereof, crime no.406 of 2001 came to be registered against the appellant and other co-accused for the offence punishable u/s.307, 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ujwala died on 4.8.2001 and therefore, the offence was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis thereof, crime no.406 of 2001 came to be registered against the appellant and other co-accused for the offence punishable u/s.307, 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ujwala died on 4.8.2001 and therefore, the offence was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that Police Constable Prakash, who was attached to the Police Station, Civil Lines gave memo for recording of dying declaration of deceased Ujwala. The Executive Magistrate namely Prabhakar Baliram Kulkarni (Pw 7)came to the Main hospital for the purpose of recording dying declaration of deceased Ujwala. He met Dr. Preeti Rajesh Kale (PW 7) and requested her to examine the patient and give her opinion whether Ujwala was mentally sound to give dying declaration. Dr. Preeti Kale (PW 7) examined Ujwala and issued certificate (Exh.42). Kulkarni (PW 6) (Executive Magistrate) thereafter recorded the dying declaration of Ujwala which is Exh.32-A. The endorsement made by Dr. Preeti on the said dying declaration is exhibited as Exh.42. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Ujwala disclosed in her dying declaration that appellant asked her to pour kerosene on her body and she poured kerosene on her person and thereafter, appellant set her on fire by igniting match stick. Ujwala also stated in her dying declaration that the appellant demanded Rs.20,000/- from her and he also used to beat her. 6. Dr. Rahemankhan Kalekhan (PW 8) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ujwala and prepared Post Mortem notes. The investigating officer, on completion of formal investigation, filed charge sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The charge was framed against the appellant along with other co-accused for the offence punishable u/s.302, 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case of prosecution is solely based on the dying declaration of deceased Ujwala, which is recorded by the Executive Magistrate Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) since the evidence of oral dying declaration alleged to have been given by Ujwala to her father Vasant (PW 3) has been disbelieved by the trial Court. So far as the evidence of Shriharsh Sharadchandra Kulkarni (PW 4) is concerned, there is a material omission brought out in his statement by the defence in his cross-examination which shatters the testimony of this witness and therefore, the evidence of this witness being unreliable needs to be discarded. It is further contended that Triveni @ Triguna s/o. Ramesh Borkar (PW 5) though examined by the prosecution to prove the demand made by the appellant, for money she has not supported the prosecution and therefore, her evidence is of no consequence; either to the prosecution or to the accused and needs to be discarded. Mr.Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, so far as the evidence of Gautam Sukhram Khandare (PW 1) and Mukinda Uttam Wankhede (PW2) is concerned, they are the panch witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the spot panchanama as well as the Inquest Panchanama and therefore, their evidence is of a formal nature. Counsel for the appellant has contended that, in view of certain admissions given by Dr. Preeti (PW 7) in her crossexamination, her evidence does not inspire confidence. It was contended that the evidence of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW -7) shows that she was not present at the time of recording the dying declaration of Ujwala since she was attending another patient in the Burn ward namely Rahima Bi at the relevant time and therefore, her evidence creates doubt about truthfulness of the fitness certificate issued by Dr. Preeti Kate in respect of deceased Ujwala. 8. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officers - Bhagwan Vitthalrao Munde (PW 9) and Nandkumar Shankarrao Kale (PW 10) is not satisfactory and there are material procedural lapses committed by them, which again create doubt about authenticity of the entire prosecution case. 9. Mr. Ghare the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the deceased suffered 100 % burn injuries and evidence of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW7) not free from doubt about issuance of Fitness Certificate, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate also becomes doubtful. It is further contended that even the evidence of Prabhakar Kularni (PW 6) (Executive Magistrate) does not inspire confidence and creates doubt about authenticity of the dying declaration given by the deceased Ujwala. Preeti Kate (PW7) not free from doubt about issuance of Fitness Certificate, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate also becomes doubtful. It is further contended that even the evidence of Prabhakar Kularni (PW 6) (Executive Magistrate) does not inspire confidence and creates doubt about authenticity of the dying declaration given by the deceased Ujwala. It is contended that there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of Executive Magistrate Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) and Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) about the time of issuance of Fitness Certificate of deceased Ujwala by Dr. Preeti Kate. It is, therefore, contended that the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant alternatively contended that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant even then in the instant case, the culpable homicide does not amount to murder and therefore, the offence would be at the most punishable u/s. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the appellant contended that it is admitted position that the appellant did not pour kerosene on the person of the deceased and deceased herself poured kerosene on her person and it is thereafter the appellant set her on fire and therefore, it is not culpable homicide contemplated u/s. 299 of the Indian Penal Code since the appellant if really intended to kill deceased Ujwala in that event would have himself poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, in the instant case, the evidence is otherwise. It is the deceased who has poured kerosene on her person and accused merely set her on fire and therefore, the act of the accused does not come within the purview of Section 300 and at the most would come within the purview of Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Mr. Ghare, Adv., in order to substantiate his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 847 (S.C.), Mohan Lal & Others .vs. State of Haryana. Similarly, 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 362, Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade vs. The State of Maharashtra and 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 342, Samadhan Mahadu Badgujar .vs. State of Maharashtra. 