ORDER : Present Notes for Speaking to Minute is filed for correction in the judgment and order dated 19.10.2019 passed by this Court. Perused the note. So far the default sentence imposed for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, the same be read as “four months” instead of one month. Registry is directed to issue fresh writ accordingly. JUDGMENT : Decided on : 19/10/2019 1. In the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ['Code' for short], the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.56 of 1995, whereunder the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 498(A) and section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ['IPC' for short]. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/­, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC, whereas for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, he is sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/­, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently with benefits of set off. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment and connected materials are that the deceased Manjuben was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnized around eight months prior to the incident. On 28.12.1994, Manjuben set herself ablazed after pouring kerosene on herself on account of quarrel between her and the appellant in connection with her ornaments. The deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Rajkot for treatment. Executive Magistrate, recorded Exh.16 dying declaration of deceased Manjuben. The Police Inspector of Pradyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot City, recorded a statement of Manjuben on 28.12.1994 on the basis of which FIR vide C.R.No.172 of 1994 for offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 114 of the IPC came to be recorded. Manjuben thereafter during treatment expired on 02.01.1995, hence Section 306 of the IPC was added. 3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge­ sheet was filed against him in Surendranagar Court. Manjuben thereafter during treatment expired on 02.01.1995, hence Section 306 of the IPC was added. 3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge­ sheet was filed against him in Surendranagar Court. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Surendranagar, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 31.03.2000. 4. The charge was framed at Exh.3 and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried and so to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused person, the prosecution led following oral as well as documentary evidences :­ ORAL EVIDENCE PW­1 Mohanbhai Trikambhai Exh.09 PW­2 Naranbhai Bhojabhai Exh.10 PW­3 Jethiben Rajabhai Exh.11 PW­4 Dr. Chandravadan Vanmalidas Ajmera Exh.12 PW­5 Executive Magistrate Saradbhai Dinkarrai Hathi Exh.14 PW­6 A.S.I. Dashrathsinh Dolubha Parmar Exh.17 PW­7 Dr. Vasant Bhagwanjibhai Pasani Exh.22 PW­8 P.S.I. J.S. Dhandhal Exh.24 PW­9 Yusufkhan Sangaji Malek (Investigating Officer) Exh.26 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Inquest Panchnama Exh.08 Original P.M. Report of Manjulaben Gunvantbhai Exh.13 Police Yadi for taking dying declaration Exh.15 Dying declaration of deceased Manjulaben Exh.16 Copy of extract of entry from Station Diary of Thangadh Police Station Exh.18 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.19 Case papers of hospital of deceased Manjulaben Exh.23 Original complaint Exh.25 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused­appellant came to be recorded. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, convicted the appellant accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 6. I have heard Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the Respondent­State. I have also perused the record of Sessions Case No.56 of 1995. 7. The conviction of the appellant is based on Exh.16 dying declaration, Exh.25 the complaint of the deceased. The material witnesses viz. Mohanbhai Trikambhai (PW­1), Naranbhai Bhojabhai (PW­2) (both neighbors) and Jethiben Rajabhai (Mother of the deceased) have not supported the prosecution case. 8. As per the settled proposition of law expanded by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, conviction can be based on dying declaration and statement before the police of the deceased, if they inspire confidence of the Court and are found to be trustworthy. 9. It emerges from the evidence of Dr. 8. As per the settled proposition of law expanded by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, conviction can be based on dying declaration and statement before the police of the deceased, if they inspire confidence of the Court and are found to be trustworthy. 9. It emerges from the evidence of Dr. Vasant Bhagwanjibhai Pasani (PW­7) that after the incident, the deceased was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment. At the time of admission the deceased was completely conscious. She was found to have suffered 50% to 60% second and third degree burns on various parts of her body. PSI Pradumannagar Police Station sent a message Exh.15 to Saradbhai Dinkarbhai Hathi (PW­5) Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of Manjuben. 10. PW­5 after registering Exh.15 message reached the Civil Hospital. Doctor on duty led PW­5 to the cot where Manjuben was lying. He found Manjuben conscious and in a position to speak. Thereafter, he recorded her dying declaration Exh.16 wherein she had stated that the appellant wanted her ornaments and therefore, a quarrel had taken place between them on previous night. She resisted and therefore the appellant beaten her in a fit of anger. She also stated that she was subjected to harassment by the appellant as well as her mother­in­law and father­in­law. She was fed up with harassment and therefore, she set her on fire by pouring kerosene on herself. She has reiterated the same things in her statement before the Police Inspector of Pradyumannagar Police Station on basis of which FIR was registered. 11. It appears from the evidence of PW­7 Doctor, who gave initial treatment and evidence of PW­5 Executive Magistrate that at the time of admission in the Hospital, Manjuben was completely conscious and was found to have suffered 50% to 60% second and third degree burns on various parts of the body. It also appears from the evidence of PW­5 that the dying declaration of Manjuben was recorded in question answer form and thereafter the deceased Manjuben has signed the dying declaration. Conjoint reading of evidence of PW­5 and PW­6 makes it vividly clear that the deceased was in a fit set of mind to give Exh.16 dying declaration and the same is in my opinion, is reliable and trustworthy. Conjoint reading of evidence of PW­5 and PW­6 makes it vividly clear that the deceased was in a fit set of mind to give Exh.16 dying declaration and the same is in my opinion, is reliable and trustworthy. I am therefore of the view that the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge on the basis of dying declaration does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 12. However, it clearly emerges from Exh.16 dying declaration and Exh.25 complaint, FIR that the genesis of the incident was the insistence of the appellant to get the ornaments from the deceased, which she did not want to part with because the demand of the ornaments by the appellant, she was constantly pestered by the appellant and his parents. Because of this pestering, the deceased felt the feeling of harassment. The incident of demand of ornaments by the appellant made on previous night and the resultant quarrel between the deceased and appellant was the trigger point for the deceased to take the extreme steps of ending her life as she fed up with the constant harassment by the appellant and his parents. Whether the conduct of the appellant in demanding the ornaments from the deceased would fall within the ambit of harassment of such a level as would drive the woman to commit suicide is a moot question warranting conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. 13. Be that as it may, Manjuben ended her life within a very short span of around eight months of her marriage with the appellant and the she was harassed by the appellant who wants her ornaments and therefore, the offence under Section 498(A) is clearly made out. 14. Considering the above facts and the fact that the incident had happened in the year 1995 around 24 years ago and that the appellant who is bedridden and completely immobile as submitted by Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, I am of the view that while maintaining the punishment of fine, the substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeed in part. The impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 07.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.56 of 1995 is modified by while maintaining the punishment of fine, the substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone. 16. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeed in part. The impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 07.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.56 of 1995 is modified by while maintaining the punishment of fine, the substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone. 16. Since the accused person is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and surety, if any stands discharged. Record and proceedings is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.