JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. (Oral) – This criminal appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 28/5/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Sessions Trial No.72/2005 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution can be briefly stated as follows : Deceased Kavita was wife of accused, who had married on 26/4/2005 and after their marriage, they were residing near the house of P.W.1 Indira, who was related to deceased Kavita and accused. Few days after the marriage, accused started giving ill-treatment to deceased Kavita by abusing her and making monetary demands and on non-fulfilment of demands, was extending threats to her to divorce her. During festival of Ashadi, P.W.10 Gautam, brother of Kavita, came to bring her to her parental home. However, she was not allowed to go by the accused and was subjected to beating. Therefore, Kavita went to P.W.4 Rajendra, Police Patil, who reached her to the house of her parents. After staying with her parents for a period of one month, Kavita, on her own, came back to the house of accused. On 12/9/2005, in the evening, Kavita was subjected to beating by the accused, who also beat her in the morning of the day of incident, i.e. on 13/9/2005 and extended threats to divorce her, which conduct of the accused could not be borne by Kavita and as she was continuously ill-treated and was provided with cruelty, on 13/9/2005 at about 7 A.M., Kavita set herself ablaze in the house of accused and sustained 65% burn injuries. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that Kavita was initially referred to Government Hospital, Ner, District Yavatmal wherefrom she was referred to Government Hospital, Yavatmal for medical treatment. While in the Government Hospital, Yavatmal, P.W.6 Shrihari, Naib Tahsildar was requested by Yavatmal City Police for recording dying declaration of Kavita. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that Kavita was initially referred to Government Hospital, Ner, District Yavatmal wherefrom she was referred to Government Hospital, Yavatmal for medical treatment. While in the Government Hospital, Yavatmal, P.W.6 Shrihari, Naib Tahsildar was requested by Yavatmal City Police for recording dying declaration of Kavita. He accordingly visited the Burn Ward in Government Hospital, Yavatmal at about 12 o'clock in the noon and finding that she was in a position to speak, issued requisition to P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya to examine Kavita and to issue certificate whether she was in a position to make a statement. Accordingly, P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya having certified that Kavita was in a position to make her statement, P.W.6 Shrihari recorded her dying declaration and got Kavita further medically examined from P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya and obtained necessary medical endorsements in that regard. 4. According to the case of prosecution, on the day of incident, at about 2 p.m. accused gave telephonic message to P.W.7 Bhagwan, father of Kavita, that she sustained burn injuries accidentally. Accordingly her father along with P.W.8 Indubai, her mother and P.W.10 Gautam, her brother visited Kavita in the Hospital at about 6 p.m. to whom she stated that as she was subjected to beating by the accused on the earlier day in the evening as well as in the morning of that day and as the accused was threatening her on the count of divorce, she got fed up and thus, committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. 5. Initially offence vide Crime No. 00/05 was registered by Yavatmal City Police under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused. The documents in the said crime were accordingly forwarded to Ner Police Station through P.W.12 Khushal Meshram, Home Guard, which were received by P.W.9 Sahadeo, A.S.I. and on the strength of the same, offence came to be registered at Ner Police Station vide Crime No. 113/2005, which was further investigated by P.W.11 Jadhav, P.S.I. During the course of investigation, Investigation Officer visited Government Hospital, Yavatmal on 15/9/2005 and recorded statement of Kavita vide Exh.69 on obtaining medical endorsements and on the same day, recorded statements of her parents also. 6. On 17/9/2005 Kavita died of sustaining burn injuries and thus, offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code came to be added in the above crime. Supplementary statements of parents of Kavita were recorded. 6. On 17/9/2005 Kavita died of sustaining burn injuries and thus, offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code came to be added in the above crime. Supplementary statements of parents of Kavita were recorded. The accused was arrested on 18/9/2005. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ner. In the course of time, as offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, case came to be committed to Sessions Court at Darwha. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 5, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused as aforesaid and hence, the present criminal appeal. 7. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, I have scrutinised the evidence on record with their assistance. Admittedly, the case of prosecution is mainly based on the dying declaration of Kavita, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 Indira, P.W.7 Bhagwan, P.W.8 Indubai and P.W.10 Gautam. In that view of the matter, I find it necessary to consider the evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari, Naib Tahsildar, who has recorded the dying declaration of Kavita. 