JUDGMENT : Z. K. Saiyed, J. The present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06th July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.54 of 2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and also imposed fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and also imposed fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and also imposed fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. However, it was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The short facts of the case is that on 16th March, 2008, the accused had gone to the house of the complainant and asked her to run away and elope with him. The complainant refused to do the same and therefore, the accused assaulted the complainant severely giving kick and fist blows as also by belt. It is also the case of the complainant that she had enjoyed an illicit relationship for three years with the accused and since her children grown up, she did not want to run away with the accused. Feeling humiliated and because of harassment, the complainant poured kerosene on her chest and set herself ablaze. It is also the case of the complainant that she had enjoyed an illicit relationship for three years with the accused and since her children grown up, she did not want to run away with the accused. Feeling humiliated and because of harassment, the complainant poured kerosene on her chest and set herself ablaze. That hearing her hue and cries, her children came there and doused the fire and took her to the hospital. Therefore, a complaint to the said effect was registered with Vanthali Police Station, District-Junagadh. 3. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and panchnama of seen of offence came to be prepared. Thereafter, during the course of the investigation, the accused came to be arrested. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded and gathered documentary evidence. Clothes of the deceased-complainant came to be seized and also gathered muddamal articles for analysis. The complainant during the course of treatment succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her after 15 days of the incident. Thereafter, inquest panchnama was also prepared. As sufficient evidence was found against the appellant, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vanthali, who in turn committed the said case in the Court of Sessions, Junagadh for adjudication as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 4. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit 3 was framed and read over to the appellant. The appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case. 6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. In his further statement the appellant has denied the case filed against him and submitted that false case is filed against him. He has in his further statement also submitted that at the first instance the complainant-deceased at her own confessed that she has received burn injuries during cooking and at that point of time, she was conscious. Thereafter, as her relatives were gathered, she was pressurised to file a false complaint and a false Dying Declaration came to be recorded in presence of her relatives. The appellant has also submitted that he has no relation with the complainant-deceased. Thereafter, as her relatives were gathered, she was pressurised to file a false complaint and a false Dying Declaration came to be recorded in presence of her relatives. The appellant has also submitted that he has no relation with the complainant-deceased. The complainant was harassed by her husband and therefore, she had committed suicide. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Junagadh, by his judgment and order of conviction dated 06th July, 2009, passed in Sessions Case No.54 of 2008, convicted the appellant as stated above. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 06th July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Junagadh, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 9. Heard Ms.Rekha Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 10. Ms.Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the complainant was very much conscious when she was admitted in the hospital for treatment. The complainant had given case history before the PW No.2-Dr. Tinaben Gohil to the effect that in the afternoon when she was cooking, her saree caught fire from the oil lamp, which was burning nearby and therefore, she got burnt. She has also contended that therefore, the subsequent statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the form of dying declaration cannot be believed. Even the said statement was recorded much after the treatment was administered and even in the meantime, relatives of the complainant including husband and in-laws of the complainant gathered there and there is a possibility that complainant was being influenced by her relatives to give false statement. Thus, there is material contradiction between the history given to the doctor and the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She has also read the cross-examination of mother-in-law, PW No.9, and contended that this witness has categorically admitted that there were difference between the complainant and her husband and on many occasions it has resulted into fights and because of this, many times the complainant left her matrimonial house and went to her parental house. She has contended that at this stage, probable defence taken by the appellant is required to be considered. She has contended that at this stage, probable defence taken by the appellant is required to be considered. The appellant in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 submitted that there were differences between the complainant and her husband and because of their differences, the complainant had taken the last step. She has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider the probable defence of the appellant properly and has wrongly convicted the appellant. Ms. Kapadia has also contended that the prosecution has examined husband, son, daughter, mother-in-law and neighbours of the complainant, who are interested witnesses, and their evidence cannot be considered as gospel truth. She has also contended that if the case of the prosecution can be believed, then also the prosecution has failed to prove the basic ingredient of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. She has also contended that basic ingredients of abetement is missing in the present case. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Ms. Kapadia has also contended that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove prima-facie case against the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted the appellant. Looking to the case history, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is very harsh in nature. She has further contended that the appellant is a poor person and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also circumstantial evidence, some lenient view may be taken in the matter. 11. As against this, Mr. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence has passed absolutely just and proper order. Mr. Jani has read dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibit 16 and also read dying declaration recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fourth Fast Track Court, Junagadh and contended that the complainant-deceased has narrated the whole incident before both of them. There is nothing contradictory in both the statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Presiding Officer. Mr. Jani has read dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibit 16 and also read dying declaration recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fourth Fast Track Court, Junagadh and contended that the complainant-deceased has narrated the whole incident before both of them. There is nothing contradictory in both the statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Presiding Officer. In both the statements, the complainant-deceased has stated that the appellant was harassing her since last three years and the appellant has threatened to kill her. She has also stated in both her statements that the appellant has harassed her daughter also and as she was not in a position to tolerate all these things, she set herself at fire. Thus, there is no contradiction between both of her statements. Mr.Jani has also read oral evidence of the husband, both the son, daughter, mother-in-law of deceased and contended that the contents of dying declaration are supported by the evidence of all these witnesses. Before the victim was admitted to the hospital, she has stated that she set herself at fire because of harassment of the appellant. This fact is supported by the evidence of all above-mentioned witnesses. He has also read the oral evidence of medical expert and contended that Dr. Tinaben in her evidence at Exhibit 11 has specifically stated that the injuries received by the complainant-deceased was not possible during cooking. Mr. Jani has contended that there are certain norms for male and female members and none can be permitted to commit adultery or to have illicit relations. He has also contended that every person has his/her honour. He has also contended that poor person cannot be ignored by any member of the society and a poor lady cannot be forced to have illicit relation. Mr. Jani has contended that in the instant case, the appellant has forced the complainant-deceased to have illicit relations with him. Even daughter of the complainant in her statement has stated that the appellant met her and told to keep relation with him. Thus, the evidence of daughter of the complainant is in corroboration with the dying declaration of the complainant. Mr.Jani has, therefore, contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He, therefore, contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in passing the order. Thus, the evidence of daughter of the complainant is in corroboration with the dying declaration of the complainant. Mr.Jani has, therefore, contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He, therefore, contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in passing the order. He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of conviction is required to be confirmed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused papers produced before me. I have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 13. I have perused the complaint at Exhibit 50. The complainant in her complaint has specifically stated that due to harassment of the appellant, she set herself at fire. The complainant has also stated in her complaint that the appellant had forcefully pressurised the complainant to have illicit relation with him. I have also perused the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, PW No.4, at Exhibit 16 and also perused the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibit 12. In her dying declaration, the complainant has specifically stated that she set herself at fire because of harassment of the appellant. Even she has also stated that appellant was trying to have illicit relation with her daughter also. The complainant was very consistent in her both the dying declarations. I have also perused oral evidence of the husband, both the son, daughter, mother-in-law and grand mother. All these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have deposed in their evidence that the complainant-deceased set herself fire due to harassment of the appellant. I have also perused oral evidence of daughter of the complainant-Pritiben at Exhibit 30. She has specifically stated in her evidence that the complainant has also tried to have illicit relation with her daughter. Thus, the contents of the dying declarations is supported by the oral evidence of this witness. It is true that at the first instance the complainant-deceased told that during cooking, she has received burn injuries, but, from the perusal of evidence of Dr. Tinaben at Exhibit 11, it clearly transpires that the injuries received by the complainant-deceased was not possible during cooking. Thus, the probable defence of the appellant that the complainant-deceased has received burn injuries during cooking is not believable. The appellant has failed to establish defence version. Tinaben at Exhibit 11, it clearly transpires that the injuries received by the complainant-deceased was not possible during cooking. Thus, the probable defence of the appellant that the complainant-deceased has received burn injuries during cooking is not believable. The appellant has failed to establish defence version. Even the appellant has failed to establish his probable defence of dispute between the complainant and her husband and harassment by her husband. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of incident, the appellant had gone to the house of the complainant and asked her to come with him. On refusal by the complainant, the appellant threatened to kill the complainant and also assaulted her. Thus, because of abetement and instigation, the complainant has committed suicide. This fact is proved by the dying declaration. Thus, ingredients of Sections 306 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is established against the appellant. I have also considered the issue of abetement, provocation and instigation in light of the provision of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The conduct of the appellant shows that he was instigator and provocateur and in the result, the complainant-deceased has committed suicide. This is a case of morality also. The appellant entering into the house of the complainant, who was alone in her house, and by force told her to run away with him and to have illicit relation, and upon refusal by the complainant, she was assaulted by giving kick and fist blows and beaten by belt also. Looking to the facts of the case, it is true that a poor and helpless lady, who has faced such type of harassment, just to maintain the dignity and honour of her family, committed suicide. I am not hesitate to say that the appellant has committed very serious offence. Even the appellant has tried to keep illicit relation with minor girl also. From the perusal of the papers, it appears that the complainant was very much consistent in her all statements. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. I have not found anything contrary to the statements of the deceased and evidence of the witnesses. I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In view of above, present appeal is dismissed. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. I have not found anything contrary to the statements of the deceased and evidence of the witnesses. I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In view of above, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06th July, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.54 of 2008, is hereby confirmed. The appellant is in jail. Therefore, no order with respect to surrender is passed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.