Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 288 (GUJ)

Devrajbhai Khimabhai Harijan v. State Of Gujarat

2011-04-05

R.M.CHHAYA

body2011
JUDGMENT : R.M.Chhaya, J. Present appeal arises out of judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Veraval on 09.12.2002 in Sessions Case No.179 of 1999, convicting the appellant-accused under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('Indian Penal Code' for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for one and half months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The benefit of set-off was given. Original accused Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted by the trial Court from all the above charges. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused ordinarily resides at Village Bhanduri, Tal. Maliya Hatina, Dist. Junagadh. He married Parvatiben d/o. Bhimabhai Amrabhai Sondarva (the deceased) and was staying at Village Bhanduri. Out of their wedlock they had a daughter aged 8 months named-Hetal. That the appellant-accused and his family members used abusive and filthy language and used to beat the deceased and thereby meted out physical and mental cruelty on the deceased. That on 08.04.1995 at about 9:00 a.m. the deceased locked herself and her daughter-Hetal aged eight months in her house, poured kerosene on herself and her daughter and ignited, as a result of which both of them died. That father of the deceased, Bhimabhai Amrabhai Sondarva (PW-3), residing at Village Juthal, was informed by the father of the appellant-accused, Ramabhai Khimabhai Harijan, about the occurrence. 3. An F.I.R. came to be lodged by PW-3, father of the deceased and after full-fledged investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maliya Hatina, who in turn, committed the same to the court of Sessions, Junagadh at Veraval as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.179 of 1999. 4. 4. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused below Exh.1 for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 114 as well as Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the charges against the appellant-accused and recorded conviction. Against the aforesaid conviction, the appellant-original accused No.1 has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard Mr.Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, while the respondent-State has been represented by the learned A.P.P. Mr.Divyesh C. Sejpal. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Dagli has taken me through the oral testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-14 in particular and has also drawn my attention to the oral testimonies of other prosecution witnesses. He has stated that the appellant-accused has wrongly been implicated in the aforesaid alleged offence. He has submitted that the deceased-Parvatiben was suffering from mental illness and even her mother, Manjulaben Bhimabhai Sondarva, (PW-4) has admitted this fact that the deceased was treated at the hospital of Dr.Popat at Veraval. He has stated that the relation between the deceased and the appellant-accused were cordial and were staying together and had also a daughter aged eight months out of their wedlock. Mr.Dagli has further submitted that the appellant-accused used to take ample care of the deceased as a husband and even accompanied her for treatment to the doctor at Veraval. He has further submitted that the prosecution has adduced evidence in the form of oral testimonies of their relatives. He has submitted that even though the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, it would reveal that there was only difference of opinion between husband and wife and nothing more and the same would not amount to cruelty. Mr.Dagli has further pointed out that it cannot be said that the same would constitute an offence for inducing the deceased to commit suicide or an offence of abetment to commit suicide. He has further pointed out that even from the evidence of (PW-1), Dr.Kamuben Dhayalal Sagathiya, Exh.12, it cannot be said that there was any such inducement or abetment on the part of the appellant-accused to commit suicide. 7.1. He has further pointed out that even from the evidence of (PW-1), Dr.Kamuben Dhayalal Sagathiya, Exh.12, it cannot be said that there was any such inducement or abetment on the part of the appellant-accused to commit suicide. 7.1. Mr.Dagli has stated that the other prosecution witnesses, who are also the relatives of the first informant, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He has also pointed out that from the panchnama it has come on record that the deceased had applied lock from in side the room and the roof of the room had to be removed. He has further pointed out that the prosecution witnesses have improved their versions and have come out with entirely a new story. 7.2. Mr.Dagli has also stated that there is no evidence on record, which directly involves the appellant-accused with the charge of abetment to commit suicide and, therefore, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilt for the said offence. In support of his submissions, Mr.Dagli has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1990 (1) Crime 418 and submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 7.3. Mr.Dagli, by way of an alternative argument, has stated that in the event this Honble Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, this Honble Court may take into consideration the fact that the appellant-accused is 28 years old and has not yet married again. Mr.Dagli has also pointed out that after liberty granted by this Honble Court the appellant-accused has not misused his liberty. He has also submitted that the appellant-accused is not so well to do and earns his livelihood by doing agricultural activities and the present offence is a solitary offence and taking into consideration the time lag, this Honble Court may be pleased to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court from one year and six months to the period undergone during trial and after conviction. