Muhammed Useff v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** **FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935** ## **CRL.A.No. 1253 of 2003 ( )** **--------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 41/1999 OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM DATED 19-07-2003** **---------------** **APPELLANT : ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **MUHAMMED USEFF, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALLAPPARA BHAGOM VAZHAPPALLY EAST KARA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR** **RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MAJOORAN** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2013, THE COURT ON 08-11-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** ## P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.Appeal. No. 1253 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2013. ## JUDGMENT The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on all counts. He was therefore convicted for all the offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 498A, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of I.P.C. and also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The victim was got married to the accused about two years prior to the date of the incident. To be more precise, on 2.4.1995. The couple took up residence together and a child was born to them. The allegation is that the accused quite often used to complain about the inadequate 2 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. gold ornaments and money brought by the victim and used to persist and insist that she should bring more money and gold from her relatives. It is stated that after consuming liquor, he used to physically torture the victim. On the dee date, i.e., on 15.8.1997, it is alleged that after taking considerable quantity of liquor, the accused came home and picked up quarrel with him and thrashed her and then he picked up the child and attempted to walk away from the house. When the victim resisted, the accused told her to go and die. Despite the resistance offered by the victim, the accused continued to insist that he will take away the child and in the process slapped the victim. Finding that the accused was living the house along with the child, unable to bear the agony any more, it is alleged by the prosecution that the victim poured kerosene over her body and set herself on fire. She was initially taken to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Changanassery from where he was referred to Medical Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 3 College Hospital, Kottayam where she was admitted and treated for her injuries. While undergoing treatment there, at about 4.30 p.m. on 18.8.1997 she bid farewell to this world. 3. P.W.1, the brother of the victim, laid Ext.P1 FIS before the Changanassery Police Station, P.W.13 recorded Ext.P1 FIS furnished by P.W.1 and registered crime under Section 498A of I.P.C. as per Ext.P10 FIR. P.W.15 took over investigation. He prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Meanwhile inquest over the body was conducted and Ext.P4 report was drawn up. The body was sent for autopsy and the Forensic Surgeon after conducting autopsy has prepared Ext.P9 postmortem certificate. On intimation from the hospital and on the request of the Investigating Officer, P.W.14 JFCM concerned went over to the Medical College Hospital and recorded Ext.P11 dying declaration furnished by the victim. P.W.15 recorded statements of witnesses and seized the articles found during investigation. On 19.8.1997 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 4 investigation was taken over by P.W.16. He recorded statements of witnesses and finding that the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of I.P.C. were made out and accordingly filed Ext.P12 report. After completing investigation, he laid charge before court. 4. The court, before which final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences and finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Kottayam, The said court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) I, Kottayam for trial and disposal. The latter court, on receipt of records, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of I.P.C., to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 17 examined and had Exts.P1 to P13 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the question was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 5 denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He pointed out that his wife Ajina hails from a very poor family, at the time of marriage her parents were no more, the marriage was conducted through the Juma-ath, and no dowry was paid at the time of marriage as there was no one to pay the same. He stated that he had never demanded any dowry. In the marriage, it is stated that the brother of the victim had not taken part, and after marriage they were living a very happy marital life and a female child was born to them. It is further stated that she had a boil on her left leg which did not heal even after considerable treatment. According to him, it was revealed that the said boil as a result of cancer ailment. That had caused considerable depression to Ajina. Even though the accused used to pacify her that things would become better, she did not believe. He claimed to be innocent. Finding that he could not be acquitted under Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 6 Section 232 of Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He examined D.W.1 and had Exts.D1 to D3 marked. 5. The court below, relying on the oral testimony of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and also the evidence of P.W.14 and in the light of the recitals in Ext.P11, came to the conclusion that the offences have been made out. Conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the finding of the court below on several grounds. It was pointed out by him that there is absolute want of evidence to show that the accused had ill-treated his wife demanding more dowry and had tortured her. According to the learned counsel, even as per the prosecution case, the victim's parents was not alive at the time of marriage and the marriage was conducted by the Juma-ath concerned. It was the Juma-ath which gave some amount of gold and money at the time marriage and even though the victim had brothers, they 7 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. contributed nothing to the marriage and in fact one of the brothers did not take part in the marriage. In the light of the above fact, according to learned counsel for the