12. Mrs. Similarly, 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 362, Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade vs. The State of Maharashtra and 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 342, Samadhan Mahadu Badgujar .vs. State of Maharashtra. 12. Mrs. S.S.Wandile, Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has contended that the dying declaration given by deceased Ujwala and recorded by the Executive Magistrate is truthful, cogent and free from suspicion. It is contended that the same is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Rahemankhan (PW 8). The Additional Public Prosecutor has further contended that the evidence of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) clearly demonstrates that before recording of the dying declaration she examined deceased Ujwala and found her mentally sound and was fit to give dying declaration. Hence, she issued certificate to that effect. Similarly, on completion of recording of Dying declaration, Dr. Preeti Kate had again examined deceased and made endorsement to that effect on the dying declaration itself. It is, therefore, contended that the criticism leveled in this regard by the defence is unwarranted as well as the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the appellant in this regard are unsustainable in law and are also inconsistent with the evidence on record. 13. The Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that, the evidence of dying declarations, oral and as recorded by the Magistrate, is cogent and establishes that it was the appellant who asked the deceased to pour kerosene on her own person and after she poured kerosene on her person, he set her on fire. It is therefore, contended that the offence committed by the appellant is murder and therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that if the evidence of dying declaration inspires confidence, in that event conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the dying declaration even without corroboration. However, in the instant case, the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is, therefore, contended that the conviction awarded by the trial Court is just and proper. 14. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and scrutinized the prosecution evidence on record as well as the decision cited and relied upon by the appellant. However, in the instant case, the same is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is, therefore, contended that the conviction awarded by the trial Court is just and proper. 14. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and scrutinized the prosecution evidence on record as well as the decision cited and relied upon by the appellant. In the instant case, the important evidence is in the form of dying declaration given by deceased Ujwala, which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6). Since the conviction in the instant case is primarily based on the dying declaration given by the deceased Ujwala, it will be appropriate to scrutinize the evidence in this regard with due care and caution. Close scrutiny of evidence of Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) (Naib- Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Akola) demonstrates that, on 2.8.2001, Police Constable Prakash gave him D.D. memo and on receipt of the same, he went to the Main hospital, Akola. In the hospital, he met Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) and disclosed to her that he had come to record dying declaration of Ujwala, who was admitted in the Burn Ward. It has come in his evidence that Police Constale Prakash had also given him another D.D. memo for recording of another dying declaration of one Rahimabi who was also admitted in the same Burn Ward of Main Hospital, Akola at the relevant time. The cots on which both these patients were lying in the Burn ward were adjacent to each other. 15. It has come in the examination-in-chief of Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) that he requested Dr. Preeti Kate to examine Ujwala and give opinion whether she was mentally fit to give dying declaration. The requisition which he gave in this regard to Doctor is Exh.32. Exh.32 is the certificate issued by Dr. Kate which shows that deceased was conscious, oriented and was fit to give dying declaration. It has come in the examination-in-chief of this witness that he asked deceased Ujwala how the incident occurred. The requisition which he gave in this regard to Doctor is Exh.32. Exh.32 is the certificate issued by Dr. Kate which shows that deceased was conscious, oriented and was fit to give dying declaration. It has come in the examination-in-chief of this witness that he asked deceased Ujwala how the incident occurred. Ujwala told him that, on the day of incident, she had been to Bazaar for purchasing saree and after purchasing saree when she returned home, her husband (appellant) asked her as to why she went out of the house and started beating her with fist and kick blows and thereafter asked her to pour kerosene on her own person and uttered that she should commit suicide. The evidence of this witness further discloses that deceased Ujwala told him that she voluntarily poured kerosene on her person. At that time, her husband told her to leave the house since their relationship had come to an end. It has come in the testimony of this witness that Ujwala told him that at this juncture the appellant set her on fire with the match stick. He was also demanding Rs.20,000/-. The testimony of Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) demonstrates that after recording of dying declaration he narrated the contents thereof to deceased Ujwala, who had admitted it to be correct and had also obtained her thumb impression on the dying declaration. The testimony of this witness further discloses that Dr. Preeti Kate was present while recording the dying declaration. Recording of dying