JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The aforementioned appeals have been arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 24-8-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 202 of 1998, whereby the appellants-accused persons were convicted for the offence under Sec. 506(2) and were acquitted from the charges of Secs. 498A, 306 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, all matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1486 of 2004 is preferred by the appellants-accused challenging his conviction under Sec. 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2005 is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking enhancement of punishment under Sec. 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2005 is preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the order of acquittal so far as the offences punishable under Secs. 306 and 498A read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The shot facts of the prosecution case and the incident which is alleged to have been occurred are as under: According to the prosecution case, the so-called incident of criminal intimidation was committed two months prior to 29-1-1997, the day on which the deceased-Neeruben alleged to have committed suicide at Morbi town, Taluka, Morbi, Dist. Rajkot. Further, it is alleged that appellant No. 1-Kokilaben had illicit relation with Rameshgiri, who is the husband of deceased-Neeruben. Further it is alleged that the deceased-Neeruben as well as Rameshgiri were working together in a factory at Morbi town, at that time, Rameshgiri developed love affair with deceased-Neeruben and they got married three years prior to the day of incident. Further it is alleged that as Neeruben got married with Rameshgiri, the appellant No. 1 did not like it, and therefore, she used to say that the deceased-Neeruben has snatched away Rameshgiri from her i.e. Kokilaben, and therefore, she i.e. Kokilaben would never let Neeruben to live happily with Rameshgiri. Further it is alleged that as Neeruben got married with Rameshgiri, the appellant No. 1 did not like it, and therefore, she used to say that the deceased-Neeruben has snatched away Rameshgiri from her i.e. Kokilaben, and therefore, she i.e. Kokilaben would never let Neeruben to live happily with Rameshgiri. Further it is alleged that the appellant No. 1-Kokilaben was giving criminal intimidation to deceased-Neeruben. Therefore, the deceased-Neeruben and her husband-Rameshgiri shifted to village Charadva, Taluka Morbi. At that time, the appellant No 2-Lakhmanbhai Devabhai Harijan and appellant No. 3-Shantaben, W/o. Lakhmanbhai Devabhai Harijan were residing at village Charadva. The appellant No. 1-Kokilaben used to go to the house of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and all the appellants were giving criminal intimidation to deceased-Neeruben. Further it is alleged that as the appellants were giving criminal intimidation to deceased-Neeruben, deceased-Neeruben and her husband-Rameshgiri shifted to Rajkot City and at the time she committed suicide. Neeruben and Rameshgiri were residing in Rajkot city in the house of Sagabhai Bharwad which is situated near Kabeer Tekri, B/h. Marketing Yard. Further, it is alleged that on 29-1-1997 deceased-Neeruben sprinkled kerosene on her body and she set herself at fire. In short, it is the allegation against the appellants that Neeruben has committed suicide as the appellants were giving her criminal intimidation. 6. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. The charge was framed against the accused persons. The accused pleased not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 6.1. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 6.2. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 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. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court and the State has preferred Criminal Appeals for enhancement of sentence as well as against acquittal. 8. Mr. S.B. Tolia, learned Advocate for the appellants-accused has taken this Court to the entire record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeals before this Court and the State has preferred Criminal Appeals for enhancement of sentence as well as against acquittal. 8. Mr. S.B. Tolia, learned Advocate for the appellants-accused has taken this Court to the entire record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment. He submitted that no case is made out against the present accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(2) of the I.P.C. as well as other offences alleged to have been committed under Secs. 498-A, 306 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the complainant has given multiple dying declarations wherein it appears that they are not in consonance with each other. He further submitted that even in the dying declaration she herself stated that she is already married with Rameshgiri and he had illicit relation with the accused Kokilaben prior to getting marriage with her. He further submitted that such relationship with the accused-kokilaben appears to have been developed for about two years prior to the incident and the same was continued for about two months prior to the date of incident. He further submitted that in her multiple dying declarations, she has clearly mentioned that such sorts of alleged intimidation was administered for about two months prior to the incident, and therefore, she was nurturing an idea that she may be finished and due to which she took extreme step of suicide. He further submitted that if the aforesaid evidence may be taken into consideration in toto, in that case also, it would be very difficult to attract the provisions of Secs. 306, 498A read with Sec. 114 of the I.P.C. Indisputably according to submission of Mr. Tolia, there appears no evidence as contemplated under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. and even in view of the clear definition as envisaged under Sec. 107 it would not be prudent to believe that at the instance of any inducement or instigation on the part of the appellants, the victim had taken extreme step of suicide, therefore, according to his submission, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted, which calls for no interference. Mr. Tolia further submitted that nothing proximity of time is revealing in evidence on record. Mr. Tolia further submitted that nothing proximity of time is revealing in evidence on record. He further submitted that there are several contradictions that she took extreme step of suicide due to cruelty meted out by her husband and that fact is clearly emerging out from the depositions of real-brother of victim as well as from the police officials, who recorded the statement. He has further submitted that if this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence undergone then he would not argue for clean acquittal as such. He, therefore, urged before this Court to acquit the accused persons or in alternative to reduce the sentence. 