Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby he convicted appellant Rajeshwar son of Ram Sarup Chauhan, under Sec.306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant is said to have abetted suicide of his wife Rameshwari Devi. At the time of occurrence, marriage of the appellant with Rameshwari Devi was 20 years old. It is a case of over suspicious wife, who, without any reason or rhyme, suspected her husband of infidelity. 2. A peculiar feature of this case is that conviction of the present appellant is based upon the dying declaration recorded by police official on basis of which case FIR No.761 dated 10.12.1995 was registered at Police Station City, Gurgaon, under Sec.306 IPC. All relations of the deceased have not supported case of the prosecution but as the dying declaration stand, same is to be taken into consideration. The statement of Rameshwari Devi, when translated to English, read as under:- "I am residing with my husband for the last about 20 years. My husband is working in Infilco factory, Sector 62-C, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon. I have got three children, two sons and one daughter. Elder son Deepak is aged 14 years, second son Bittu is aged 12 years and the youngest daughter Neelu is aged eight years. My marriage was solemnised in the year 1975. My husband has illicit relations with a woman living in our neighbourhood. Whenever I raised an objection, my husband gave beating to me. Today, I was washing the clothes and it was about 11.30 A. M. when my husband returned, after performing his duty, from the factory. At that time, I told him that inhabitants of the locality comment about his illicit relations with that woman upon which my husband started beating me. He used to beat me daily. Due to this, being ill-treated by my husband, after pouring kerosene oil I had put myself on fire. My husband ran away from the spot. My brother Inder Singh and another person kailash got me admitted in the hospital for treatment. I have heard my statement. Same is correct. Attested by Arjun Singh, ASI, Police Station, city". Due to this, being ill-treated by my husband, after pouring kerosene oil I had put myself on fire. My husband ran away from the spot. My brother Inder Singh and another person kailash got me admitted in the hospital for treatment. I have heard my statement. Same is correct. Attested by Arjun Singh, ASI, Police Station, city". In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 10.12.1995 at 11.30 a. M. Statement of deceased was recorded at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Before recording the statement, Medical Officer had opined that patient was fit to make statement and the statement was also recorded in the presence of medical Officer. Later Dr. D. Prashar had appended the following endorsement:- "Statement was recorded in my presence and has been read over to the patient" 3 On the basis of statement Ex. PO, FIR Ex. PO/2 was recorded. The endorsement made by the doctor has been exhibited as Ex. PN/2. Oma Devi, mother of Rameshwari Devi, deceased, appeared as PW.1. In examination-in-chief, she stated "i know nothing about this case". She was declared hostile by the Court. Since she had resiled from her previous statement, she was cross- examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her statement was not recorded by the police and denied the suggestion that her daughter Rameshwari Devi had committed suicide due to ill-treatment caused by her husband. To similar effect is the deposition of Doorbin, PW.2, brother of deceased Rameshwari Devi. Another brother Indel Singh, PW.3, also testified to the same effect. 4. Dr. G. K. Chhobey, Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, New delhi, appeared as PW.4. He stated that he had opined that deceased died due to 100% deep burns due to shock. An application ex. PE was placed before him for not conducting the post mortem. He stated that since no foul play was suspected, as per inquest papers, no post mortem was undertaken. 5. B. R. Bhatia, Photographer, appeared as PW.5 and proved photographs ex. PF to Ex. PJ and negatives Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. These photographs pertain to the scene of occurrence. Sarwan Kumar, Draftsman, appeared as PW.6. He had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PK. 6. Pw.7 Mahesh Pal, Constable, had visited the Police Station Sarojini nagar, Delhi and collected relevant papers from there. Dr. D. Prashar, Medical officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon, appeared as PW.8. P1 to Ex. P4. These photographs pertain to the scene of occurrence. Sarwan Kumar, Draftsman, appeared as PW.6. He had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PK. 6. Pw.7 Mahesh Pal, Constable, had visited the Police Station Sarojini nagar, Delhi and collected relevant papers from there. Dr. D. Prashar, Medical officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon, appeared as PW.8. He stated that deceased was having second and third degree burns all over the body except left sole of foot and part of left ankle. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember as to what was stated by the patient when her statement was recorded by the police. 7. Banwari Lal, Inspector, appeared as PW.9 and stated that he submitted report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. PW.10 Arjun Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, proved statement of Rameshwari Devi Ex. PO and various other facets of investigation. 8. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. He pleaded false implication. No witness was examined in defence. 9. At the time, when quantum of sentence was determined, appellant stated as under:- "I am having three minor children. I am the only bread earner of my family. My parents are old and infirm. They are living separately in the village situated in UP. There is none behind except me to look after my children. I am not a previous convict nor I have ever been tried by any criminal Court. I am a poor man. Lenient view on sentence be taken". Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has stated that all relations of the deceased i. e. mother and two brothers have stated that deceased had not committed suicide and she was also not subjected to cruelty. Counsel has further submitted that even in the dying declaration, the deceased had not mentioned the name of the woman with whom the appellant was having alleged illicit relations. He has submitted that this Court should take note of the fact that this marriage was 20 years old and in the year 1995, appellant and deceased were having three children and eldest son was 14 years old and youngest daughter was eight years old. He has submitted that this Court should take note of the fact that this marriage was 20 years old and in the year 1995, appellant and deceased were having three children and eldest son was 14 years old and youngest daughter was eight years old. This Court may have interpreted the allegation of illicit relations, in 20 years old marriage differently but the fact recorded in the dying declaration that the deceased used to beat his wife daily and on the day of occurrence had also thrashed her cannot be ignored, giving beating was the immediate cause which led the deceased to commit suicide. This Court also cannot become oblivious of the settled legal position that maker of the dying declaration seldom speaks a lie. One who is preparing for journey to another world, at that time, speak nothing else but the truth. The accompanying circumstances are such, that dying declaration is to be given due credence without seeking any corroboration. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to rely upon the statement of deceased Ex. PO. Thus, the appellant has been rightly convicted. 10. Having affirmed the conviction of the appellant, it is now time to deal with the alternative prayer made by counsel for the appellant that sentence awarded upon the appellant be adequately reduced. Following mitigating circumstances can be considered by this Court to accept the prayer made by counsel for the appellant:- a) The marriage of the appellant, at the time of occurrence, was 20 years old. At that time, he was having three children aged 14 years, 12 years and eight years. This occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. The daughter, who was then aged eight years is now aged about 23 years. According to the counsel, she is now of marriageable age. It has also come in evidence that family of the deceased is dependent upon the appellant. In case, appellant is sent behind the bars, it may eclipse the matrimonial prospects of the daughter and the soul of the deceased may not rest in the peace. b) Mother and two brothers of the deceased, namely Oma Devi, pw.1, Doorbin, PW.2 and Indel Singh, PW.3, had categorically stated that deceased had not committed suicide and the appellant was not treating her with cruelty. b) Mother and two brothers of the deceased, namely Oma Devi, pw.1, Doorbin, PW.2 and Indel Singh, PW.3, had categorically stated that deceased had not committed suicide and the appellant was not treating her with cruelty. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the appellant, who had probably returned from the night shift, provoked by the sarcastic remarks made by the wife lost control and on the spur of moment gave beating to his wife. Therefore, the occurrence happened on the spur of moment without any pre-mediation. Otherwise, relations of the deceased would not have deposed in favour of the appellant. c) Two sons and one daughter and their family life will also suffer from a scar in case appellant is sent behind the bars. d) In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the month of December 1995. Appellant had already suffered a protracted trial of 15 years. Domcels sword was hanging on his head. Each day was an opportunity for him to redeem himself and do penance. It is not a case of hardened criminal. 11. A Single Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh and Another V/s. State of haryana 2005 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 124, after noticing various judgments, had reduced the sentence awarded under Sec.306 IPC. It will be apposite here to reproduce relevant para of Balwant Singhs case (supra):- "In the case of Jagsir Singh and another V/s. State of haryana, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 123, conviction was recorded under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Occurrence was 13 years old. The accused were on bail. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (13 months ). In the case of Mohan Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal)697, conviction was recorded under Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Incident was 13 years old. Father- in-law had died. Mother-in-law was aged 73/74 years. Sentence of mother-in-law was reduced to already undergone (1 month ). Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A. P. , 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155 (SC), was relied upon. In the case of Rajbir V/s. State of Haryana 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal)932, two accused were convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. They were facing trial for the last 11 years. Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A. P. , 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155 (SC), was relied upon. In the case of Rajbir V/s. State of Haryana 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal)932, two accused were convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. They were facing trial for the last 11 years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (one accused 26 months and other 18 months ). In case of Jagbiri and others V/s. State (U. T. Chandigarh) 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 826, there was abetment to suicide of the bride and the conviction was recorded under Sec.306 of the Indian Penal code. Occurrence related to the year 1991. The accused suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 13 years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (Jagbiri and Bimlesh remained in custody for 2 months and a few odd days whereas Sham Narayan remained in custody for about 6/7 months after his conviction. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A. P.2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155 (SC)." The appellant is stated to have undergone about one years of his actual sentence. Taking into consideration totality of circumstances enumerated above, sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone i. e. one year. 12 With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.