JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted under Sections 498(A) /306 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 29.8.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 156(K) of 2008. By the impugned judgment the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 498(A) /306. For non payment of fine the appellant has been directed to undergo RI for six months on each count and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Also perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record. 2. Admittedly, there is no allegation or any iota of evidence regarding demand of dowry. Besides this, the FIR was lodged after 24 days of the incident i.e., after Shradh ceremony of the deceased. Besides this, though the deceased survived for about a week in the hospital and though she was capable to give a dying declaration the Investigating Officer and the doctors did not make any attempt to obtain her dying declaration. In fact, the maid servant of the deceased (PW 5) was also requested by the deceased herself not to spread the incident in the village. 3. PW 5 appears to be a prime witness of the prosecution being a domestic help. At the relevant time she was 10 years old. Initially, she did not implicate the husband or any other family members of the deceased for causing abatement of the suicide. Her statement was recorded only after lodging of the FIR. PW 5 has stated that she did not narrate the story earlier because of the threat given by the brother-in-law of the deceased. However, the allegation of threat was not stated before the I.O. Hence, this is material contradiction. Besides this, the maid servant hailed from the place of victim's mother. In fact, the victim's mother brought PW 5 to the house of the accused persons for domestic help. Hence, the possibility of giving tutored evidence also cannot be discounted. 4. Be that as it may, PW 5 herself has deposed that after brief quarrel for about two days the deceased went to the kitchen to set herself afire. In fact, the victim's mother brought PW 5 to the house of the accused persons for domestic help. Hence, the possibility of giving tutored evidence also cannot be discounted. 4. Be that as it may, PW 5 herself has deposed that after brief quarrel for about two days the deceased went to the kitchen to set herself afire. However, this attempt was prevented by her husband and mother-in-law. Thereafter, the victim herself poured huge quantity of kerosene oil upon her body and ran to their private temple in their own compound and started shouting that she was dying. Thereafter, the husband and other family members doused the fire and took the victim to the hospital. 5. From the opinion of autopsy doctor also it appears that the burn injuries were more in the upper part of the body. This finding is in consonance with the testimony of PW 5 that the deceased herself had poured kerosene oil on her head and it is a clear case of suicide. 6. Now the question is whether the suicide was abated by the husband. There is no evidence in the record that the appellant abated the offence, rather the husband had prevented his wife from committing suicide in the kitchen. Even thereafter the husband extinguished the fire and took his wife to the hospital. Similarly, there is no evidence of any serious cruelty to take the help of Section 113A of the Evidence Act to draw a presumption that he deceased had committed suicide due to cruelty by her husband. In view of above, the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby set aside. 7. PW 5 has spoken about the cruelty upon the deceased since she was kept confined in her bedroom on the previous day of the incident. On the relevant day also the husband did not allow her wife to enter her house when he returned from outside. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A is hereby affirmed. 8. Since the appellant is in custody since last more than four years the sentence is confined to the period already undergone. 9. The Registry is directed to issue release order accordingly. With the aforesaid direction the appeal stands disposed of. Disposed off