JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.1.1999 and 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 2 years and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for 2 months and also for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer R.I. for 5 years and payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. R.I. for 2 months. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ranjana was the daughter of the complainant, namely, Maruti Hari Waidande, from village Jam, District Satara. She got married with the appellant in 1982. The incident of suicide took place on 22.5.1992. After marriage, Ranjana started residing with her husband. However, she was ill treated as she was not given food to eat and clothes to wear. She used to complain to her father about the ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant. She was abandoned by the appellant who told her that he did not like her and he expressed that he did not want to cohabit with her. Then she was sent to her father. Thereafter, she filed a maintenance application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1985. In that application, the appellant appeared and agreed before the Court that he would behave properly with her and then he brought her back. However, he continued to harass her. Nearly for 10 months, the case was pending before the JMFC. Ranjana thereafter was also not given good treatment by the appellant husband. On the contrary, he got married with other woman and he started residing with the second wife at Kasarwadi and he kept Ranjana at Bopoli. Ranjana and the appellant had no issue out of their marriage. Occasionally, the appellant used to visit Ranjana under the influence of alcohol and used to beat her. He was also instigated by his parents. The complainant Maruti tried to convince the appellant and his relatives time and again. However, there was no improvement in the treatment given to her. Once when the complainant came to meet Ranjana, he was refused entry in the house and he could not meet her. Then he went back. He was also instigated by his parents. The complainant Maruti tried to convince the appellant and his relatives time and again. However, there was no improvement in the treatment given to her. Once when the complainant came to meet Ranjana, he was refused entry in the house and he could not meet her. Then he went back. On 22.5.1992, the complainant received information from his relative that Ranjana was dead as she was found in burnt condition in the house of the accused and thereafter she was taken to the hospital. She succumbed to the injuries on the same night. He immediately rushed to the Sassoon hospital. However, Ranjana was dead. He took custody of the body of Ranjan a and performed the last rites on her body and thereafter on 24.5.1992, he lodged the FIR (exhibit 17) with the Yamuna Nagar police chowky, which was registered at C.R. No.195 of 1992 against the appellant and his relatives. The police prepared the spot panchanama. They recorded statements of the neighbours and the accused was arrested on 25.5.1992 and other relatives were also arrested. After completion of the investigation, police filed chargesheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed against Shivaji Bhau Dubale, the brother in law of the deceased and Manohar Bhau Dubale, the husband of the deceased. Shivaji was acquitted from all the charges. However, the appellant was convicted. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ingredients under section 498A are not proved. He submitted that on the point of cruelty, the prosecution tendered scanty evidence of PW1 Maruti Waidande. The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty under section 498A so also under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He raised a number of points in respect of credibility of the evidence of PW 1. He submitted that the learned Judge has relied on the postcard dated 7.4.1992, which was marked exhibit 14, should not have been relied. This letter is allegedly written by Ranjana to the complainant. However, only one stamp of Satara is seen and other postal stamp of Pune is not seen and, therefore, it is doubtful whether this letter was written by Ranjana or not. The truthfulness of the said letter is vehemently challenged by the defence. This letter is allegedly written by Ranjana to the complainant. However, only one stamp of Satara is seen and other postal stamp of Pune is not seen and, therefore, it is doubtful whether this letter was written by Ranjana or not. The truthfulness of the said letter is vehemently challenged by the defence. He further submitted that there are no allegations of assault against the appellant so also there are no immediate incident of cruelty. The marriage had taken place 10 years prior to her death and though the appellant had performed second marriage, the deceased did not complain about the same under section 494 immediately after the said marriage. He further submitted that performing second marriage is not cruelty under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment in the case of Manjuram Kalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 760. He further submitted that there should have been specific charges or allegations of cruelty and in the absence of such charges against the appellant/accused, ground of cruelty is not proved. There are no allegation of demand of dowry. The allegations are limited to not giving food to eat and not giving clothes to wear. He submitted that the appellant himself was a poor person and therefore, under such circumstances, this cannot be considered as cruelty in true sense. In support of his submissions, he relied on Balram & anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 Cr.L.J. 3944. He further argued that the neighbours PW3 Ramesh Sakharam Umap, PW4 Mehboob Shaikh Vali Ahmed did not support the prosecution and thus, the case of the prosecution, stood on a weak evidence of the complainant, and is not established beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there is no evidence on the point of section 306 and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding the appellant guilty under the said count. He submitted that the appellant is a poor person and he is innocent and therefore to be acquitted from all the charges. 