8. P.W.6 Shrihari has stated that on 13/9/2005 he was posted as Naib Tahsildar at Yavatmal and on that day, he was also present in the Government Hospital, Yavatmal for the purpose of recording dying declaration in some other crime where he received requisition from Police for recording dying declaration of Kavita (Exh. 52). Accordingly he visited Burn Ward and met the patient and put her preliminary questions to ascertain if she was conscious. Finding that Kavita was in a fit state to give dying declaration, he issued requisition memo to P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya to examine her and to issue necessary certificate whether Kavita was fit to make her statement. The requisition is at Exh.53. It is further stated that on examining Kavita, Dr. Chhaya issued medical endorsement certifying that Kavita was fit to make her statement. Chhaya to examine her and to issue necessary certificate whether Kavita was fit to make her statement. The requisition is at Exh.53. It is further stated that on examining Kavita, Dr. Chhaya issued medical endorsement certifying that Kavita was fit to make her statement. This witness thereafter recorded dying declaration of Kavita, during the course of which, he asked her name, which was replied by her as 'Kavita Niranjan Bhagat'. Kavita was then asked as to how the incident took place, upon which she stated that on that day, in the morning at 7 o'clock she, on her own, poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire as she was harassed by her husband, who was repeatedly assaulting her. She further stated that she set herself on fire as she was provided cruelty and was subjected to beating by her husband and thus, she was fed up. Kavita further stated that her husband was preventing her from coming to his house and was repeatedly asking her to go to her father's house and was threatening her to give divorce and thus, she set herself on fire. It is further stated by P.W.6 Shrihari that after recording dying declaration as above, he read over contents of the dying declaration to Kavita, which she admitted to be true and thereafter he obtained her right hand thumb impression and also signed the same. It is further stated by P.W.6 Shrihari that he then requested Dr. Chhaya to examine Kavita in order to ascertain if Kavita was conscious during recording of dying declaration. Accordingly, Kavita was examined and Dr. Chhaya issued certificate stating therein that Kavita was conscious during recording of dying declaration. The dying declaration was thereafter handed over to Police. 9. In the cross-examination of P.W.6 Shrihari, it has come on record that Kavita was identified by Nurse from the Ward and requisition for recording dying declaration was served upon him while he was in the Hospital. He has admitted that he has not mentioned time of receipt of same. However, much importance cannot be given to the said aspect in view of the fact that according to contents of inquest panchanama (Exh. 38) and requisition for post mortem (Exh. He has admitted that he has not mentioned time of receipt of same. However, much importance cannot be given to the said aspect in view of the fact that according to contents of inquest panchanama (Exh. 38) and requisition for post mortem (Exh. 39), which documents are admitted by the accused, after Kavita sustained burn injuries in the house of accused on 13/9/2005 at 7 a.m., she was immediately referred to Government Hospital, Ner wherefrom she was referred to Government Hospital, Yavatmal on the same day at about 10.35 A.M. where she died on 17/9/2005 at 12.25 p.m. In view of contents of the said admitted documents, it has come on record that deceased Kavita was admitted in the Hospital at 10.35 A.M. while according to P.W.6 Shrihari, though he has stated to have not mentioned time of receipt of requisition (Exh. 52) as stated earlier, in the latter part of his cross-examination, it has come on record that he received memo for recording dying declaration at about 12.15 p.m. and he immediately contacted the patient for recording dying declaration who, as stated earlier, was already present in the Hospital. P.W.6 Shrihari denied to have obtained endorsement of P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya without recording the dying declaration. Though this witness admits to have not mentioned the preliminary questions put by him to Kavita, this is in no way fatal to the case of prosecution as according to this witness, he had put preliminary questions to ascertain whether Kavita was in a position to make a statement and thus, having been satisfied, made requisition to Dr. Chhaya to medically examine Kavita and to certify accordingly. Though this witness admits that there is overwriting with reference to time of 12.45 p.m. as referred in the dying declaration (Exh. 54), this is not sufficient to raise any doubt on this document as it has come in his evidence that he was served memo for recording dying declaration at 12.15 p.m., which corroborates the contents of requisition memo (Exh. 53) wherefrom it is revealed that immediately on receipt of the said requisition memo, this witness after issuing requisition to Dr. Chhaya, commenced recording of dying declaration at 12.30 p.m. and concluded the same at 12.45 p.m. Considering the length of dying declaration, certainly one would require at least 15 minutes to record the same after putting questions and on getting answers thereof. Chhaya, commenced recording of dying declaration at 12.30 p.m. and concluded the same at 12.45 p.m. Considering the length of dying declaration, certainly one would require at least 15 minutes to record the same after putting questions and on getting answers thereof. As such, much importance need not be given though there appears some overwriting on dying declaration (Exh. 54) as regards its time of conclusion. Though P.W.6 Shrihari admits that there are no answers to question nos.6, 7 and 8 on the printed proforma of dying declaration (Exh. 54), all these questions are found to be inter-linked with each other and appear to be replied by Kavita in her reply to question no.5, which refers to stating of incident in brief. As such, there is nothing to discredit the evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari on this count also nor I find substance when it is suggested to this witness that he on his own has penned down the contents of dying declaration. 