JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:-The finding of indictment, recorded by the learned Trial Judge, as against the appellant – Om Pati essentially stems from the implicit reliance placed by the Court upon the dying declaration made by the deceased lady. The dying declaration had been recorded by PW5 – Sh. J.S. Dahiya, the then A.C.J.M., Rohtak, in the presence of PW2 – Dr. Narinder Kaushik, Medical Officer, who testified at the trial that the maker of dying declaration “remained fully conscious during period same was recorded by Magistrate.” 2. Rajesh Kumari was wife of Rakesh, a son of appellant – Om Pati (and Ram Saran – a non-appellant). Marriage between Rajesh Kumari and Rakesh was solemnized on 16.05.1991. A male child was born to her out of their union. However, appellant – Om Pati had been harassing Rajesh Kumari as the former was not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by the latter. On the fateful day, Rajesh Kumari had a tiff with the appellant while both of them were in the kitchen. The appellant announced that Rajesh Kumari should better die. Thereupon, Rajesh Kumari poured kerosene oil and set herself ablaze. Even after she had lighted the matchstick and was afire, the appellant also lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her daughter-in-law. Her husband pleaded with her thereafter that she ought to make a statement that she had been engulfed in fire due to stove burst or gas leakage and she should not accuse the appellant (mother of Rakesh Kumar) for the occurrence. 3. The learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has a valid point that the appellant could not have been convicted on a charge of murder because there was no evidence, direct or otherwise, to prove that it was the appellant who poured kerosene oil and initially set the deceased afire. That averment is borne out even by the contents of the dying declaration, in the course whereof Rajesh Kumari categorically indicated that she herself poured kerosene oil upon her following a taunt by her mother-in-law that she should better die. She proceeded to aver that it was she who lighted the matchstick and set herself ablaze. In the light thereof, we accept the advocated view that the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is inappropriate and cannot be upheld. 4. She proceeded to aver that it was she who lighted the matchstick and set herself ablaze. In the light thereof, we accept the advocated view that the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is inappropriate and cannot be upheld. 4. However, the appellant has nothing to celebrate because she cannot get away from the charge of having abetted the commission of suicide by Rajesh Kumari – deceased. As apparent from the statement of PW8 – Basheshar Dayal, father of Rajesh Kumari, the appellant had been mal-treating the deceased on account of the insufficiency of the dowry brought by the latter. We find that the testimony of PW8 – Basheshar Dayal is, even otherwise, credible. He did not hesitate to concede that the deceased and her husband were separate in mess and residence from the appellant because the appellant did not allow them to stay in her house. However, he categorically added that the appellant had been visiting the house occupied by the appellant and her husband. He also did not conceal that as long as Rakesh Kumar was in job, he used to keep Rajesh Kumari at his place of posting but he had to bring her (Rajesh Kumari) back to the village after he had been removed from service. The presentation made by PW8 – Basheshar Dayal in the context of the above facts is natural and has no element of untruthfulness. 5. As would be apparent from a perusal of the dying declaration, Rajesh Kumari categorically averred that the appellant had been harassing her. She was fair enough to aver that she set herself afire but only after the appellant taunted her that she should better die. Rajesh Kumari was equally categorical, in the course of Ex.PQ (dying declaration), that she was the first to light the matchstick and that it is only thereafter that the appellant lighted another matchstick which she threw upon her. We find the contents of the dying declaration to be truthful and reliable. As already noticed, the dying declaration was recorded by PW5 - Sh. Jagbir Singh Dahiya, the then ACJM, Rohtak, only after PW2 – Dr. Narinder Kaushik certified that she was fit to make a statement. Apart therefrom, Dr. We find the contents of the dying declaration to be truthful and reliable. As already noticed, the dying declaration was recorded by PW5 - Sh. Jagbir Singh Dahiya, the then ACJM, Rohtak, only after PW2 – Dr. Narinder Kaushik certified that she was fit to make a statement. Apart therefrom, Dr. Narinder Kaushik (PW2) further testified at the trial that “patient remained fully conscious during period same was recorded by Magistrate.” There is not even an averment that Rajesh Kumari had been tutored by anybody in the making of that statement which (dying declaration) also has an element of truthfulness in the context of the manner in which the impugned occurrence had taken place. 6. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code shall stand set aside. Instead thereof, the appellant is convicted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is beyond the pale of controversy that she had already undergone little more than four years of imprisonment before she was released on bail under the orders of this Court. In the peculiar circumstances of the cases, we deem it appropriate to order that the period undergone by the appellant would serve the interest of justice and we so order accordingly. —————————