appellant, asthere was nobody to provide funds to Ajina, it is inconceivable that the accused would have ill-treated the victim demanding more dowry when he fully know that there was no one to provide the funds. The claim therefore that the accused used to beat the victim asking her to bring more dowry cannot be accepted. Though however severe the ill-treatment would have been, no purpose would be served as there was nobody to provide the funds. The evidence of P.W.14 and Ext.P11, the dying declaration, was assailed by the learned counsel on several grounds. Relying on Ext.P5 wound certificate prepared by the doctor at Taluk Hospital at Changanassery, it is pointed out that from the certificate it is discernible that the dying declaration was recorded by the Head Constable concerned. If that be so, there are multiple 8 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. dying declarations and in all fairness, the prosecution ought to have produced the statement recorded by the Head Constable which is shown as dying declaration in Ext.P5. The non-production of the said document has considerably prejudiced the accused and it could only be taken that if produced, it would have gone against the prosecution. Relying on the decision reported in Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2013(2) K.L.T. SN 182) it was contended that when there are more than one dying declaration and there are discrepancies, it is quite unsafe to rely on any one of the dying declarations to enter a conviction. 7. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, offences under Sections 306 and 498A of I.P.C. cannot be attracted. In order to attract Section 306 I.P.C., it should be clearly proved that the accused instigated the doing of a thing. In the case on hands, there is no evidence to show that the Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 9 accused had either aided or instigated the victim to commit suicide. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution cannot take aid of Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act also. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision reported in Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (AIR 2004 SC 2790). Relying on the decision reported in Gananath Pattanaik v. State of Orissa (2002(1) K.L.T. SN 105) it was contended that the statements in the dying declaration cannot be taken aid of to find the accused guilty of offence Section 498A of I.P.C. Accordingly, it is contended that the conviction and sentence on all the three counts will have to be set aside. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would clearly show that there was ill-treatment and harassment of the victim by the accused and it became unbearable and infact impossible to continue residence with the accused. The final blow came on the date of the incident when fully drunk, he 10 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. came home and after having physically assaulted the victim, took away the child from her and threatened her that he was going to leave the house leaving her to her fate. Inspite of the obstruction offered by the victim, the accused continued to insist that he will leave the house along with the child. Even assuming that one could take the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 only with some reservation, there is the dying declaration as evidenced by Ext.P11 and the evidence of P.W.14 which would clearly indicate what had transpired in the matrimonial life between the accused and the victim and that tells the tale. The court below found Ext.P11 to be acceptable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, if one is to believe the contents of Ext.P11, there is no reason why a conviction could not be based on the same. Drawing attention to the fact that the death was within seven years of marriage and there is considerable material in Ext.P11 to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment demanding 11 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. more dowry and also since the same document also shows that the accused asked her to go and live elsewhere she likes would indicate that the offences are made out. The learned Public Prosecutor went on to point out that it is a very sad case where an young girl whose parents was no more and who is solely dependent on her husband for survival had to give up her life because of him. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that no grounds are made out to interfere with the conclusion reached by the court below. 9. P.W.1 is the elder brother of the victim. He laid Ext.P1 first information statement. He says that about two years prior to the date of the incident, the victim was given in marriage to the accused and at the time of marriage, five sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/- was given to the deceased. He admitted that it was given as presentation and not as dowry by the Juma-ath and the community members. He speaks about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused 12 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. to the victim. According to him, on the date of the incident, he happened to hear shriek from the back side of the house of the victim which took him to the place, there he found his sister on fire. He would say that he tried to douse the fire and he along with the neighbour had taken the victim to Taluk Hospital, Changanassery in an autorickshaw. P.W.1 would say that while in the auto, he asked her what had happened in the house. She is alleged to have told that she had been thrashed on the date of the incident by her husband and that taking the child from her he told her that he was leaving the house leaving her alone and she was asked to leave the house. Then she attempted to commit suicide. It would also show that the gold and the money given at the time of marriage were not available at the time when the incident had occurred. He also speaks about the occasional visits by the victim after marriage to his house and he would say that she had complained of ill-treatment by the accused. Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 13 10. P.W.3 is another brother of the victim who is younger to her. He says that on the date of the incident while he was standing in the private bus stand some one came running to him and told that his sister has been removed to the hospital. He rushed to the place, and when he reached the hospital, he found the victim capable of talking and he asked her what had happened. She repeated what she had told to P.W.1 to P.W.3 also. He would say that there were previous occasions when the accused demanding more money and gold used to beat the victim and sent her out of the house. 