4. Learned Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. She has argued that the appellant was continuously harassing the deceased. He had performed a second marriage. This by itself is cruelty. He was not treating the deceased properly. Ranjana was suffering mentally and physically and, therefore, she wrote a letter, marked exhibit 14. 4. Learned Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. She has argued that the appellant was continuously harassing the deceased. He had performed a second marriage. This by itself is cruelty. He was not treating the deceased properly. Ranjana was suffering mentally and physically and, therefore, she wrote a letter, marked exhibit 14. she relied on the said letter; read over the said letter and also relevant portions of the appreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. She submitted that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is to be maintained. 5. The prosecution in all examined 5 witnesses. PW3 Ramesh Sakharam Umap and PW4 Mehboob Shaikh Vali Ahmed, the neighbours, did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the case mainly stands on the evidence of Maruti Waidande, the complainant - father. Thus, on the point of ocular evidence, the testimony of Maruti is only available to the prosecution. Maruti had stated that his daughter Ranjana used to tell him that she was harassed by the appellant. He stated that for the first few years, there was no complaint but thereafter she was ill treated by the appellant. He deposed that she was not given proper food and clothes. He mentioned that he had received letters about it from Ranjana. When he had visited her, she found that her condition was very bad. The appellant had abandoned her and asked the complainant to keep Ranjana with him. However, he did not come to take her back though there was a request by the complainant to take her back, the appellant informed them that he wanted to perform second marriage. Thus, it appears that Ranjana filed application for maintenance in the Court at Waduj which was pending for 10 months. Then, he took her back and he was having two wives. With one wife he was living at Kasarwadi and with Ranjana at Bopoli. He stated that he used to come to meet her some times and was trying to convince her. It is true that in the entire deposition, Maruti has not mentioned that the appellant used to beat her. He did not mention anything about the demand of dowry or money by the appellant. However, he was specific that she was not given food and clothes to wear. So also he wanted to abandon her because he was staying with the second wife. He did not mention anything about the demand of dowry or money by the appellant. However, he was specific that she was not given food and clothes to wear. So also he wanted to abandon her because he was staying with the second wife. The learned Counsel also submitted that the deceased did not lodge any complaint of bigamy against the appellant immediately when she came to know that the appellant had performed second marriage. The fact of second marriage was admitted by the appellant when he was asked question under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The answers given by the accused to the questions put under section 313, cannot be used as evidence. But his answers can definitely be relied on to verify the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 could not be assailed in the cross-examination. In the cross-examination also, he maintained that Ranjana was ill-treated by the appellant. There was insistence that she should give her consent in writing for the second marriage. Thus, cruelty which can be gathered from the evidence of the complainant is basically was of not providing food to eat and clothes to wear. The fact of second marriage though considered to be accepted by Ranjana, it does not mean that she had condoned all the ill treatment given to her by her husband due to second marriage. This shows the fact that Ranjana was unwanted and this circumstance corroborates the woes of Ranjana that she was not only neglected by the husband but she was not given food and clothes. Undoubtedly, keeping a person starving and not giving her clothes to wear, amounts to cruelty. 6. Besides this oral evidence of the complainant, the prosecution has relied on documentary evidence, which is a letter received by the complainant from Ranjana dated 7.4.1992 (exhibit 14). The defence has pointed out that the complainant has given admission in the cross-examination that he had received in all three letters from Ranjana and he had handed over all of them to the appellant. However, other two letters were not produced by the police but only one letter is produced. The letter does not show the second postal stamp that it was sent from Satara. However, other two letters were not produced by the police but only one letter is produced. The letter does not show the second postal stamp that it was sent from Satara. It was also submitted that the complainant was illiterate and he has put a thumb impression at the bottom of the FIR i.e., exhibit 17 and, therefore, it is questioned as to how could he read and how that letter was sent to him. The submissions of the learned Counsel cannot be appreciated as the letter shows clearly one postal stamp and the date on the letter is 7.4.1992. The complainant has identified the hand-writing