declaration had commenced at about 4.50 P.M. and was completed at about 5.00 P.M. 16. It is nodoubt true that there are some discrepancies in respect of the time of issuance of Fitness Certificate by Dr. Preeti Kate and that of another patient Rahimabi. However, the said discrepancy, in our view, is of minor nature and does not shatter the testimony of this witness Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) . On the other hand, perusal of cross-examination of this witness would show that he has specifically admitted the suggestion given to him in the cross-examination that the doctor issued certificate at 4.45 P.M. and from 4.45 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. doctor was with him. Though it has come in his cross-examination that Dr. On the other hand, perusal of cross-examination of this witness would show that he has specifically admitted the suggestion given to him in the cross-examination that the doctor issued certificate at 4.45 P.M. and from 4.45 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. doctor was with him. Though it has come in his cross-examination that Dr. Preeti Kate also examined another patient Rahimabi, who was admitted in the same Burn Ward at 4.55 P.M. on 2.8.2001, however, this admission by itself, in our view, does not render the evidence of this witness either doubtful or unreliable. There can always be a genuine mistake of couple of minutes while giving the details about the time by the witness. Similarly, it has come in the cross-examination of Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) that the size of room (Burn Ward) wherein deceased Ujwala as well as Rahimabi were admitted was barely sufficient to accommodate 7 to 12 beds. It is, therefore, evident from the evidence of this witness that Dr. Preeti Kate was in a position to monitor the condition of both these women at the relevant time. 17. Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) (Executive Magistrate), in absence of any material on record to show otherwise, should be treated as an independent witness who has absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the crime in question. On the other hand, the evidence of this witness, in our view, is quite straight-forward and trustworthy. If this witness really wanted to concoct the prosecution case, in that event, it would have been very easy for this witness to mention in the dying declaration that it was the appellant who poured kerosene on the person of Ujwala and set her on fire. However, the recitals in the dying recorded by this witness, in our view, were recorded as per the version of deceased Ujwala and therefore, it inspires confidence and renders the dying declaration trustworthy. 18. The evidence of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) corroborates the evidence of Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6). It has come in the testimony of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) that on 2.8.2001 she was on duty as an Indoor casualty Medical Officer and received two requisitions at 4.40 P.M. from the Executive Magistrate in respect of recording of dying declaration of Ujwala and Rahimabi. Both the patients were admitted in the Burn Ward and their beds were next to each other. Preeti Kate (PW 7) that on 2.8.2001 she was on duty as an Indoor casualty Medical Officer and received two requisitions at 4.40 P.M. from the Executive Magistrate in respect of recording of dying declaration of Ujwala and Rahimabi. Both the patients were admitted in the Burn Ward and their beds were next to each other. She has also given the distance between the two beds, which was 2 to 3 ft. The testimony of Dr. Kate further discloses that she first examined Ujwala and found her conscious, oriented and was fit to give dying declaration and therefore, issued Fitness Certificate (Exh.32) at 4.45 P.M. Dr. Kate further stated that, after recording of dying declaration of Ujwala, she re Criminal Appeal No.648 of 2002 18 examined Ujwala and found her conscious and oriented and issued certificate to that effect (Exh.42-A). Perusal of the crossexamination of this witness does not show that her testimony, in any way, was shattered. The discrepancies about timing of issuance of Fitness Certificate, aspect of monitoring the condition of both the patients simultaneously in the Burn Ward at the relevant time as well as time of receipt of requisition, in our considered view, are minor which do not shatter the testimony of this independent witness. There is absolutely no reason for Dr. Kate either to concoct the prosecution case or cause prejudice to the case of the defence. She is a responsible Medical Officer and at the relevant time, was on duty. We have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of this witness is quite cogent and trustworthy and also corroborates the fact that the dying declaration of Ujwala was recorded by Prabhakar Kulkarni (PW 6) between about 4.45 to 5.00 P.M. on 2.8.2001. 19. There is another corroboration forth-coming from the evidence of Dr. Rahemankhan (PW 8), who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ujwala, to the dying declaration given by deceased Ujwala. Dr. Rahemankhan has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found that deceased Ujwala had sustained 100 % burns, skin over right thumb was intact and ink mark was person. The injuries were ante-morten. On internal examination, Dr. Dr. Rahemankhan has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found that deceased Ujwala had sustained 100 % burns, skin over right thumb was intact and ink mark was person. The injuries were ante-morten. On internal examination, Dr. Rahemankhan noticed Valt and base was intact, brain covering was congested, chest wall was burnt, ribs were intact; both the lungs and pericardium congested; Heart and right chamber had a blood, left chamber empty; abdominal wall was burnt; paritanium congested. There was no free fluid in cavity. Small and large intestines distended with gases; Kidney congested and uterus empty. Dr. Rahemankhan has opined that the cause of death of deceased Ujwala was shock due to 100 % deep burn injuries. Defence could not bring anything worth-while in the cross-examination of Dr.Rahemankhan in order to shatter his testimony. 