11. P.W.4 is related to the victim and in fact her half sister. As per her evidence, she had come to the Medical College Hospital on getting information about the incident and on meeting Ajina she had asked her what had happened and Ajina told her what had transpired on the date of the incident. She also speaks about an incident which occurred one and a Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 14 half week prior to the date of the incident. She also deposed that on two or three occasions when Ajina came to her house, she used to complain about the ill-treatment of the accused. 12. It is true that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses, some of the statements made by them did not find a place in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given by them before the police. It can be said that there is development of the incident by these witnesses. 13. But what persuaded the court below to come to the conclusion that the offences have been made out is Ext.P11 and the evidence of P.W.14 who had recorded Ext.P11. The evidence of P.W.14 shows that on receiving intimation from the CJM concerned, at 11.16 a.m. he reached the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and found the victim. He deposed that he had recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of Dr.Anil Kumar who was working in the hospital at 15 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. the relevant time. He deposes to have recorded the statement of the victim after following the necessary procedures and Ext.P11, according to him, is the statement recorded by him. The learned Magistrate is definite that at the time of recording the statement, the victim was both mentally and physically fit to give the statement. 14. Ext.P11 is the dying declaration alleged to have been given by the victim. The said statement shows that according to the victim, her husband was an alcoholic. He used to go for work only occasionally. Whether it be on consumption of liquor or not, he used to assault the victim. Not a day passed without she being beaten or scolded. He used to ask her to leave the house or to die. He also used to insist that either she should die or she should leave the house when she had nothing to do in the house. When she asked why she should leave the house, the accused used to say that he had to do so many things once she left the house. The Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 16 victim is alleged to have stated while giving the statement that then she asked him to return the gold and money that were given at the time of marriage, then she would call her relatives and leave the house. She also says that her husband used to tell her that similarly situated husbands were getting considerable help from the relatives of their wives and he alone was unfortunate in not getting any help from the relatives of his wife. He used to abuse the mother and sisters of the victim. She also stated to the learned Magistrate that her step mother of her husband and his brothers and sisters were used to harass her. On the previous day of bringing her to the hospital, according to her, her husband had gone for work. She would say that on the previous day, he had taken the ear studs of the child and pledged the same. In order to redeem the pledge he had borrowed money from other persons. Coming to know the same, the victim is alleged to have told him that by borrowing the money the pledge need Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 17 not be redeemed. She went to sleep with the child thereafter. The next day morning even though she offered milk to her husband, he did not take it. He left the house in the early morning. He came home by about 5 p.m. Fearing what would happen, she hid herself behind the door of her house. A short while thereafter she would say that her husband came in and asked her to fetch his clothes as well the child's. He told her that he was leaving the house and she could remain there or go and die. She would also say that a lot of abuses were showered on her mother and her. When she came in front of him, she was kicked which fell on her navel. Then the accused told her that she could live as she pleased and he will leave with the child. He also threatened that if her relatives did not give money, he would set the house on fire. He then took the can containing kerosene and about to put the house on fire, she agreed to bring his and the child's clothes. While she was about to do so, she would say that she was beaten 18 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. with a wooden log. Considerably frightened she at once gave the clothes as he wanted. When she objected to the accused taking away the child, the accused alleged to have told her to go and die and he would take the child with him. She then told the learned Magistrate that she poured kerosene over the body and set herself on fire. She would say that there was consistent and persistent harassment from her husband and the inmates of his house and her life had been ruined. 15. If Ext.P11 and the evidence of P.W.14 are acceptable, then there would be clinching evidence to show the acts of the accused, that would also go a long way in establishing the offences against the accused. 16. The evidence of P.W.14 and contents of Ext.P11 are attacked on several grounds. The first of them is with reference to Ext.P5, the wound certificate. P.W.7 is the person who had prepared Ext.P5 wound certificate. He at the relevant time was working as Assistant Surgeon in Medical Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 19 College Hospital and he deposes of having examined the victim. He however stated that when the patient was brought to the hospital, she was conscious and she had stated to him what had transpired. He would also say that he had intimated to the police to come and take the dying declaration before she goes to the unconscious stage. He deposes that it was he who had prepared Ext.P5 wound certificate. 17. In column 15 it is seen stated that dying declaration taken by PC 3520. It is this entry in Ext.P5 which is taken aid of by the defence to contend for the position that prior to Ext.P11 there had already been a dying declaration taken by the Head Constable concerned and that document is not seen produced at all. The evidence would show that had that document been produced, it would have been shown that the allegations against the accused are not true. At any rate, there was a bounden duty on the part of the prosecution to Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 20 produce that document and withholding of that document has caused considerable prejudice to the accused. 