JUDGMENT Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Appellant No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 (since deceased) herein is convicted for offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under section 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this appeal. Appeal as far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, stands abated as she has expired during the pendency of the appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. 2. Appellant was married to Shyama on 17/11/1983. In the year 1986, Shyama had given birth to a female child. On 01/06/1988, Shyama was admitted in Sasoon Hospital as she had sustained severe burn injuries. On 01/06/1988, at about 17.40 hours, the statement of Shyama was recorded by Special judicial Magistrate, Pune while, she was in Sasoon Hospital. She had disclosed to the Magistrate that on that day, she had not taken out the scattered articles from the table, hence, her husband had beaten her at about 3.30 pm. She was enraged and soon thereafter, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze. When Shyama was admitted in the hospital, Doctor Avinash Dal inquired with her about the injuries sustained by her. She had given history of suicidal burns. It was disclosed that patient was harassed by mother-in-law and husband and hence, she poured kerosene over herself and set fire, today afternoon, exact time not known. She was admitted in the hospital by Mamtabai i.e. original accused No. 2. On 02/06/1988, Shyama succumbed to the burn injuries. On the basis of the statement of mother of Shyama namely Heerabai Tilekar. crime No. 124/1988 was registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune. Accused were arrested on 01/08/1988 at about 11.00 pm. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 20/07/1988. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 363/1989. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 3. crime No. 124/1988 was registered at Khadki Police Station, Pune. Accused were arrested on 01/08/1988 at about 11.00 pm. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 20/07/1988. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 363/1989. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 3. P.W. 1 Heerabai Tilekar has deposed before the Court that soon after marriage, i.e. on 5th day of the marriage, accused No. 2 had grievances that she had not provided iron plate (tava) to her at the time of marriage. Hence, her daughter Shyama was ill-treated by her mother-in-law. P.W. 1 had fulfilled the demand. Shyama used to visit her mother quite often and had complained that she was being beaten by her husband and mother-in-law and that her mother-in-law was demanding money. P.W. 1 tried her level best to fulfill the demands of the accused persons. In fact, P.W. 1 had asked her daughter to lodged a report at Ganjpeth Police Station when she was residing with her for 6 months. While her daughter was residing with her, she was working as a house made near Zunka Bhakar Kendra. Accused No. 1 used to go at the work place of Shyama and always asked her to accompany him to the matrimonial house. Shyama had lodged a report at Phadgate Police Station. Accused No. 1 used to visit the house of P.W. 1 when Shyama was residing there. He had requested P.W. 1 to send Shyama to her matrimonial home and had assured that he would not ill-treat her. When Shyama refused to oblige, accused No. 1 had sent her legal notice. The couple had arrived at a compromise and Shyama had returned to her matrimonial home. She had conceived pregnancy. The accused persons had again started ill-treating her. She was assaulted even when she was pregnant of 6 months. Her mother-in-law had given kick blow to her and had forcibly snatched the Mangalsutra from her neck and then Shyama was reached to her maternal house with a clear understanding that she shall return to her matrimonial abode only after delivery. After 3 months from delivery, P.W. 1 had reached Shyama to her matrimonial house. The ill-treatment had continued. She was being assaulted by both the accused. P.W. 1 had given money to her daughter time and again. After 3 months from delivery, P.W. 1 had reached Shyama to her matrimonial house. The ill-treatment had continued. She was being assaulted by both the accused. P.W. 1 had given money to her daughter time and again. Her husband i.e. accused No. 1 was unemployed and Shyama used to earn by doing labour work of rolling papads. P.W. 1 has further stated that her maternal aunt Bhagubai is the tenant of the accused and resides in the same wada. She had informed P.W. 1 about the atrocities meted out to Shyania. On the day of incident i.e. 01/06/1988. accused No. 1 had informed P.W. 1 that her daughter is in Sassoon Hospital as she is burnt. P.W. 1 immediately rushed to the hospital and had inquired with Shyama. At that time, she had disclosed to P.W. 1 that on that day, she was cleaning the house. There was some dirt on the table which enraged her mother-in-law. At about 3.00 to 3.30 pm, she was beaten by her husband on that ground and since she could not tolerate the beating anymore, she had poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. Upon receiving information from her daughter. P.W. 1 had immediately approached the police station and lodged a report. She has proved the contents of the report which is at Exhibit 11. 4. At the time of recording of evidence of P.W. 1 defence has placed on record the compromise deed wherein, accused No. 1 had undertaken not to ill-treat Shyama anymore. The same was also signed by accused No. 7. It is elicited in the cross-examination that in spite of legal notice on two occasions, Shyama had refused to return to her matrimonial abode and therefore, compromise was effected between them. She has admitted that she had not lodged any report in respect of the treatment meted out to her daughter. She has further admitted in the cross-examination that before she reached Sasoon Hospital, dying declaration of Shyama was recorded. Since Shyama had disclosed to her. she had gone to the police station and lodged the report. She has denied the suggestion that Shyama had no mannerisms of conducting herself. It is also admitted that the accused are drawing income from house rent. That at the time of marriage, accused No. 1 was doing centering work with a contractor. Since Shyama had disclosed to her. she had gone to the police station and lodged the report. She has denied the suggestion that Shyama had no mannerisms of conducting herself. It is also admitted that the accused are drawing income from house rent. That at the time of marriage, accused No. 1 was doing centering work with a contractor. She has denied the suggestion that Shyama had committed suicide since she had given birth to a female child. As far as ill-treatment meted out to Shyama is concerned, the defence has failed to shatter the testimony of P.W. 1. 5. P.W. 2 Bhagubai Sitaram Landge was residing in the Wada of accused persons. She was witness to the ill-treatment meted out to Shyama and conveyed the same to P.W. 1. 6. P.W. 3 Ramchandra Jagtap is the neighbour of the accused persons. According to him. at about 3.00 to 3.30 pm, he had heard commotion from the house of the accused and had seen the smoke emanating from the house of the accused and had seen smoke emanating from the house of the accused. He rushed to the house of the accused and saw that the wife of Bhagwan had sustained burn injuries. He had extinguished the flames. In the meanwhile, fire brigade had come to the spot and Shyama was taken to Sasoon Hospital. 