JUDGMENT : ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated July 24, 1997 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, in Sessions Trial No.107 of 1989, convicting the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for his commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. 2. The complaint filed by the father of the victim namely Shri Ratan Kumar Sant precisely stated that his third daughter Asha had been romantically involved with the appellant Pinaki Gupta. The marriage between his daughter and the appellant was solemnized on 24.02.1988 at the Nistarini Devi Temple, Serampore in the presence of the complainant’s son and the priest of the temple, Dilip Mukherjee of Sheoraphuli Chatterjee Para. The complainant asserted such marital alliance was unaccepted by the victim’s mother-in-law, Smt. Mamta Gupta. The appellant was dissatisfied with the marriage under the influence of his mother, moreover he was compelled to accept such marriage due to societal pressure. 3. According to the complainant his daughter as aforesaid commenced her marital life at the matrimonial home on and from 15.04.1988. It had been alleged, soon after the victim was subjected to continuous harassment and ill-treatment at the behest of her husband, the mother-in-law and sister-in- law who did not allow the complainant’s son to meet his daughter. The name of the appellant’s sister was unknown to the complainant who resided at Dum Dum but frequently visited the matrimonial home of the victim. The information of the victim suffering at her matrimonial home was received by the complainant only through the neighbours. On 24.06.1988 the complainant first received the explicit knowledge of such torture from a letter written by the victim. 4. The complainant noted on 12.074.1988 after receiving further news of torture he lodged General Diary being No. 646 at Serampore Police Station. On 24.06.1988 the complainant first received the explicit knowledge of such torture from a letter written by the victim. 4. The complainant noted on 12.074.1988 after receiving further news of torture he lodged General Diary being No. 646 at Serampore Police Station. Subsequently, on 06.10.1988 between 6-6.30 a.m., an unidentified resident from the appellant’s locality informed the complainant of the critical situation of his daughter who had been taken to Walsh Hospital. The complainant accompanied by one Tapasi reached the hospital and detected the victim to have incurred multiple burn injuries. It was conveyed to the complainant that victim allegedly set herself on fire in an attempt to commit suicide. She was thereafter referred to RG Hospital for further treatment. The complainant averred the preceding night, the sister-in-law of the victim had visited her matrimonial home, instigating the victim to self-harm owing to the persistent cruelty inflicted upon by her husband, the appellant, the mother-in-law as well as the sister-in-law. It was categorically asserted that the cumulative torture inflicted by the aforesaid individuals compelled the victim to set her ablaze. 5. Based on the aforesaid complaint, Serampore P.S. Case No.6 dated06.10.1988 under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the appellant. 6. After completion of investigation charges were framed under Sections 306/498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant along with two others accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. 8. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted as follows:- Appellant along with his sister and mother were placed on trial facing charges under section 306 and 498A of the Indian penal code in session trial no. 107 of 1989 in the court of the Learned Additional Session Judge 2nd Court Hooghly. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the defence, however appellant was examined under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure. The moot question in the appeal were as here under: i) Whether a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. ii) Whether a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. The moot question in the appeal were as here under: i) Whether a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. ii) Whether a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. iii) Whether averment made in the alleged dying declaration recorded on 08/10/88 being exhibit no. 20 constitute any offence under section498A of the Indian Penal code. iv) Whether the appellant can be held guilty when other two accused were acquitted from the charge under section 306 and 498A of the Indian penal code as prosecution failed to substantiate charges of cruelty and abetment as observed by the Learned Trial Court. v) Whether the appellant is entitled to get an order of acquittal under section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant relied upon the deposition of the prosecution witnesses in the following manner:- i. “PW-1/Ratan Kumar Sant:- Examination-in-Chief: These accd. persons used to ill behave with my daughter after her marriage. She was not given any food and they used