JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – original accused against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.22, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.396 of 2000 whereby the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month and the appellant accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant – original accused has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such. 6. Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Sushil Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant – original accused has taken this Court through the entire Record and Proceedings, read out the evidence of material witnesses and argued that on going through recital emerging out from the complaint / FIR itself, no foundation is made out so as to constitute offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. He further argued that taking into consideration totality of the evidence of maternal aunt of the victim as well as other relatives, indisputably, the marriage of the deceased took place with the present appellant in the group marriage programe organized by Baniya community and whatever things usually required to be handed over were handed over by the said community and thereafter she set up her matrimonial home for 10 months only and prior to the date of incident, for about 1 and 1/2 year, she was residing along with the complainant’s maternal aunt and she committed suicide at her service place where she was working as Nurse with Dr. Bavishi. Mr. Nanavati, therefore, submitted that the appellant accused has good case for claiming clean acquittal, but in the alternative, he has submitted that since the incident in question occurred for about 20 years back, if the sentence as already gone by the appellant accused i.e. for 2 and 1/2 months is imposed, then he would not argue and claim clean acquittal so far as the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is concerned. 7. On the other-hand, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has supported the judgment rendered by learned trial Court so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant - original accused. She submitted that this is a fit case wherein learned trial Court has considered voluminous evidence in its proper perspective and rightly convicted the accused. She submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence and therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. She submitted that finding recorded by learned trial Court is based upon the concrete and clinching evidence and therefore, punishment inflicted upon the accused does not call for any interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant - accused and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the State. 9. This Court has also gone through the Record and Proceedings. Perused the impugned judgment and oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 10. On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, indisputably, deceased Pinki @ Kamini’s marriage was solemnized in the group marriage programme organized by the community on 15.2.1997 at Ahmedabad and thereafter, she was residing along with the present appellant for about 10 months at the matrimonial home and thereafter due to differences, she left her matrimonial home and she was residing along with complainant’s maternal aunt as her father had left the house and she thereafter resided for about 1 and 1/2 year along with her maternal uncle and she was serving as Nurse with Dr. Bavishi and on 18.11.1999, she consumed poison and committed suicide at the hospital where she was serving. 11. Indisputably, no direct evidence in the nature of dying declaration is available on record. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the hearsay evidence of near relatives which alleged to have been stated by deceased Pinki while she was living. Since the incident in question occurred after about 1 and 1/2 year while she was residing along with the complainant and her maternal aunt at the place of her service and therefore, no proximate cause of either in the nature of inducement or instigation to her which drive her to commit suicide is available on record as she was not residing at the matrimonial home for about 1 and 1/2 year. Under the circumstances, in view of clear provisions of section 306 read with section 107 of IPC, learned trial Court has fallen in error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC which is not sustainable at law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. So far as the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is concerned, on making overall evaluation of the evidence on record, though the evidence is hearsay in nature and as pointed out by Mr. 12. So far as the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is concerned, on making overall evaluation of the evidence on record, though the evidence is hearsay in nature and as pointed out by Mr. Nanavati, learned senior counsel that as regards to the allegation of compulsory abortion, the evidence on record is not supporting the allegation as certified by Dr. Bela Shah which clearly indicates that it was not forcible abortion. Similarly, so far as other allegation as regards to demand of steel cup-board and other household items is concerned, the evidence is hearsay in nature and that too upon the strength of whatever deceased Pinki alleged to have stated while she was living with her near relatives and such evidence has been brought on record that too after three years from the date of the incident in question. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to reduce the sentence to the extent of sentence already undergone by the appellant accused so far as the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is concerned in order to meet with the ends of justice. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds partly. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.22, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.396 of 2000 is confirmed so far it relates to conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 498-A of IPC is concerned and the sentence is imposed upon the appellant accused to the extent he has already undergone, whereas the appellant accused is acquitted of the charges for the offence under section 306 of IPC and the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside to that effect only. The appellant accused needs not to surrender before the jail authority for serving the sentence. The case stands closed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.