10. The learned Counsel for the accused has submitted that the dying declaration needs no consideration as admittedly there is no endorsement made by P.W.6 Shrihari thereon about reading over contents of the same to Kavita. However, I do not find much substance in the contention for the reason that it was nowhere suggested to P.W.6 Shrihari that the contents of the dying declaration were not read over or explained to Kavita to have been recorded as stated by her. On the contrary, there is a substantive evidence on record of this witness where, in clear terms, he has stated that after concluding recording of dying declaration he had read over contents thereof to Kavita. In that view of the matter and since it has also come in the evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari that Kavita was medically examined by P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya before recording her dying declaration and on concluding the same, it can be said to have been established by the prosecution that dying declaration came to be recorded while Kavita was mentally and physically fit to make her statement. 11. The above evidence is found further corroborated by P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya before recording her dying declaration and on concluding the same, it can be said to have been established by the prosecution that dying declaration came to be recorded while Kavita was mentally and physically fit to make her statement. 11. The above evidence is found further corroborated by P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya, who has stated that she is M.B.B.S. and on 13/9/2005 was attached to Government Hospital, Yavatmal, on which date she was requested by P.W.6 Shrihari at about 12.15 p.m. to medically examine Kavita whose dying declaration was to be recorded and had accordingly on medically examining Kavita certified that Kavita was fit to make her statement. The certificate is at Exh. 47. It has further come in her evidence that P.W.6 Shrihari then recorded dying declaration and after recording the same, contents thereof were read over to its declarant, upon which her thumb impression was obtained. P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya has further stated that she thereafter medically examined Kavita and gave medical endorsement certifying that Kavita was fit to make her statement, which was recorded in her presence as per Exh. 48. According to her evidence, Kavita was fully conscious when her statement came to be recorded. It is material to note that P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya also corroborates the evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari about reading over contents of dying declaration made by Kavita before obtaining her thumb impression. Moreover, this evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya again goes unchallenged as it is nowhere suggested to her that contents of dying declaration were not read over to Kavita before her thumb impression was obtained on it. 12. Though P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya admits that there is overwriting in the dying declaration (Exh. 54) with reference to name of the patient, much importance need not be given to this admission as P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya is not the scribe of this document while no such explanation has been obtained from P.W.6 Shrihari though question was put to him about overwriting with reference to timing mentioned in the dying declaration (Exh. 54). 13. Similarly, though P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya has admitted to have not mentioned specifically mental and physical state of Kavita in her medical endorsements on record (Exhs.47 and 48), the said admission is also not fatal to the case of prosecution as the medical endorsement before recording dying declaration certifies that patient was fit for recording dying declaration while Exh. 54). 13. Similarly, though P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya has admitted to have not mentioned specifically mental and physical state of Kavita in her medical endorsements on record (Exhs.47 and 48), the said admission is also not fatal to the case of prosecution as the medical endorsement before recording dying declaration certifies that patient was fit for recording dying declaration while Exh. 48 is to the effect that patient was conscious fully during recording of dying declaration. Her evidence also corroborates evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari when it is stated that P.W.6 Shrihari before recording statement asked Kavita her name and thereafter as to how the incident took place and recorded the same in question-answer form. It is already stated above while considering the evidence of P.W.6 Shrihari that he has specifically deposed that the contents of dying declaration were read over to its maker, however, he has not made such endorsement on the dying declaration. The said fact is also admitted by P.W.5 Dr. Chhaya. However, it is to be noted that it is nowhere suggested to this witness that the dying declaration was not read over to Kavita. 14. The evidence of P.W.1 Indira, who is admittedly related to the accused, who is son of her husband's sister as well as to Kavita, who was her sister's daughter, substantiates the case of prosecution when she has deposed that after marriage of Kavita with accused, which was solemnized about 5-6 months prior to the incident, there were often quarrels between them. The said witness was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused and has stated that she had informed the said fact to P.W.2 Digamber, Police Patil. She has stated that prior to the incident, Kavita stayed with her parents for about 15 days and thereafter again came to the house of accused. However, cruelty provided to her was continued. She has further stated that she was informed by Kavita when she went to see her in the Hospital at Yavatmal that accused had set her on fire. Thus, in view of her evidence as above, prosecution by examining this witness can only be said to have established fact of accused providing cruelty to Kavita as she has further stated that Kavita told her while in the Hospital that accused was demanding money and was threatening her to give divorce and was assaulting her and, therefore, she had set herself ablaze. No material is brought on record to doubt evidence of this witness on the point of cruelty, who, in fact, has denied that Kavita did not tell her about cruelty at the hands of the accused as deposed by her. However, evidence of this witness does not establish involvement of accused establishing his role in Kavita committing suicide as her abettor as her evidence on this aspect is not consistent since at one stage this witness has stated that she was informed by Kavita that accused set her on fire while thereafter has stated that Kavita sustained burns accidentally. In that view of the matter, evidence of P.W.1 Indira can be held to be convincing only with reference to the case of prosecution of accused providing cruelty to her, as deposed by this witness to be informed by Kavita. 