to assault her. I came to know about the said torture from para people and also have my own knowledge. She was hardly allowed to talk with me but I got this scope to talk with her and she narrated me about the torture. Asha used to throw some letters in the house of a neighbour and we got the said letter subsequently. Cross-examination: Asha went to the house of Pinaki 3 months after the said marriage. There after I met Asha in the house of Pinaki only for once. I met her 1/1½ months prior to her death in her husband's house. Not a fact in the said diary I did not mention that the accd. person were torturing Asha. I cannot say the names of the neighbour who complained me about the torture by the accd. persons on my daughter. Not a fact Asha used to throw away letters to the members of a club and those members used to hand over the said letter to me. The said letters (few) were given to me by one lady neighbour of the accd. persons but I cannot say her name. I did not hand over those letters to the police. ii. PW-2/Parul Sant:- Examination-in-chief: After marriage all these accd. persons ill behaved with Asha. The said letters (few) were given to me by one lady neighbour of the accd. persons but I cannot say her name. I did not hand over those letters to the police. ii. PW-2/Parul Sant:- Examination-in-chief: After marriage all these accd. persons ill behaved with Asha. I used to visit the house of the accd. persons and in my presence she was assaulted by them. She was also not given food properly there. This fact was also narrated to me by Asha. She was not allowed by the accd. persons to come to my house. Asha has been murdered by them after putting fire on her. I was told by my son that Asha told him in the hospital to the effect that accd. persons put fire on her. Cross-examination:- I cannot say when I had first and last talk with Asha before her death. Though I stated before the I.O. that I had been to the house of the accd. when I saw the assault and when Asha narrated the story of torture, police ignored the same. Asha did not write to me that the accd. persons did not accept her as wife of Pinaki. Asha wrote me about 5/6 letters from her husband's house. I cannot remember it those letters are lying with me or I handed over the same to the police. Not a fact I did not state before the I.O. that I was told by Prodip to the effect that he was told by Asha that accd. persons put fire on her at hospital. Not a fact the accd. Persons never tortured her or she was not given proper food. iii. PW-3/Pradip Sant:- Examination-in-chief:- She did not come back to our house further as she was not allowed. Myself along with my mother and sister had been to the house acca. persons to inquire about Asha. We met Asha there against the will of the accd. persons. We were treated badly by them. The accd. persons ill behaved with Asha as she was not allowed any food and was assaulted. She was also confined in a room. She narrated the story of torture on her to me as and when I met her in the said house. persons. We were treated badly by them. The accd. persons ill behaved with Asha as she was not allowed any food and was assaulted. She was also confined in a room. She narrated the story of torture on her to me as and when I met her in the said house. In my presence Supria caught hold of the hair of Asha and dragged her back to her room when Asha came to narrate the story of torture to me. Asha used to give letters to the neighbours who subsequently handed over those letters to us. At that time Asha told us that the accd. persons used to torture her. She further stated that we the relatives of Asha would be killed if she was allowed to disclose the said fact to us. For this she committed suicide by lighting herself. We also informed the said story of torture to the neighbours of the accd. persons. Cross-examination: Subhash Dhar, Sampa Dutta, Amar Chakraborty who were neighbours of the accd. Persons told us about the torture when we met them. The neighbours handed over the letters to us when we requested them to see the Welfare of Asha. I stated before the I.O. that myself along with my mother used to meet Asha or that I alone met Asha or that at that time we were told by Asha that she was tortured by the accd. persons or that she was not given proper food or that she was confined in a room or that accd. persons ill behaved with myself and my mother. I stated before the I.O. that one day when I was in the house of the accd. persons Asha wanted to say the story of torture to me or that at that time acca. Supria caught hold of her hair and dragged her inside the room. I stated before the I.O. that on 13.10.88 Asha told us that accd. persons used to torture her. iv. PW-5/Smt. Maya Dey:- Examination-in-chief: The accd. persons did not behave well with Asha. They used to assault her and did not provide her with proper food. I used to visit the house of the accd. persons and I found the assault personally. I also heard the cries of Asha due to assault by the accd. persons. I asked her how she got fire and seeing the accd. They used to assault her and