ORDER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Mahila Sessions Court at Chennai in SC. No. 257 of 2013, dated 30.01.2015, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following manner: Sl.No. Offence for which convicted Sentence 1. Section 498 A IPC 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. 306 of IPC Seven years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased Suganthi were married on 10.09.2000 and through the wedlock, they had two female children. The appellant is said to have treated the deceased with cruelty and asked her to bring money from her parents in order to settle the debts incurred and that apart, the appellant also used to harass the deceased after consuming alcohol. 3. The further case of prosecution is that on 30.11.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant came home in an inebriated state and there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant is said to have abused the deceased in filthy language. Not able to take it any further, the deceased poured kerosene on herself at about 9.15 p.m. and set herself on fire. Ultimately, she died on 03.12.2007 at about 11.45 pm. 4. PW1 is the elder sister of the deceased and she received the information immediately after the incident to the effect that the deceased has been taken to Government Hospital, Kilpauk. PW1 along with her husband and children went to the hospital and they found the deceased in a conscious state. The deceased is said to have informed PW1 regarding the reasons for taking such an extreme step. 5. PW11, is the Sub Inspector of Vyasarpadi Police station. He received the information from the hospital at about 10.00 pm on 30.11.2007 and he immediately went to the hospital and found the deceased to be in a conscious state of mind. Hence PW11 recorded the statement of the deceased, which was marked as Ex. P7. Based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P8) was registered by PW11 in Crime No. 531 of 2007 initially under section 309 of IPC. 6. Hence PW11 recorded the statement of the deceased, which was marked as Ex. P7. Based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P8) was registered by PW11 in Crime No. 531 of 2007 initially under section 309 of IPC. 6. PW11 went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P9 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P10 in the presence of witness. PW11 also recovered MO1 and MO2 from the scene of crime under seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P11. 7. PW11 thereafter sent an information to learned magistrate in order to record the dying declaration. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined as PW9 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 01.12.2007 at about 2. 25 pm and the same was marked as Ex.P5. The relevant portion in the dying declaration is extracted hereunder:- OTHER LANGUAGE 8. The mental state of the deceased was certified by PW8 who had recorded that the deceased was conscious throughout the period of recording the dying declaration. This certification was marked as Ex.P2. 9. On 03.12.2007, the deceased died at about 11.45 pm and hence, the investigation was taken over by PW12. PW12 prepared an alteration report marked as Ex.P12 and the offence was altered to section 306 of IPC. The alteration report was sent to the Magistrate Court. PW12 conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars at about 8.30 am on 4.12.2007 and the inquest report has been marked as Ex.P13 and the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and the post mortem was conducted by PW10. The Post Mortem certificate was marked through PW10 as Ex.P6 and the following injuries were recorded: Infected superficial burns over the front of abdomen, left arm, back of left fore arm, front of both thighs, no other injuries are made out. Extremeti Pale, Heart intact with clotted blood, Coronaries patent. Lung, liver, spleen, kidney normal. Infected hyoid bone intact. Trachea stomach bladder uterus empty. Intenstine distended with gas, pelvis scalp bones, membranes, brain, spinal column intact 10. PW10 gave a final opinion to the effect that the deceased would have died of complications due to 32% burns. 11. PW12 arrested the appellant and recorded his confession in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, he was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. 12. PW10 gave a final opinion to the effect that the deceased would have died of complications due to 32% burns. 11. PW12 arrested the appellant and recorded his confession in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, he was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. 12. PW12, recorded the statement of other witnesses and collected all the reports and ultimately, laid the final report for offence under section 498A and 306 of IPC before the Xth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. The same was taken on file in PRC No 134 of 2008. 13. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate served the copies under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case under section 209 of Cr.P.C and the case was made over to the Court below. 14. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under section 498A and 306 of IPC. When these charges were put to the appellant, the same was denied. 15. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and identified and Marked MO1 & MO2. The incriminating evidence that was gathered during the course of trial was put to the appellant, when he was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.PC and he denied the same as false. 16. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal appeal has been filed before this Court. 17. Heard Mr.C.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent. 18. In the instant case, the dying declaration given by the deceased must get primary importance since, if the same is completely reliable, this Court need not search for corroboration and the punishment can be imposed based on the dying declaration itself. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to the doctor PW7 working in Government Hospital, Chennai, on 30.11.2007 at about 9.45 pm. He states that the deceased was brought by the appellant. The deceased was in a conscious state and she informed PW7 that she sustained burn injuries due to accident. The deceased was admitted in the emergency ward by PW7. He states that the deceased was brought by the appellant. The deceased was in a conscious state and she informed PW7 that she sustained burn injuries due to accident. The deceased was admitted in the emergency ward by PW7. The accident register was prepared by PW7 and it has been marked as Ex.P1. On carefully going through the accident register, it is seen that the deceased had informed PW7 that the burn injuries were sustained by her accidentally at about 9.15 pm on 30.11.2007 and as a result, there were burn injuries in her chest, abdomen, both the legs and the left hand. This statement recorded by PW7 from the deceased can be taken to be the first dying declaration in this case. In this dying declaration, the deceased has not made any complaint against anyone and in fact, it was the appellant who had taken the deceased to the hospital. 19. The 2nd dying declaration was recorded by PW11, who is the Sub Inspector of police, who went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased on 30.11.2007 from 11.00 pm to 1.20 am. While recording the statement, the deceased is said to have informed PW11 that she was harassed by her husband daily when he came inebriated after consuming alcohol and that he was putting pressure on the deceased to bring money from her relatives in order to settle the debts and on 30.11.2007, at about 9.15 pm, her husband abused her in filthy language and not being able to take it any more, she committed self-immolation. 