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed accordingly. 8. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed accordingly. 8. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Divyesh C. Sejpal has opposed the present appeal and has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case on the basis of evidence on record to its hilt. He has further submitted that the deceased suffered from mental illness because of ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the appellant-accused and his family members. He, therefore, submitted that there is no force in the argument that the deceased committed suicide because of mental illness. Mr.Sejpal has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove from the oral testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4, that 3-4 days prior to the date of the incident the deceased was meted out with cruelty. Mr.Sejpal has further submitted that even though the deceased and the appellant-accused were residing separately since January, 1994, the deceased was meted out with cruelty to such an extent that she burnt herself along with her eight months old daughter-Hetal. Mr.Sejpal has further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the fact beyond the reasonable doubt that the deceased was meted out with cruelty by the appellant-accused and his family members, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide and such an act was willful conduct on the part of the appellant-accused and the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused and rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under Section 306 read with Section 114 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr.Sejpal therefore, submitted that it is a full proof case and the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions. 10. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses: (i) PW-1, Dr.Kamuben Dhayalal Sagathia, (Exh.12), who performed autopsy on the dead bodies of deceased-Parvatiben and her daughter-Hetal. 9. I have examined the record and proceedings in the context of rival submissions. 10. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses: (i) PW-1, Dr.Kamuben Dhayalal Sagathia, (Exh.12), who performed autopsy on the dead bodies of deceased-Parvatiben and her daughter-Hetal. (ii) PW-3, Bhimabhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.30), the first informant and the father of deceased-Parvatiben; (iii) PW-4, Manjulaben Bhimabhai Sondarva, (Exh.32), the mother of the deceased; (iv) PW-5, Jaysukhbhai Bhimabhai Sondarva, (Exh.33), brother of the deceased; (v) PW-6, Devrajbhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.34), uncle of the deceased; (vi) PW-7, Kanabhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.35), uncle of the deceased; (vii) PW-8, Shantaben Babubhai, (Exh.36), relative of the deceased; (viii) PW-9, Kantaben Devrajbhai Sondarva, (Exh.37), aunty of the deceased; (ix) PW-10, Keshubhai Lakhabhai, (Exh.38), uncle (masa) of the deceased; (x) PW-11, Babubhai Karmanbhai, (Exh.39), cousin of PW-3; (xi) PW-12, Gorabhai Lakhmanbhai Mahida, (Exh.40), brother-in-law of PW-3; (xii) PW-13, Somabhai Punjabhai, (Exh.41), the then Police Constable, Malia Hatina; (xiii) PW-14, Bavkubhai Surajbhai Jebalia, Investigating Officer, (Exh.43); It is pertinent to note that out of the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is necessary to deal with the oral testimonies of PW-3 to PW-12 and PW-14. 11. PW-3 is the first informant and father of the deceased. Upon reading the evidence of PW-3 I find that he has stated that the married life of the deceased was not happy. There was lack of connubial felicity and was marked by constant bickerings and quarrels. He has clearly stated that after marriage, the appellant-accused and the deceased used to stay in joint family and the deceased used to inform him about the ill-treatment meted out by the appellant-accused and his family members. He has stated that the appellant-accused and his family members used to beat her. He has stated that the appellant-accused did not wish to keep the deceased with him. He has stated that the appellant-accused used to demand money from the deceased. I also find that he has stated by consoling the deceased he persuaded her to go to her marital house. I also find that, 8-10 days before the date of incident, when PW-3 visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and stayed overnight, the deceased complained about the cruelty meted out upon her by the appellant-accused as well as his family members. I also find that he has stated that the appellant-accused demands money. I also find that, 8-10 days before the date of incident, when PW-3 visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and stayed overnight, the deceased complained about the cruelty meted out upon her by the appellant-accused as well as his family members. I also find that he has stated that the appellant-accused demands money. I also find that he has stated that the appellant-accused informed the deceased that till she brings money as demanded, the cruelty meted out shall continue. In his cross-examination I find that this witness has stated that the deceased and the appellant-accused were staying separately in the same falia. He has admitted that the deceased was treated for her mental ailment at Veraval as well as in Irvin Hospital at Jamnagar. I also find that he has denied the suggestion of the defence that if the appellant-accused and his family members would pay money he would withdraw the present complaint. I further find that he has stood the test of the cross-examination as far as the incident in main is concerned. I find that he has clearly stated that cruelty was being meted out to the deceased by the appellant-accused. 