15. The case of prosecution is further substantiated by the evidence of P.W.7 Bhagwan and P.W.8 Indubai, both parents of deceased Kavita and P.W.10 Gautam, her brother, who have stated that after marriage of Kavita, while she was cohabiting with accused, she was subjected to ill-treatment and died within five months of her marriage. It has come in the evidence of these witnesses that immediately prior to the incident, she was staying with her parents during which period, she had informed about the ill-treatment provided to her by the accused and that she was subjected to assault and threats by accused to give her divorce. It is further stated that Kavita on her own thereafter went to stay with the accused. However, four days thereafter, a telephonic message was received from accused informing them about Kavita sustaining burn injuries while preparing tea. 16. From the further evidence of these witnesses it has come on record that on receiving message as above, they visited Yavatmal Hospital on the same day at about 6 p.m. and on enquiry from Kavita, she stated that she was assaulted by accused on the previous day and again thereafter on the following day in the morning, due to which she committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Nothing material is brought on record in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit their evidence. 17. From the evidence discussed above, prosecution has established involvement of the accused, which can be clearly spelt out from the dying declaration (Exh. Nothing material is brought on record in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit their evidence. 17. From the evidence discussed above, prosecution has established involvement of the accused, which can be clearly spelt out from the dying declaration (Exh. 54) on record, the contents of which are further corroborated by the oral dying declaration as deposed by parents and brother of deceased Kavita. 18. The basic requirements of a valid dying declaration are : (1) Examination of the patient by the Doctor before recording of his statement and a certificate by the Doctor that the person (patient) is in a sound mental state to give a statement. (2) Presence of the Doctor near the patient during recording of the statement. (3) Relations of the patient should not be in the vicinity and should be removed from the room wherein the statement of the patient is being recorded, so that a voluntary statement free from any influence or tutoring could be obtained. (4) Last, but not the least, after recording of the statement, the same must be read over to the person (patient) and a confirmation by the person that the statement is correctly recorded and the statement is true. Considering the aforesaid requirements, prosecution can be said to have established the same and thus, there is nothing to disbelieve the dying declaration of Kavita (Exh. 54) on record. 19. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.11 Jadhav, P.S.I. further substantiates the case of prosecution when he has stated that during the course of investigation of Crime No. 133/2005, he visited Kavita in the hospital on 15/9/2005 and recorded her statement. Admittedly, prior to recording of the said statement (Exh. 69), dying declaration (Exh. 54) was already recorded by P.W.6 Shrihari. On comparing contents of Exh. 54 and Exh.69, the same are found consistent on all material particulars of the incident establishing involvement of the appellant/accused. In a statement recorded by this witness, Kavita has stated that she was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of accused and she was assaulted on the previous day of the incident and at 7 o'clock in the morning on the day of incident, due to which she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Except for a bare suggestion to this witness that he had not recorded statement of Kavita in the Hospital, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination. Except for a bare suggestion to this witness that he had not recorded statement of Kavita in the Hospital, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination. As such, Exh. 69 further corroborates the case of prosecution and dying declaration (Exh. 54). It is to be noted that by now law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in a fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration, they should be consistent. 20. In view of above settled proposition in law, when contents of dying declaration (Exh. 54) as well as Exh.69 are considered along with evidence of oral dying declaration as deposed by parents and brother of deceased Kavita, there appears to be consistency in the same. 21. For establishing charge levelled against the appellant on account of providing ill-treatment, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 Digamber, Police Patil as well as P.W.4 Rajendra, who is maternal uncle of the accused, however, they have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.2 Digamber has denied that Kavita has stated him that since accused was assaulting her often, she set herself on fire and has further denied to have stated that Kavita committed suicide as she was fed up due to cruelty provided to her by the accused. Above portions marked as Exhs. 'C' and 'D' are duly proved by the prosecution by examining P.W.11 Jadhav, Investigating Officer at Exhs.73 and 74 along with portions 'A' and 'B' marked as Exhs. 71 and 72, which portions, however, are not found to be material contradictions. 