of Ranjana and has stated that Ranjana was literate. The person to whom the letter is sent may be illiterate. However, that person can get the same read from other person. The postal stamp of Satara is seen. However, the other stamp is not visible. This cannot be the only ground to discard this documentary evidence. The letter discloses that she had blamed her father for fixing her marriage with the appellant, who is from a well to do family, however, it was of no use. She tolerated everything patiently. Further, it was not possible for her to live and bear further. Even if she would have been married to a beggar, she could have got food to eat. However, she does not get any food to eat peacefully. She asked him to come to visit her. 7. The complainant is an illiterate person, who spent his life in the rural area throughout. It cannot be expected from him to give elaborate evidence on each and every count. He being illiterate definitely has limitations on his expression and it is rightly appreciated by the trial Judge. The trial Judge is also correct in relying on the said letter i.e. exhibit 14. The letter was written on 7.4.1992 and thereafter the incident took place on 22.5.1992. The submissions of the learned Counsel that the prosecution could not prove the immediate incidents or immediate cruelty, which really drove her to commit suicide, cannot be accepted. The letter is of 7.4.1992 and the incident took place immediately within 1½ months from this letter. The complainant had deposed that there was continuous torture and ill treatment to her and in the letter she had expressed that the things were unbearable to her. The letter is of 7.4.1992 and the incident took place immediately within 1½ months from this letter. The complainant had deposed that there was continuous torture and ill treatment to her and in the letter she had expressed that the things were unbearable to her. Though accused has also come from economically lower strata, the economical condition of the father of Ranjana was worse than him so Ranjana has stated that he is placed better economically, which is to be read comparatively. This clearly shows that Ranjana was totally dependent on her husband. Her husband was having a second wife. Ranjana was not having issue. 8. In a case of cruelty or suicide by the wife, evidence of the neighbours is always very important. Rather, the neighbours can throw light on the correct relationship of the husband and wife and what exactly had happened at the time of the incidents. Physical availability of the neighbours is natural and many times, they have better opportunity to observe the relationship of the husband and wife. In the present case, PW3 and PW4, the neighbours, though did not support the prosecution, both the witnesses were cross-examined by the learned Prosecutor and the learned Prosecutor was successful in bringing the material omissions in the evidence of both the witnesses. These omissions were put to the Investigating Officer Mr.Pagare (PW5) and in the evidence of PW3 Ramesh, which are marked exhibits 23 and 24 and the omission in the evidence of PW4 Mehboob is marked exhibit 25. these omissions are very material. The witness may turn hostile. However, if the omissions are brought on record and they are proved through the Investigating Officer then they are to be read in the evidence and these omissions do carry substantial evidentiary value. In order to appreciate these omissions, definitely, the Court has to consider the other prevailing circumstances and other corroborative evidence. Such omissions cannot be given weightage in isolation. It is to be considered that the neighbours who stayed in the same locality may not support the prosecution with a view that their relations should not get spoiled with the accused as he is a person in contact and therefore they may not support the prosecution. Keeping this fact in mind, these omissions are appreciated. 9. It is to be considered that the neighbours who stayed in the same locality may not support the prosecution with a view that their relations should not get spoiled with the accused as he is a person in contact and therefore they may not support the prosecution. Keeping this fact in mind, these omissions are appreciated. 9. Exhibit 23 discloses that PW3 Ramesh Umap has stated before the police that the applicant/accused wanted to go to drink liquor. However, the deceased Ranjana did not allow him to go and when they entered their house, they closed the door from inside. Exhibit 24 discloses that the witness has stated before the police that with the help of Mehboob (PW4) and other the said door was broken up and at that time, the appellant came out and he went away and then an ambulance was called. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that around 5pm to 5.30pm, when he and Pagnis were sitting on front side of the house, he saw smoke coming out of the house of Manohar. He went there and the door of the house was closed. In the examination in chief, he has stated that thereafter when he saw, the house was closed and he left the spot. However, in his cross-examination, the relevant portion is brought on record which shows that the witness did not leave the spot but with the help of PW5 and other person broke open the door of-the house and as the smoke was coming out and at that time, the appellant came out of the house and went away. PW 4 Mehboob in examination in chief has stated that he was at the common water tap and when he was informed that the wife of Manohar was ablaze, he found the door was closed. He opened the door and went inside and found that Manohar's wife was lying in burnt condition. He has stated in the examination in chief of Manohar was not present there. The learned APP has declared him hostile and cross-examined him. In the cross-examination, a portion marked 'A' was