12. PW-4 is the mother of the deceased. Upon reading the evidence of PW-4, I find that she has clearly stated the fact that the deceased was meted out with cruelty by the appellant-accused. She has also stated in her evidence that the appellant-accused used to beat the deceased and her in-laws used abusive language. She has stated that the deceased came to her parental house 5-6 days before the date of incident and she informed that her in-laws were torturing her. In her cross-examination I find that she has denied suggestion of the defence that the deceased did not inform her about the cruelty meted out by the appellant-accused and the fact that the appellant-accused used to beat her and her in-laws used abusive language. She has stated that PW-3 had gone to Village Bhanduri just 5-6 days before the date of incident. I also find that she has denied that the deceased was suffering from any mental disease. 13. Upon reading the evidence of PW-5, Jaysukhbhai Bhimabhai Sondarva, (Exh.33), brother of the deceased and evidence of PW-6, Devrajbhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.34), uncle of the deceased, I find that both these witnesses have stated that the appellant-accused used to mete out cruelty towards deceased. 14. 13. Upon reading the evidence of PW-5, Jaysukhbhai Bhimabhai Sondarva, (Exh.33), brother of the deceased and evidence of PW-6, Devrajbhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.34), uncle of the deceased, I find that both these witnesses have stated that the appellant-accused used to mete out cruelty towards deceased. 14. Upon reading the evidence of PW-7, Kanabhai Amrabhai Sondarva, (Exh.35), uncle of the deceased, I find that he was informed by PW-3 that the deceased was meted out with cruelty. 15. Upon reading the evidence of PW-8, Shantaben Babubhai, (Exh.36), relative of the deceased, I find that she has stated that the deceased had informed her about the cruelty meted out by the appellant-accused. I also find that she has denied the fact in her cross-examination that the deceased was suffering from mental ailment. 16. Upon reading the evidence of PW-9, Kantaben Devrajbhai Sondarva, (Exh.37), aunty of the deceased, I find that the deceased had informed her about the cruelty meted out by the appellant-accused and his family members. In the cross-examination she has denied suggestion of the defence that no such information was given by the deceased. 17. Upon reading the evidence of PW-10, Keshubhai Lakhabhai, (Exh.38) as well as evidence of PW-11, Babubhai Karmanbhai, (Exh.39), I find that they have supported the case of the prosecution as regards the cruelty meted out by the appellant-accused. 18. Upon reading the evidence of PW-12, Gorabhai Lakhabhai Mahida, (Exh.40), brother-in-law of PW-3, I find that on coming to know that the deceased and her daughter-Hetal expired, he went to Village Bhanduri along with his wife and other persons. I find that this witness has also stated that the appellant-accused and his family members used to mete out cruelty upon the deceased. I find that this witness has stood the test of the cross-examination. 19. Upon reading the evidence of PW-14, Bavkubhai Surajbhai Jebalia, Investigating Officer, (Exh.43), I find that he had recorded the F.I.R. at Village Bhanduri. In his cross-examination I find that he has denied that the first informant has stated that as his daughter (the deceased) was suffering from mental ailment, she has expired. I further find that he has denied certain improvements made by PW-3. I also find that this witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 20. In his cross-examination I find that he has denied that the first informant has stated that as his daughter (the deceased) was suffering from mental ailment, she has expired. I further find that he has denied certain improvements made by PW-3. I also find that this witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 20. Upon reading evidence of PW-1, Dr.Kamuben Sagathiya, who performed the autopsy of the dead bodies of deceased-Parvatiben as well as eight months child-Hetal, she has opined that the cause of death is shock due to extensive burn. 21. The defence has also examined D.W. No.1, Dr.Shantilal Muljibhai Popat, (Exh.71). Upon reading the evidence of this witness I find that he has stated that the deceased was treated by him as an indoor patient from 09.03.1993 to 12.03.1993. This witness has further stated in his examination that the deceased was suffering from schizophrenia psychoses disease and has also narrated the symptoms of the said disease. I find that this witness has also stated that as per the history recorded in the case papers, the husband i.e. present appellant-accused, mother and father of the deceased had come to the hospital. This witness has also stated that this disease was noticed before a month. I also find that this witness has stated that in past no such symptoms were noticed on the deceased. I also find that this witness has stated that on the basis of the case papers he has given the certificate (Exh.72) on 12.04.1995. I also find that this witness has stated that the said disease is usually not completely curable. This witness has stated that such patients are prone to commit suicide. In his cross-examination by the prosecution I find that this witness has admitted the fact that especially in case of females, who are meted out with cruelty, would get upset. I also find that he has admitted the fact that the certificate (Exh.72) is given as he had received police yadi (Exh.75). I also find that this witness has admitted that if because of unhappiness one would repeatedly think may suffer from such a disease. I also find that this witness has stated that he has not referred the case of the deceased to any other doctor. He has stated that thereafter the deceased had never been treated by him. I also find that this witness has admitted that if because of unhappiness one would repeatedly think may suffer from such a disease. I also find that this witness has stated that he has not referred the case of the deceased to any other doctor. He has stated that thereafter the deceased had never been treated by him. He has denied certain suggestions made by the prosecution as regards such a patient being completely cured. I also find that he has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that, in order to help defence, he has stated in his cross-examination that such patients are prone to suicide. 