22. P.W.4 Rajendra being maternal uncle of the accused, has also not supported the case of prosecution and has denied to have stated before the Police that there were quarrels between accused and deceased Kavita and that prior to the incident, accused had assaulted Kavita on one occasion and had locked her in a room when on opening the door, Kavita informed that she was assaulted by the accused. He further denied to have stated to the Police in his statement that few days thereafter again there was quarrel between them and that Kavita used to tell him that accused was demanding money and threatening her to give divorce and on that count was assaulting her, due to which she got fed up and set herself on fire. Prosecution has got portions 'A' to 'F" from his statement duly proved from the evidence of P.W.11 Jadhav, Investigating Officer at Exhs. 75 to 80. 23. In view of evidence of above witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution, it is to be noted that merely because above witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on this count as it is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in to to merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In the circumstances, I find it useful to refer to the case of Bhajju alias Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 327 wherein while considering the version of hostile witness, it is expressed by the Apex Court thus : "Normally, when a witness deposes contrary to the stand of the prosecution and his own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, can pray to the Court for declaring that witness hostile and for granting leave to cross-examine the said witness. If such a permission is granted by the Court, then the witness is subjected to cross-examination by the prosecutor as well as an opportunity is provided to the defence to cross-examine such witnesses, if he so desires. In other words, there is a limited examination-in-chief, cross-examination by the prosecutor and cross-examination by the counsel for the accused. It is admissible to use the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination of the said witness insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution." In that view of the matter, when above referred proved portions from the evidence of P.W.2 Digamber and P.W.4 Rajendra are considered, they corroborate the contents of the dying declaration. 24. It is admissible to use the examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examination of the said witness insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution." In that view of the matter, when above referred proved portions from the evidence of P.W.2 Digamber and P.W.4 Rajendra are considered, they corroborate the contents of the dying declaration. 24. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the incident took place in the house of the accused. Spot panchanama (Exh. 36) is proved by the prosecution by the evidence of P.W.3 Narendra. It has also come in the evidence that at the time of incident, deceased Kavita as well as accused were the only persons in the house as mother of the accused had gone to the field. In this view of the matter, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come into play. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlie Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in cases where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 , the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 25. Having considered the above discussed evidence, the prosecution is found to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Having considered the above discussed evidence, the prosecution is found to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is found that there is convincing evidence to establish that on the day of incident and immediately prior to Kavita committing suicide, the accused abetted Kavita for its commission. In that view of the matter, the accused can certainly be attributed with the requisite mens rea so as to hold him guilty as abettor. In the circumstances, prosecution is held to have established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there appears no substance in the criminal appeal. 26. Smt. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant, at this stage prays for showing leniency to the appellant. She submits that the appellant was 24 years old at the time of incident, which occurred in the year 2005 and has re-married after death of his first wife Kavita, who is victim in this case. It is also submitted that he was only earning member in his family. 27. Shri Bhagde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, opposes for grant of leniency contending that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view and has awarded sentence of seven years of imprisonment under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 28. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, to meet the ends of justice, following order is passed : The criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code as recorded by the learned trial Court is confirmed. However, the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha on 28th May 2012 in Sessions Trial No.72/2005, sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is altered and the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years instead of seven years as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha. Rest of the order in respect of sentence and fine is confirmed. 29. At this stage, I must record appreciation for Smt. Kulkarni, who was appointed to represent the appellant. I found that she has meticulously prepared the matter and very ably argued the same. Rest of the order in respect of sentence and fine is confirmed. 29. At this stage, I must record appreciation for Smt. Kulkarni, who was appointed to represent the appellant. I found that she has meticulously prepared the matter and very ably argued the same. As Smt. Kulkarni is an appointed Advocate, I quantify legal fees to be paid to her for this criminal appeal by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee at rupees five thousand.