did not provide her with proper food. I used to visit the house of the accd. persons and I found the assault personally. I also heard the cries of Asha due to assault by the accd. persons. I asked her how she got fire and seeing the accd. persons there she told me somehow that she would disclose everything subsequently. Cross-examination:- It is true that Asha did not get recognization of a normal wife in the house of the accd. persons. Radhika Chakraborty, Debdas dey, Kanailal De etc called the first meeting when the trouble by the accd. persons was started. Not a fact the accd. persons never tortured Asha or that she was given proper food. v. PW-6/Kanai Lal Dey:- Examination-in-chief: After Asha came there we heard cries and at that time we came to know that these accd. persons were quarreling with Asha and threatening her. Cross-examination: I stated before the I.O. when Asha came to the house of the acca. persons I heard cries of Asha and the accd. persons used to threaten her. Not a fact the accd. persons never tortured Asha. vi. PW-7/Debdas Banerjee:- Examination-in-chief: These acca. persons behaved badly with Asha and they were cruel to her. As I was closed door neighbour I saw pinaki and her mother torturing her and when the nanad of Asha came she also tortured her. Cross-examination: Not a fact Asha was not tortured by the accd. persons or that she was given proper food by the accd. persons. vii. PW-8/Radhika Chakraborty Examination-in-chief: The accd. persons did not behave well with Asha. After marriage Asha was tortured by the accd. persons and she was not given proper food. Cross-examination: Not a fact the accd. persons behaved well with Asha. Not a fact the accd. person never tortured Asha or that she was given proper food by the accd. person. viii. PW-11/Smt. Binapani Saha:- Exaniation-in-chief: The accd. persons used to torture Asha by assaulting her. They also did not provide her with proper food. Asha used to tell us about the same from their window. Cross-examination: I stated before the I.O. that the accd. persons use to torture Asha by assaulting her or that she was not given proper food by them. Not a fact Asha never told me anything from her window regarding the alleged torture on her. Asha used to tell us about the same from their window. Cross-examination: I stated before the I.O. that the accd. persons use to torture Asha by assaulting her or that she was not given proper food by them. Not a fact Asha never told me anything from her window regarding the alleged torture on her. Not a fact the accd.persons never tortured Asha. ix. PW-13/Sampa Dutta:- Examination-in-chief: These accd. persons used to ill behaved with Asha after her marriage. She was tortured and assaulted by the accd. persons and was not offered proper food. The inside room of Asha was visible from the window of my room and as such I have seen the assault on Asha by the accd. persons. I have seen Pinaki holding the hairs of Asha one day and dragging her. She was not allowed to come down stairs and by gesture she narrated me the mode of torture. As she was unable to narrate everything by gesture, she used to state the affairs by throwing letters and I used to collect the same. Cross-examination: I have stated before the I.O. that Pinaki obtained declaration from Asha that nobody would be responsible for her death. I have stated before the I.O. that Asha was not offered food by the accd. persons. I have stated before the I.O. that I have seen from my window that Pinaki was dragging Asha by holding heirs. I have stated before the I.O. that Asha used to narrate me about the torture upon her by the accd. persons by gesture. I also stated before the I.O. that I used to send the letters to the brother of Asha through members of the club. Not a fact Asha was never tortured by Pinaki or his family members. x. PW-15/Investigating Officer:- Cross-examination: There is note in the C.D. that one G.D. entry(no. 313) was lodged by the victim Asha Gupta to the effect that her husband was not willing to stay with her and there was no allegation of any other torture. I cannot say whether the victim made allegations against her husband and other relatives. Not a fact as the said dying declaration recorded by one doctor was not made a part of the C.D as the victim did not make any allegation against accd. persons. I cannot say whether the victim made allegations against her husband and other relatives. Not a fact as the said dying declaration recorded by one doctor was not made a part of the C.D as the victim did not make any allegation against accd. persons. Regarding P. W. -2 Had Parul stated before me that when she had been to the house of the accd. persons she noticed the assault on Asha, I would have recorded the same. I recorded the statement of Parul Shant she did not state before me that she was told by her son Prodip to the effect that he was told by Asha that the accd. persons put fire on her person at hospital. Regarding P. W.