22. From the above discussion, it clearly transpires that the deceased was meted out with cruelty by the appellant-accused, as husband. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also shows that the deceased was also beaten by the appellant-accused. The submission of Mr.Dagli that the witnesses have come out with entirely a new story is not germane. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. 22.1. I find that it has come on record that the deceased was suffering from mental disease and was treated by Dr. Popat at Veraval as well as in Irvin Hospital at Jamnagar. However, the facts remain that the deceased had given birth to child Hetal before eight months. This fact clearly negatives the theory of defence that she committed suicide because of mental ailment. 22.2. Upon appreciating the evidence led by the defence witness, Dr. Popat, it transpires that the deceased was treated by him as an indoor patient for three days i.e. from 09.03.1993 to 12.03.1993 and thereafter he has never treated the deceased. The incident in question has occurred on 08.04.1995 i.e. after more than two years. It is worthwhile to note that this fact is also stated by the defence witness in his certificate dated 12.04.1995. It is also worthwhile to note that yadi (Exh.75), sent to this witness is dated 20.04.1995, however, the certificate (Exh.72) is dated 12.04.1995, as stated by this witness. This shows that the certificate was prepared by this witness even before the police yadi was sent to him. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was suffering from the said mental disease in proximity of time of the date of occurrence. This shows that the certificate was prepared by this witness even before the police yadi was sent to him. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was suffering from the said mental disease in proximity of time of the date of occurrence. From the evidence of D.W. No.1, he has categorically stated that he has not referred the case of the deceased to other doctor for further treatment and has also stated that the deceased has not been treated by him again. I, therefore, find that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was suffering from the disease in proximity of time of the date of occurrence. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that she delivered child Hetal just before the eight months of the date of the incident. I, therefore, hold that it cannot be said that the deceased committed suicide because of mental disease, as per the say of the appellant-accused. 23. The contention that the prosecution witnesses have changed their story is also not well-founded. As far as the incident in main is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution as regards the charge of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It may be noted that the prosecution witnesses are illiterate and rustic villagers still, however, I find that they are clear in their versions and the oral testimonies of these prosecution witnesses do not create any cloud of doubt on veracity of their versions and only because they are related, they cannot be labelled as interested witnesses. It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 , wherein in Paragraph No.15, it is observed as under: "15. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." In the instant case, I find a ring of truth in the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses in main and I find that the prosecution has successfully been able to establish the charge of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. 24. I therefore, hold that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused. 25. So far as offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, I find no evidence on record that the appellant-accused had intentionally aided any act or committed or illegally omitted anything because of which the deceased committed suicide and the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the appellant-accused and has not been able to prove abetment on the part of the appellant-accused. There is no evidence also on record that the appellant-accused instigated or willfully misrepresented or has done anything which facilitates for commission of suicide. The prosecution has not been able to prove that there was intentional aiding on the part of the appellant-accused. I therefore, find that in absence of any such evidence the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused. Mr.Dagli has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr. (supra) wherein this Court has observed thus: "9. Mr.Dagli has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr. (supra) wherein this Court has observed thus: "9. So far as the offence punishable Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we would like to reproduce Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- "If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." It is established beyond reasonable doubt in the present case that the deceased committed suicide. But what is required further for bringing home the offence Under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is to establish abetment on the part of the appellants. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of abetment. Neither Clause First nor clause Secondly nor Explanation-1 to Clause Thirdly can be pressed into service in the present case because there is no question of instigation or engaging in any conspiracy or wilful misrepresentation, etc. in the present case. At the most, reliance can be placed upon Clause Thirdly and Explanation-2 to the said Clause. Clause Thirdly and Explanation 2 of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- *** *** *** Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. *** *** *** Explanation-2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. For establishing abetment covered by Clause Thirdly read with Explanation-2, it has to be established that there was intentional aiding. Mere aiding may not amount to abetment unless it is intentional. Mere act or omission on the part of a person which, in fact, results in facilitating the commission of the offence will not satisfy the requirements of Explanation 2 of Clause Thirdly. What is required to be established is that the person against whom the charge of abetment is levelled has done something in order to facilitate the commission of the offence. What is required to be established is that the person against whom the charge of abetment is levelled has done something in order to facilitate the commission of the offence. What is, therefore, required is that the person against whom charge of abetment is levelled has to do something purposefully which facilitates the commission of the offence. Simply because a person does something or omits to do something which facilitates the commission of the offence, he cannot be said to have intentionally aided the commission of the offence either by any act or illegal omission as contemplated by Clause Thirdly read with Explanation-2. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that anything was done or that there was any illegal omission on the part of the appellants which would bring their act within Clause Thirdly read with Explanation-2. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr.Baxi submitted that the appellants intentionally aided the commission of suicide by the deceased by going away from the house in order to facilitating the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no substance in this submission of Mr.Baxi because there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had left the house knowing that the deceased was likely to commit suicide. It is difficult to say that simply because the appellants and the mother-in-law of the deceased went out of the house in the morning, they did so in order to facilitate the commission of suicide by the deceased, though it is true that on account of the absence of the appellants and the mother-in-law of the deceased, the deceased was successful in committing suicide. But that is not sufficient to bring home the charge of abetment under Clause Thirdly read with Explanation-2. There is nothing on record to show that in the past the deceased had done anything which would show that she was likely to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to show that there was any incident on the day of the incident or in the past which would show that the deceased was likely to commit suicide. It cannot be said with any Stretch of imagination that a person subjecting a woman to cruelty is guilty of abetment. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are two independent Sections in the Indian Penal Code. It cannot be said with any Stretch of imagination that a person subjecting a woman to cruelty is guilty of abetment. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are two independent Sections in the Indian Penal Code. While considering the guilt or otherwise of an accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code we have to read only Section 306 and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is out of question so far as the question of abetment is concerned. In view of this, it is difficult to support the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. That order of conviction and sentence is, therefore, required to be set aside." 26. As regards the alternative submission of Mr.Dagli, I find that the same is without any substance. As aforesaid, the prosecution has clearly been able to establish the charge leveled against the appellant-accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to agree with the ultimate conclusion reached by the trial Court that the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was brought home to the appellant-accused. I find that child-Hetal was born eight months before the date of occurrence and there is no evidence on record that the mental illness of the deceased persisted. The treatment which was given to her is not in proximity of time of the occurrence and, therefore, no lenient view can be taken in the present case. 27. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the said offence. The order of conviction and sentence of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. As the appellant-DEVRAJBHAI KHIMABHAI HARIJAN is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the said offence. The order of conviction and sentence of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. As the appellant-DEVRAJBHAI KHIMABHAI HARIJAN is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant-accused is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities within 4 (four) weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant-accused in accordance with law.