20. It is well settled by the catena of decisions of the Apex Court that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that the dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. Similarly, if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of dying declaration without corroboration. However, the rule of prudence is to seek corroboration. It is the duty of the Court to examine evidence of the dying declaration with care and caution and must ensure that same is not the result of prompting or pigment imagination of the deceased. Similarly, the Court is also required to get itself satisfied that the evidence on record clearly proves that the deceased, at the relevant time of recording the dying declaration, was in a fit state of mind to give such declaration. It is also well settled that, if the dying declaration lacks in minute details but is precise and concise and discloses material particulars of the prosecution case, inspires confidence and it is also trustworthy, in that event, there is no reason to discard the same merely because it is a brief statement. The Apex Court in case of Mohanlal and Others .vs. State of Haryana (cited supra), after taking into consideration various decisions of the Apex Court, concluded the issue by laying down the principles of law required to be considered by the Courts while appreciating the evidence of dying declaration. The Apex Court in case of Mohanlal and Others .vs. State of Haryana (cited supra), after taking into consideration various decisions of the Apex Court, concluded the issue by laying down the principles of law required to be considered by the Courts while appreciating the evidence of dying declaration. Relevant observations made by the Apex Court are in para 10, which read thus : . Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. . 21. Though the counsel for the petitioner has relied on and cited the above referred decision of the Apex Court, however, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, it is difficult for us to appreciate as to how the said decision is of any help to the defence. 22. Similarly, there is no quarrel with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). However, because of the nature of facts and circumstances involved therein being different than the one involved in the present case, the said decision is also of no help to the defence. For the similar reason, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Samadhan Mahadu Badgujar .vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 342 does not further the case of the defence. 23. For the similar reason, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Samadhan Mahadu Badgujar .vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 342 does not further the case of the defence. 23. In the instant case, we have carefully scrutinized the prosecution evidence in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and found that the evidence of dying declaration is cogent, trustworthy and inspires confidence and is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Preeti Kate (PW 7) as well as Dr.Rahemankhan (PW 8) and we have no hesitation to accept and rely on the same evidence. 24. In the present Criminal Appeal, so far as the conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we see no reason to show any indulgence since the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the said charge beyond all reasonable doubts. In the instant case, as per the dying declaration given by the deceased, it was the deceased who poured kerosene on her own person and the appellant thereafter set her on fire and therefore, even if the evidence of dying declaration is accepted and relied upon, whether the offence committed by the appellant is murder which is punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code or u/s. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code needs to be considered. 25. Culpable homicide is murder when the act by which the death is caused is committed with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person whom harm is caused or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or the assailant knows that the act is so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability would result in death. In the case in hand, if the appellant really intended to commit murder of his wife, then he would have himself poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, the evidence on record is otherwise. It is the deceased who poured kerosene on her own person, though on the say of the accused. In the case in hand, if the appellant really intended to commit murder of his wife, then he would have himself poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, the evidence on record is otherwise. It is the deceased who poured kerosene on her own person, though on the say of the accused. However, the fact remains that the appellant did not pour kerosene on the person of the deceased and therefore, it is difficult for us to hold that the act of the appellant is culpable homicide amounting to murder. 26. It is nodoubt true that, the act, by which the death is caused, is committed with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause death, would be murder in view of provisions of Section 300 (2ndly) of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, though the act which results in causing death is done with the intention to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death as mentioned in Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code may look analogous with that of one mentioned hereinabove, however, there is difference between these two provisions. The earlier act would fall within the ambit of Section 300 (2ndly) of the Indian Penal Code and the latter would fall within the ambit of Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. In the case in hand, the act of pouring kerosene on her own person by the deceased and thereafter, the act committed by the appellant of setting her on fire clearly establishes that the act of the appellant by which death of Ujwala was caused was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and therefore, in our considered view, the same would fall within the purview of provisions of Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. 27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The appellant now is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The conviction awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence of fine is hereby confirmed. The appellant now is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The conviction awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as sentence of fine is hereby confirmed. Both the sentences to run concurrently.