9. Per contra, Ms. C. M. Shah, learned A.P.P. has submitted that there are multiple dying declarations on record and all multiple dying declarations are clearly involving the accused with the crime in question and the learned trial Court while delivering the judgment recorded point of determination and also recorded ample reasons for convicting the accused. She further submitted that punishment inflicted is required to be enhanced from one year to more and the judgment of acquittal is required to be reversed as such and she has not granted any concession for reducing the sentence. 10. This Court has heard Mr. S.B. Tolia learned Advocate for the appellant-accused and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 11. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 12. This Court has gone through the rival submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for both the sides and this Court has also gone through the record and proceedings as well as material witnesses in light of the aforesaid factual position. Prosecution witness No. 1-Dr. Anilkumar clearly opines that the victim Niru died due to burn injury and septicemia, therefore death is proved to be suicidal from which there is no dispute. Dr. Anil Kumar further opined that the victim was fit in state of mind to give dying declaration and twice Yadi was sent for recording dying declarations. 13. This Court has also gone through the deposition of prosecution witness -Bebiben mother of the deceased victim as well as Investigating Officer, Harpalsinh (P.W. 11). Dr. Anil Kumar further opined that the victim was fit in state of mind to give dying declaration and twice Yadi was sent for recording dying declarations. 13. This Court has also gone through the deposition of prosecution witness -Bebiben mother of the deceased victim as well as Investigating Officer, Harpalsinh (P.W. 11). It is clearly emerging out that while the deceased was under treatment, at that time, deceased told that her husband used to harass her due to which she poured kerosene over body and committed suicide. She also wanted to give such sort of second dying declarations, which could not be recorded as she was not in a position to give such dying declaration when the Executive Magistrate arrived there to record second dying declaration. 14. Over and above oral evidence, the dying declaration at Exh. 36 recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate wherein the deceased inter alia stated that she was threatened by the present accused for about two months prior to the incident while she was residing village Charadva, at that time, they were working together and they were harassing. But in the aforesaid dying declaration, no detail as regard as to how and what sort of harassment was meted out to her is not mentioned. The second dying declaration in the nature of F.I.R. at Exh. 71 alleged to have been recorded by the police officials around before 12 O' clock on 21-9-1997, wherein the deceased inter alia stated that while she was working, at that time, her husband had illicit relation with the accused-Kokilaben, and thereafter, she fall in love with Rameshgiri and got married with him, which the accused did not like. The accused-Kokilaben was harassing her as Rameshgiri had relation cutoff with her and she further stated that due to the aforesaid incident she and her husband hired a house in Rajkot city and left Charadva for about last two months. On the date of incident, while she was alone at her home, she was remembering the incident happened at Charadva two month prior and she was nurturing an idea that the appellants would not allow to her to live alone due to which she poured kerosene over her body and committed suicide. 15. Over and above the aforesaid dying declaration at Exh. 15. Over and above the aforesaid dying declaration at Exh. 43, the second Yadi sent to the Executive Magistrate clearly mentioned that the brother of the Victim-Devparikh, Shivparikh reported to the concerned Police Station and stated that her sister wants to give another dying declaration as her husband used to harass her due to which she took extreme step of suicide. In pursuance thereof, Executive Magistrate, Rajkot recorded the second dying declaration, which is at Exh. 42 which discloses merely preliminary things that she was not in a position to give dying declaration and that fact is also stated by the treating Doctor. 16. On over all appreciation and evaluation of aforesaid evidence on record it clearly indicates that there was no proximity of time in between alleged harassment or intimidation, therefore, the evidence looses its all credibility so far as invoking the provisions of Sec. 306 read with Secs. 107 and 114 of the I.P.C. So far as the offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. is concerned, as pointed out, none of the accused persons are relatives of the deceased-Niruben, therefore, the said provisions of law would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In that way of the matter, the acquittal appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat is devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal. Accordingly Acquittal Appeal stands dismissed. 17. Indisputably according to submission of Mr. Tolia, learned Advocate there appears no evidence as contemplated under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C. and even in view of the clear definition as envisaged under Sec. 107 it would not be prudent to believe that at the instance of any inducement or instigation on the part of the appellants, the victim had taken extreme step of suicide, therefore, according to his submission, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted which calls for no interference. So far as the conviction appeal preferred by the accused is concerned in view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the statement advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Tolia requires consideration and as a result the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and so far as the appeal of the State of Gujarat for seeking enhancement is concerned, the same stands dismissed for the aforesaid reason. 18. S.B. Tolia requires consideration and as a result the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and so far as the appeal of the State of Gujarat for seeking enhancement is concerned, the same stands dismissed for the aforesaid reason. 18. In the result, the conviction Criminal Appeal No. 1486 of 2004 preferred by the appellants accused stands partly allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court under Sec. 506(2) of the I.P.C. is reduced to the extent that the accused had already undergone. The accused is not required to surrender to serve any sentence. 19. The aforesaid both the appeals preferred by the State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2005 stand dismissed. 20. The sentence of fine imposed by the order dated 24-8-2004 is confirmed, however, R. & P. clearly indicates that the accused have already deposited the fine, therefore, the matter is hereby closed.