brought on record where he has stated that when they broke open the lock, Manohar was found inside and the said portion was proved through the Investigating Officer PW5, which is marked exhibit 25. The learned APP has declared him hostile and cross-examined him. In the cross-examination, a portion marked 'A' was brought on record where he has stated that when they broke open the lock, Manohar was found inside and the said portion was proved through the Investigating Officer PW5, which is marked exhibit 25. The behaviour of both the witnesses who were residing in the same vicinity as per exhibits 23, 25 and 25 is found not only natural but obvious in response to the situation of seeing smoke from the house of the appellant. They broke open the lock as there was fire inside. In exhibit 23, it is mentioned that Ranjana and her husband Manohar went inside the room and they locked the door from inside. Thus, immediately after some time, smoke was seen and the door was locked inside. So they broke open the lock. Thus, the omitted portions of both the witnesses are consistent and corroborate each other. These exhibits establish the fact that Manohar did not open the door himself though he was inside. He after opening the door, left the place. This clearly shows that the appellant though was present at the time of the incident, did not help the complainant to extinguish the fire. 10. It is to be noted that the prosecution did not bring any evidence to show what has happened inside. As the room was closed, such evidence was not available to the prosecution. Ranjana was brunt extensively and when she was shifted to hospital, she was not in a position to give her dying declaration. She succumbed to the injuries on the same day in the evening. Thus, the death of Ranjana was not at all accidental but there was a doubt whether it was homicidal or suicidal. However, the prosecution has come out with a case that it was a suicidal death as Ranjana went inside and immediately she was found burnt and she died. There is no such evidence collected by the prosecution that Manohar himself poured kerosene on her and it appears therefore, that the appellant was not booked for homicidal death of Ranjana. However, to prove charge under section 306, it is necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence on record to establish the ingredients of abetment which are defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 is as under: 107. However, to prove charge under section 306, it is necessary for the prosecution to bring evidence on record to establish the ingredients of abetment which are defined under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 is as under: 107. Abetment of a thing. -A person abets the doing of a thing, who – Firstly. - 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. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 11. In the present case, there was a fight between the husband and the wife on the ground of drinking liquor, which was the immediate cause of suicide. However, there was a history of continuous harassment which started in the mind of the deceased. When the deceased was burnt, it is pertinent to note that the appellant did not help to extinguish the fire. It is proved by the prosecution that when she was burning actually, he was very much in the said house. He allowed her to burn. If he would have tried to rescue her, then, he would have suffered some burn injuries to his hands or body. On the contrary, when he was inside the room, he did not open the door and the condition of the deceased became worse. The door was opened by the witnesses by PW3 and PW4. This is a glaring example of the abetment to commit suicide. He really drove her to that verge that the lady had taken the decision to die. Thus, the immediate post conduct of the appellant manifests his intention that the deceased should die. Moreover, the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that he went to Sassoon hospital and there, he claimed the body of his daughter and then performed the last rites. Thus, the immediate post conduct of the appellant manifests his intention that the deceased should die. Moreover, the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that he went to Sassoon hospital and there, he claimed the body of his daughter and then performed the last rites. The appellant though was the husband of the deceased did not bother to either inform the father of the deceased that his wife had burnt herself nor did he show any concern of her funeral and last rites. This conduct also confirms that the appellant was absolutely unconcerned. Thus, the case of the prosecution is proved not only on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant but also on the corroborative testimony of exhibits 23, 24 and 25 as also the documentary evidence at exhibit 14 and other circumstantial evidence. Thus, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under the charges of committing offence under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. On the point of quantum, the learned defence Counsel submitted that the appellant is married and has children. He submitted that the offence had taken place in 1992 i.e., prior to 22 years from today. He submitted that the appellant was on bail throughout the trial and pendency of the appeal. He has settled down in his life and therefore prayed for leniency to be shown. Learned Prosecutor has opposed the application. 13. It is true that there is an inordinate delay in deciding this appeal as it was pending before the High Court for 15 years. However, the offences under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence, no leniency on the point of quantum can be shown. I hereby confirm the conviction so also the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 14. Appeal is thus dismissed. Appeal dismissed.