- 3 He did not state before me specifically that when he along with his mother used to meet Asha or he met Asha alone and at that time they were told by Asha that she was tortured by the accd. persons and that she was not given proper food or that she was confined in a room by the accd. persons or that they ill behaved with them. He did not stated before me that one when he was in the house of the accd. persons ,Asha wanted to say the story of torture to him and at that time accd. Supriya caught hold of her hair and dragged her inside the room. He did not state before me that on 13.10.88 Asha told them that the accd. persons used to torture. Regarding P. W.-6 He did not state before me that when Asha came to the house of the accd. persons he heard the cries of Asha and that the accd. persons use to threatened her. Regarding P. W.-11 But did not specifically say that she was assaulted and that she was not given food by them. Regarding P. W.-13 She did not state before me that Pinaki obtained declaration from Asha that nobody would be responsible for her death. She did not state before me that Pinaki used to stay with Asha in the room of the first floor or that Pinaki was dragging Asha by holding her hair. xi. PW-16:- Cross-examination: “The said statement was recorded by me in presence of Sri Birendranath Ghosh, Social Welfare Officer of S.S.K.M. Hospital. She did not state before me that Pinaki used to stay with Asha in the room of the first floor or that Pinaki was dragging Asha by holding her hair. xi. PW-16:- Cross-examination: “The said statement was recorded by me in presence of Sri Birendranath Ghosh, Social Welfare Officer of S.S.K.M. Hospital. The patient did not stated before me that she was not offered food, she was assaulted or that put of torture she committed suicide.” xii. Prosecution also withheld the doctor who treated the victim at Walsh hospital at the first instance on 06/10/88 and also the doctor who treated the victim between 06/10/1988 and 13/10/1988 as its witness during trial including the treatment papers. xiii. Prosecution also withheld the General Diary no. 646 dated 12/07/1988 and another General Diary entry in the month of August 1988 made by P.W.-1. xiv. Prosecution also withheld the alleged dying declaration made by the victim on 13/10/88 before P.W- 3, doctor ,nurse and one police officer who was present there as deposed by P.W.-3. xv. The Learned Trial Judge while considering the allegation of torture made by some of the witnesses upon victim observed that "but at the time of cross examination P.W. 15, the I.O. of this case has denied of making of some statements before him by P.ws. Parul Sant, Pradip Sant, kanai Lal Dey, Binapani Saha and Sampa Dutta. So, considering the said denial of P.W 15, the I.O. of this case I have no hesitation to say that the depositions of the said P.ws. which are not made before the I.O. as stated by P.W. 15 are result of subsequent embellishment and as such I cannot depend upon the said pieces of evidence of the said five P. Ws. to find the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C." xvi. The Learned Trial Judge in order to convict the appellant under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code heavily relied upon the documents marked exhibit no. 9 and 9/1 and concluded that appellant instigated and aided intentionally by his acts the victim to commit suicide. The Learned Trial Judge in order to convict the appellant under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code heavily relied upon the documents marked exhibit no. 9 and 9/1 and concluded that appellant instigated and aided intentionally by his acts the victim to commit suicide. It is pertinent to mention here that exhibit no.9 was allegedly executed on 14/08/88, Exhibit no.1 was allegedly written on and about 17/08/88 addressed to one "DIDI" (wife of Amal) where in it has been stated in Last 4 lines of the said exhibit as here under “AI TA AMAY DIYA LIKHECHE AMI LEKHATA OR HATHE DINI AMAR KACHE REKHE DIYACHI APNAKE JANALUM KAHOKE JANABEN NA AKHON ETA KAHOKE DITE HOBE NA DEKHI AR DU CHAR DIN TAR POR BABOSTHA NE HOBE”. It is needless to mention here that neither "DIDI" (wife of Amal) nor Amal was examined by the prosecution. xvii. It is further evident that after 53 days of the alleged execution of exhibit no.9 followed by communication of the victim and her state of mind as mentioned herein above is amply clear that such execution of exhibit no.9 made no scar in her mind which prompted her to commit suicide on 05/10/88 at 1:30am (exhibit no.20). xviii. Moreover P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically stated that "There after I met Asha in the house of Pinaki only for once. I met her 1/1½ months prior to her death in her husband's house. We had talk with her about 4/5 minutes and that time I was alone. I lodged the diary at Serampore P.S. after the said meeting. I did not state in the diary that the accd. Persons are not accepting Asha as wife of pinaki." xix. P.W.1 also deposed that "I lodged a diary at serampore P.S. on12.7.88 (diary no. 646) when I came to know about the torture on my daughter by them." xx. P.W.3 brother in his cross-examination deposed "I came to know about exbt. 9 and 9/1 two three days after 14.8.88." xxi. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution withheld the said diary, moreover despite specific knowledge of alleged execution of exhibit no.9 and meeting of P.W.1 with the Victim, informant and the witnesses felt shy to mention the specific role of the appellant in the alleged crime. xxii. 9 and 9/1 two three days after 14.8.88." xxi. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution withheld the said diary, moreover despite specific knowledge of alleged execution of exhibit no.9 and meeting of P.W.1 with the Victim, informant and the witnesses felt shy to mention the specific role of the appellant in the alleged crime. xxii. Prosecution failed to adduce any evidence through its witnesses particularly P.W. 4,5,7,8 where infliction of cruelty upon the victim solely at the instance of the appellant which has any proximate relationship with the execution of exhibit no.9 and 9/1 and exhibit no.1 followed by any conduct which is of such a nature as was likely to drive the victim to commit suicide that to when the self same evidence the other two accused who were placed on trial were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. xxiii. All these witnesses made omnibus allegations against all the accused person who were placed on trial. P.W.5 upon whom the learned trial judge placed reliance in order to Convict the appellant under section 498A on the allegations of assault and torture upon victim in her examination in chief deposed that "these accd. persons did not behave well with Asha. They used to assault her and did not provide her with proper food." There is no specific overt act against the appellant in her deposition.” 10. The Learned Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution was able to prove its case based on corroborative evidence of the prosecution witnesses supported by the medical evidence and the appeal shall be dismissed. 11. The appellant and the victim returned from their visit to Puri and on insistence of such mutual visit in pursuance of likeliness of a romantic relationship, the couple got married at a local temple and thereafter a social marriage was held at the house of the victim with the intervention of the police as well as the local people, much to the annoyance of the family members of the appellant who was reluctant to marry the victim at the first instance and refrained to continue such marital relationship. The defence failed to controvert or contradict the prosecution case to the aforesaid extent as had been testified by the prosecution witnesses being PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The defence failed to controvert or contradict the prosecution case to the aforesaid extent as had been testified by the prosecution witnesses being PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The father of the victim being PW-1 asserted the victim to have been isolated, denied contact with the parental family, tormented by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The testimony of PW-1 was founded partly on letters purportedly written by the victim, partly on information gathered from neighbours and partly on his own interaction with the victim during her occasional visits to her parental home. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses being PW – 1 to PW-8 and PW-11 though not entirely free from embellishment revealed consistency to the extent that the victim was not treated with dignity after her marriage at her matrimonial home. 12. PW-4, a witness known to both the families narrated about the marriage and expressed the appellant and the victim to have been well-known to him. 13. PW-5 deposed to be residing opposite the appellant’s house and to have witnessed discord between the appellant and the victim and episodes of misbehavior. 14. PW-7, a close neighbour recounted the appellant and his mother to have been seen quarreling with the victim and torturing her. 15. PW-8 corroborated the fact of the appellant marrying the victim and mistreating her. The prosecution witnesses aforesaid depicted the victim to have been subjected to unpleasantness, frequent quarrel and neglect. 16. The Investigating Officer, PW-15 denied certain witnesses to have ever stated certain statements which had been attributed to them. Where the testimony departed materially from the recorded statements, the possibility of retrospective exaggeration could not be ruled out. However, reliance had to be placed only on that part of testimony which withstood legal scrutiny and aligned with documentary evidence. 