20. The 3rd dying declaration in this case was given to the Magistrate (PW9) on 01.12.2007 at about 2.25 p.m. The statement recorded by the Magistrate and marked as Ex. P5 is almost in line with the statement recorded by PW11. It is not known as to why the deceased who did not make any complaint before PW7, subsequently made allegations against the appellant when her statement was recorded by PW11 and PW9 respectively. It must be borne in mind that by the time, the statement was recorded by PW11 and PW9, the brothers and sisters and other relatives of the deceased have already come to the hospital and there is all possibility that they would have had some influence on the deceased. 21. It must be borne in mind that by the time, the statement was recorded by PW11 and PW9, the brothers and sisters and other relatives of the deceased have already come to the hospital and there is all possibility that they would have had some influence on the deceased. 21. In the light of the above finding, this Court is not able to completely rely upon the dying declaration and hence, this Court has to necessarily look for corroboration. 22. PW1, is the elder sister of the deceased and she has spoken about the regular quarrels between the appellant and the deceased and as to what she heard after the incident when she saw the deceased in the hospital with burn injuries. The evidence of PW2, who is the elder brother of the deceased, shows that there was a lot of debt and the appellant was not possessed with sufficient money. He has also stated that it is the appellant who had admitted the deceased in the hospital. 23. PW3 is the younger sister of the deceased who states that the deceased and the appellant used to have regular quarrels and she does not know the reason as to why they were having quarrels. 24. PW4, is another elder brother of the deceased and he did not support the case of prosecution and in fact, he was treated as a hostile witness. The same is the case with PW5, who is the son of PW1. 25. PW6, who is the neighbour, in her evidence has stated that the deceased was a short-tempered woman and that she came to the scene of occurrence only after the incident had taken place. 26. A cumulative reading of the evidence of all these witnesses shows that there were regular quarrels between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant was not earning regularly which resulted in lot of debts which had to be settled. That apart, the appellant also was having the habit of consuming liquor and this had only worsened the situation. Therefore, the deceased had certainly faced cruelty in the hands of appellant and the facts of the present case can be brought under Explanation (a) to Section 498A of IPC. Hence, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court under section 498A IPC is sustained. 27. Therefore, the deceased had certainly faced cruelty in the hands of appellant and the facts of the present case can be brought under Explanation (a) to Section 498A of IPC. Hence, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court under section 498A IPC is sustained. 27. Insofar as the offence under section 306 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It must be borne in mind that section 306 and 498A of IPC are independent and they constitute different offences. Therefore, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498A of IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also be necessarily held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide. In other words, the conviction for offence under Section 306 of IPC is independent and it can never be the consequences of convicting an accused under section 498A of IPC. Useful reference can be made to the judgement of the Apex Court in [Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh] reported 2001 9 SCC 618 in this regard. 28. On a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court does not find that the appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It seems that the deceased got hold of a small bottle of kerosene and had poured it near her abdomen and had immolated herself resulting in injuries in and around the abdomen. The deceased had sustained 32 % burn injuries as per the post mortem report. Such an attempt made by the deceased can be attributed to the poor financial status and heavy debts faced by the family coupled with the fact that the appellant was not having a regular earning and was also an alcoholic. In fact, immediately after the incident, it is the appellant who made arrangements and rushed the deceased to the hospital which is evident from the deposition of PW7. Therefore, this Court does not find any strong grounds to sustain the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 306 of IPC. To that extent, the judgment of the Trial Court requires the interference of this Court. 29. Therefore, this Court does not find any strong grounds to sustain the conviction of the appellant for offence under section 306 of IPC. To that extent, the judgment of the Trial Court requires the interference of this Court. 29. The upshot of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under section 498A of IPC has to be confirmed and conviction for offence under section 306 of IPC is liable to be set aside. 30. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is now taking care of the two daughters. The 1st daughter is studying engineering and the 2nd daughter is studying B.A. That apart, the appellant is also taking care of a mentally retarded girl, who was born to another women whom the appellant married subsequently. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant will meet all the educational expenses and he will also perform the marriage of his daughters. If the appellant is sent to jail, the future of his daughters will be very badly affected since they do not have anyone else to take care of them. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has suffered incarceration for more than 50 days and that the appellant is also willing to pay compensation fixed by this Court. 31. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for Appellant and the learned Government Advocate, the appellant convicted under Section 498A of IPC, is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone. The appellant shall also pay fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- and in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. It is seen from records that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount and it has been recorded in the order passed by this Court on 13.04.2015 when the appellant was enlarged on bail. The appellant is further sentenced to pay a compensation of a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The appellant shall take a fixed deposit in the name of his two daughters and deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each of the daughter and the fixed deposit shall be for a period of 5 years. This deposit shall be made on or before 14.04.2023 at Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai and the original fixed deposit receipts shall be produced before this Court. 2,00,000/- for each of the daughter and the fixed deposit shall be for a period of 5 years. This deposit shall be made on or before 14.04.2023 at Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai and the original fixed deposit receipts shall be produced before this Court. If the appellant defaults in the payment of compensation amount, he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment. 32. In the result, the Judgement and order passed in S.C.No.257 of 2013 dated 30.01.2015 on the file of the learned Mahila Sessions Court at Chennai, is modified to the extent indicated herein above and this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 33. Post this case under the caption for “Reporting Compliance” on 17.04.2023.