7. P.W. 4 Anjali Parkhe is the elder sister of Shyama. She has also deposed about the ill-treatment meted out to her younger sister at the hands of the accused persons. She had visited Shyama in Sasoon Hospital at about 6.00 to 6.30 pm on 01/06/1988. Shyama had also disclosed to her sister, the reason for immolation. 8. P.W. 5 Rajaram Retawade is the Special Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration of Shyama which is at Exhibit 22. He has deposed before the Court that before recording the dying declaration, lie had ensured that there are no relatives near the injured and that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. He had recorded the statement of Shyama in the presence of the doctor who had given treatment to her. He has deposed about the contents of the dying declaration and has hence, proved the contents of the dying declaration. He had countersigned the statement of Shyama. He had recorded the statement of Shyama in the presence of the doctor who had given treatment to her. He has deposed about the contents of the dying declaration and has hence, proved the contents of the dying declaration. He had countersigned the statement of Shyama. The witness has not been cross-examined and hence, the contents of the dying declaration at Exhibit 22 stand proved. 9. P W. 6 Ramchandra Shelke had acted as a panch for spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 24. He is also not been effectively cross-examined and the spot panchanama stands proved. There is no denial that Shyama set herself ablaze in her matrimonial house. 10. P.W. 7 Sunil Tilekar is the elder brother of deceased Shyama. He has also disclosed about the ill-treatment meted out to her. He has admitted that there was an amicable settlement through Advocate and thereafter, Shyama was sent to her matrimonial house. He has further deposed that there was no change in attitude of the accused persons even after the compromise was effected between the parties. 11. P.W. 8 Mohammad Pathan was attached to Ganj Peth Police Station. On 01/06/1988, at about 6.30 pm, head constable Gaikwad had handed over to him the copy of the statement/dying declaration of the Shyama recorded by Special Magistrate Retawade. P.W. 8 had conducted the spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 24. He had then recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and the same was sent along with his report for registration of offence. Report is at Exhibit 29. Crime No. 124/1988 was registered on the basis of the said statement. He has feigned ignorance about whether deceased was taken to the hospital by fire brigade agency. 11c had not inquired as to who had taken Shyama to the hospital and what time she was admitted. The defence has questioned him about the compromise deed. The same need not be considered as the prosecution witnesses have not disputed the execution of the compromise deed between the parties. 12. P.W. 9 Dr. Avinash Dal had given treatment to Shyama in Sasoon Hospital. He had recorded the history of Shyama. He has proved the contents of the history as narrated by the deceased. It is elicited in the cross-examination that one person B.B. Alhat i.e. accused No. 1 had had donated the blood to the patient at 7.00 pm. 12. P.W. 9 Dr. Avinash Dal had given treatment to Shyama in Sasoon Hospital. He had recorded the history of Shyama. He has proved the contents of the history as narrated by the deceased. It is elicited in the cross-examination that one person B.B. Alhat i.e. accused No. 1 had had donated the blood to the patient at 7.00 pm. The certificate issued from the blood bank is at Exhibit 47. 13. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the case rests upon the dying declaration which is at Exhibit 22, the history narrated by the injured to the doctor, P.W. 9 at the time of admission in Sasoon Hospital, coupled with the fact that there are two oral dying declarations given to the mother and sister of the deceased. it can be safely inferred that the prosecution has proved the contents of dying declaration. Prosecution has sufficiently proved that Shyama was ill-treated at the hands of the accused persons. 14. Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code reads thus: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." 15. It can be safely inferred that the act of the accused would squarely be covered by explanation A to section 498(A) which reads thus: "For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman." 16. The perpetual harassment meted out to Shyama can be said to be a wilful conduct on the part of the accused which had driven her to commit suicide. Hence, appellants would be liable for conviction under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing as follows. "Abetment of a thing. The perpetual harassment meted out to Shyama can be said to be a wilful conduct on the part of the accused which had driven her to commit suicide. Hence, appellants would be liable for conviction under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing as follows. "Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who -(First) - Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) - -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." In the facts of the present case, and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the accused had instigated Shyama to commit suicide. He had neither intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission to commission of suicide. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused would be liable for an offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant was arrested on 01/06/1988 and was enlarged on bail on 08/06/1988. He was taken into custody on 09/11/1993 and was enlarged on bail by this Court by an order dated 01/12/1993. He is thereafter taken into custody by virtue of non bailable warrant dated 22/02/2013. He has undergone about 15 months of substantive sentence. For an offence punishable under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. Hence, following order. "ORDER (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Appeal against appellant No. 2 stands abated. (iii) Conviction of the appellant No. 1 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 09/11/1993 for offence punishable under section 498(A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code is upheld. Appellant was taken into custody on 22/2/2013 and is in jail since then. (iv) Appellant No. 1 is sentenced to the period already undergone. (v) Sentence of fine is maintained. (vi) Appellant No. 1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. (vii) Amount of fine. if. paid for the conviction under section 306 of Indian Penal Code be refunded to the appellant No. 1. (iv) Appellant No. 1 is sentenced to the period already undergone. (v) Sentence of fine is maintained. (vi) Appellant No. 1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. (vii) Amount of fine. if. paid for the conviction under section 306 of Indian Penal Code be refunded to the appellant No. 1. (viii) Appellant be released forthwith, if, not required in any other offence." Appeal stands disposed of.