JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. Both these appeals emanates from the selfsame judgment and order on sentence dated 07.07.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 10th FTC, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2005. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2005 is preferred by the appellant-original accused persons under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail their conviction for offence under sections 306, 114 and section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellants were sentenced for the offence punishable under section 306 read with 114 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants were sentenced for the offence punishable under section 498(A) of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. Sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefit of set off. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2006 is preferred by the appellant-State under section 377 of the Code for enhancement of sentence. 5. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment and the connected material are that marriage of Rasilaben was solemnized with Bharat Jivabhai Makwana, son of appellant Nos. 1 and 4 on 29.01.2001. After her marriage, she started living along with her husband and the appellants in joint family. On 20.10.2004, at about 10:00 am, Rasilaben committed suicide by igniting herself after pouring kerosene as she could not bear constant torture on account of day-to-day household work by the appellant. She was admitted to Civil Hospital, Rajkot where Ashwin Manu, PW 7, Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration at Exh 33 on 20.05.2004. On the same day, Atmaram Makuldas Rathod, PW 9, ASI, 'A' Division Police Station Rajkot recorded Exh 39 complaint of Rasilaben. 6. On the basis of the complaint, FIR vide C.R. No. I-194 of 2004 for offence under section 498A, 114 of IPC was registered. During the course of the treatment, Rasilaben expired therefore section 306 was also added. 7. On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was carried out. 6. On the basis of the complaint, FIR vide C.R. No. I-194 of 2004 for offence under section 498A, 114 of IPC was registered. During the course of the treatment, Rasilaben expired therefore section 306 was also added. 7. On the basis of the complaint, the investigation was carried out. Upon conclusion of investigation, since the investigating officer found a prima facie case against the accused, the charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 7445 of 2005. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 38 of 2005. 8. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused vide Exhibit-7. The same was read over and explained to the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced various ocular and documentary evidences to prove the guilt of the accused. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial, statement under section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellants 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 by the impugned judgment and order. 10. I have heard Mr. J.M. Budhbhatti, learned advocate for the appellant accused and Mr. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent State in both the appeals. 11. Mr. Budhbhatti vehemently submitted that the nature of ill-treatment meted out to the deceased mentioned in Exh-33-dying declaration and Exh-39-complaint is general in nature. He submitted that according to allegations in the dying declaration and complaint, the deceased was subjected to taunting on account of household work. It is his submission that mere taunting for household work would not come within the definition of instigation to commit suicide as contained in section 107 of IPC. He submitted that even if it is assumed that deceased was subjected to taunting for household work, the appellants never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Hence, he therefore urged that the appellants may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them and the State appeal for enhancement may be dismissed. 12. Mr. He submitted that even if it is assumed that deceased was subjected to taunting for household work, the appellants never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. Hence, he therefore urged that the appellants may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them and the State appeal for enhancement may be dismissed. 12. Mr. Budhbhatti submits that Jivabhai Meghjibhai Makwana (wankar) appellant No. 1 has expired on 13.12.2012 during the pendency of the appeal. He tenders photo copy of the death certificate which is taken on record. In view thereof, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 stands abated. 13. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that within very short span of three years and six months, the deceased Rasilaben has committed suicide. He submitted that it is very clear from Exh 33 dying declaration and Exh 39 complaint of the deceased that she was constantly taunted by the appellants in respect of day-to-day household work and therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellants. He further submitted that the sentence imposed on the appellants for offence under sections 306 and 498A is very lenient and hence looking the gravity of offence, the sentence may be enhanced. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of G.V. Siddharamesh vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 3 SCC 152 and in case of M. Mohan vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 . 14. The prosecution case rests on Exh-33-dying declaration and Exh-39-complaint of the deceased as the material witnesses Bhikhabhai Chakubhai, PW-2-father of the deceased, Monghiben Bhikhabhai, PW-3-mother of the deceased, Vinodbhai Bhikhabhai Dafda, PW-4-brother of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case. 15. The deceased has only stated in Exh-33-dying declaration that she was subjected to harassment by the appellants and therefore, she had ignited herself. In Exh-39 complaint, she has stated that she was subjected to taunting by the appellants in respect of day-to-day household work and whenever she would go to bath in a bathroom the appellants would say as to whether she has died if there is little delay. In Exh-39 complaint, she has stated that she was subjected to taunting by the appellants in respect of day-to-day household work and whenever she would go to bath in a bathroom the appellants would say as to whether she has died if there is little delay. On the day of the incident also, she had quarrel with appellant No. 6, sister-in law in respect of household work and therefore because of frequent harassment she had ignited herself after pouring kerosene. 16. In case of Rameshkumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 the Supreme Court has considered the scope of section 306 and ingredients which are essential for abatement as set out in section 107 of IPC. While interpreting the word instigation, it is held in para 20 as under: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 17. It is thus very clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that there has to be acts or omission or continuous course of conduct which creates such circumstances that the deceased has left with no option except to commit suicide. In the present case, even if Exh-33-dying declaration and Exh-39 complaint of the deceased are held to be reliable and trustworthy even then there is nothing to indicate that owing to day-to-day household work, the deceased was subjected to incessant intolerable and continuous cruelty by means of taunting by the appellants which has left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. I am therefore of the view that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC cannot be sustained. I am therefore of the view that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC cannot be sustained. However, it clearly emerges from Exh-33-dying declaration and Exh-39-complaint that there used to be frequent squabbling between the deceased Rasilaben and the surviving appellants in respect of day-to-day household work. It also emerges from Exh-39-complaint that she was subjected to taunting by the surviving appellants in respect of day-to-day household work and on the date of the incident, the deceased had a tiff with appellant No. 6 sister-in-law in respect of the household work. Hence, I am of the view that prosecution has clearly made out offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and therefore, the conviction of the surviving appellants for offence under section 498A does not warrant any interference. The incident had happened in the year 2004. Appellant No. 4 Dudhben w/o Jivabhai Makwana, who was mother-in-law of the deceased is stated to be 73 years of age and is bad ridden. I am therefore of the view that while confirming the conviction under section 498A, substantive sentence needs to be reduced to already undergone and the fine needs to be enhanced to Rs. 2000/- from Rs. 1000/- for each of the surviving appellants. 18. Mr. Pandya has vehemently pressed for enhancement of the sentence at least for the offence under section 498A. However, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraph and that the incident had happened in the year 2004, I am of the view that enhancement in sentence is not warranted. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and order dated 07.07.2005 of the learned Presiding Officer, 10th FTC, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2005 is modified. Appellant No. 1-Jivabhai Meghjibhai Makwana (Wankar) has expired on 13.12.2012 during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal qua him stands abated. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants No. 2 to 6 under sections 306 and 114 of IPC is hereby set aside. While maintaining the conviction of the surviving appellants No. 2 to 6 under section 498(A) of IPC, the substantive sentence is hereby modified to already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned Trial Judge is raised to Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 1,000/- for each of the surviving appellants. The amount of fine of Rs. While maintaining the conviction of the surviving appellants No. 2 to 6 under section 498(A) of IPC, the substantive sentence is hereby modified to already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned Trial Judge is raised to Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 1,000/- for each of the surviving appellants. The amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/- paid by the appellants for offence under sections 306 and 114 of IPC is ordered to be adjusted towards the enhanced fine. Since the accused persons are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any stands discharged. R & P to be transmitted to the Trial Court.