17. A significant aspect of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is cruelty linked to dowry demands. This Court finds no allegation that the victim or her relatives have been compelled to meet unlawful demands, money or valuable security. There is no material to attract Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Therefore, what survives for adjudication was whether the victim was subjected to such willful conduct as was likely to drive her to end her life, a species of cruelty falling under Explanation (A) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 19. There is no material to attract Explanation (b) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Therefore, what survives for adjudication was whether the victim was subjected to such willful conduct as was likely to drive her to end her life, a species of cruelty falling under Explanation (A) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The prosecution relied on several letters and written materials forming a mosaic of the victim’s mental state during her married life. The documents marked as Exhibit 9, 9/1 and 10 revealed the victim to have been forced to write a declaration absolving her matrimonial family if she were ever to commit suicide. The witnesses attested this declaration was not voluntary. The appellant himself in a moment of candour admitted to obtain the declaration forcibly and even sought pardon for it. Such conduct was not merely unusual but ominous. The document of this nature extracted from the victim reflected precursor to the severity to impact the mental condition of the victim. The document of the greatest evidentiary value is Exhibit 20. The victim’s recorded oral statement dated 8.10.1988 at SSKM Hospital by a Sub-Inspector of Police in the presence of a Social Welfare Officer narrated with painful lucidity of her confinement by the husband, being restricted from meeting or speaking to her parents. The regular quarrels by the appellant avoiding to interact with her resulting in her unhappiness, isolation and emotional suffocation. She explicitly stated repeated quarrels and her husband’s unwillingness to speak to her propelled her to pour kerosene on herself on the night of 05.10.1988 at about 1.30 a.m. and to set herself on fire. She further clarified that her in-laws did not misbehave with her directly and implicated her husband, the appellant to be the root cause of her unhappiness. The statement was clear, coherent and voluntary. It depicted a sombre testimony to her despair and had been of substantial probative value under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. The post-mortem report, Exhibit 22 proved by PW-18 unambiguously recorded the victim to have died due to burn injuries on 13.10.1988. 21. The medical findings harmonized with her declaration and the prosecution case of self-immolation by the victim. 20. The post-mortem report, Exhibit 22 proved by PW-18 unambiguously recorded the victim to have died due to burn injuries on 13.10.1988. 21. The medical findings harmonized with her declaration and the prosecution case of self-immolation by the victim. The specific act on the part of the victim to inflict mental and physical torture upon the victim to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, required assessment on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. 22. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide. It has to be read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal code which defines the act of abetment. For a person to be charged under Section 306 of IPC the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased and involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions namely the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspired with others to ensure that the act was carried out or engaged in conduct or neglecting to act that directly led the person to end his or her own life. Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The guilty motive to constructively abet the commission of suicide must be explicit and visibly evinced from such act. 23. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to prove any direct or proximate act on the part of the appellant to have propelled the victim to commit suicide instantaneously. On the contrary, the victim had been subjected to neglect, isolation, non-cohabitation which subsisting over a considerable period of time inflicted mental torture on the victim transforming into cruelty suffered by the victim. The emotional turmoil resulting from such mental trauma by the continuous neglect and denial of acceptance by the husband amounted to cruelty within the definition of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 24. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction under 498A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, considering the delayed process in adjudication of the instant appeal and the gravity of the offence, the sentence is modified to the extent of custody already undergone by the appellant. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being CRA 252 of 1997 is disposed of. 26. The conviction under 498A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, considering the delayed process in adjudication of the instant appeal and the gravity of the offence, the sentence is modified to the extent of custody already undergone by the appellant. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being CRA 252 of 1997 is disposed of. 26. There is no order as to costs. 27. The Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action.