18. Here, one needs to take notice of the evidence of P.W.13, the Head Constable, who is alleged to have gone to the hospital to take the first information statement of the victim. His evidence shows that when he reached the hospital, he found the injured being examined by the doctor and that he found that the victim was unable to give a statement. He admitted that the patient was seen talking to the doctor but she was not in a fit position to give statement to him. Therefore, he recorded the statement from P.W.1. He denied having taken any dying declaration from the victim. 19. Even though in Ext.P5 it is stated that the dying declaration has been taken, it is significant to notice that there was no suggestion to P.Ws.13 and 15 that there was infact a dying declaration taken from the Taluk Hospital, Changanassery by the Police Constable concerned and that has Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 21 been suppressed. If as a matter of fact the accused had a case that the dying declaration was taken from the Taluk Hospital at Changanassery, P.Ws. 13 and 15 ought to have been questioned with reference to the same. In the absence of any such suggestion to these witnesses, the mere entry in Ext.P5 may not be a ground to come to the conclusion that there was an earlier dying declaration. 20. Another ground of attack on Ext.P11 is that admittedly the patient had suffered 90% burns and at the time when the victim was admitted in the hospital, her condition was stuperous. Relying on the evidence of P.W.17 learned counsel for the appellant contended that a patient in such a condition will be incapable of giving statement to anybody. It was also pointed out relying on the evidence of P.W.17 that the condition of the patient was gradually deteriorating. In the light of the evidence furnished by P.W.17, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, Ext.P11 dying declaration Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 22 taken on the next day of admitting cannot be taken as a true and genuine one. 21. First of all, P.W.17 does not completely rule out the patient being capable of giving the statement. He does not rule out the possibility of patient coming out of stuperous stage. 22. Therefore, it may not be possible based on the evidence of P.W.17 alone to come to the conclusion that the dying declaration could not have been recorded as claimed by P.W.14. It is to be noted that surprisingly enough in the case sheet maintained in the Medical College Hospital, there is no mention of dying declaration having been recorded. The case sheet is marked as Ext.P13. 23. P.W.14 has categorically stated that on getting necessary orders from the CJM concerned, he had proceeded to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration. He speaks about the procedure followed by him and he also deposes that Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 23 while he was recording the statement Dr.Anil Kumar was present. He also stated that he, the victim and the said doctor were the only persons present at the place at the time of recording the dying declaration. He deposes of having been followed the procedure for recording the dying declaration and his evidence shows that he recorded the statements after being fully convinced that the victim was in a fit physical and mental condition to give the statement. He deposes that Ext.P11 is infact given by Ajina. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Ext.P11 the following question may be relevant: “ച��ദ�� : ഞ�ന ക�ഞ�രപള� Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrate K.V. Thampikutty ആണ�ന ക�ര�� മനസ�ല�ച��? ഉതര�: മനസ�ല���.” The above question and answer, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, would show that either the victim was tutored or the statement was manipulated. Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 24 25. It is difficult to accept the above plea. Probably the victim might have been informed that the officer concerned is coming to take a statement. But her reply in the affirmative to the question put by the Magistrate does not certainly indicate that the victim had been tutored to give a statement as recorded by P.W.14. Further P.W.14 has stated in his evidence that the statement was given voluntarily by the victim. It is also seen stated in Ext.P11 that the statement was read over to the victim and she accepted it to be true. Ext.P11 also contains the certificate by Dr.Anil Kumar to the effect that dying declaration was taken in his presence and that the patient was conscious throughout. 26. There is no reason as to why P.W.14 should stray away from truth. He had nothing to achieve. He had recorded the statements as per the orders and in accordance with law. It is true that the prosecution ought to have examined Dr.Anil Kumar to ensure that the patient was in a fit 25 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. condition to give the dying declaration. But at the same time, there is no justification or reason or logic in suspecting the statement of P.W.14 that it was after being fully convinced that the victim was both mentally and physically fit to give the statement that Ext.P11 statement was recorded. 27. In the light of the above discussion, it follows that the contention that there are two dying declarations cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant for the proposition that in case of conflicting dying declarations, it may not be proper to rely on any one of them to find the accused guilty has no application. 28. Even assuming that P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have exaggerated the state of affairs, as already noticed, Ext.P11 states what had transpired in the marital life of the victim. There is no reason to disbelieve Ext.P11 dying declaration and the evidence of P.W.14. There is nothing to indicate as of now 26 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. that at the time of furnishing Ext.P11 statement, the victim was either unconscious or was not in such a state that she could not have given the statement. Even the case sheet does not show that the patient was either unconscious or disoriented at any point of time. Of course, there is the evidence of P.W.17 which had already been referred to. In the light of the above evidence furnished by P.W.14 and the contents of Ext.P11, the finding of the court below that the victim was harassed and ill-treated seems to be fully justified. 29. The contention based on multiplicity of dying declarations has only to be rejected. Even though in Ext.P5, it is seen stated that the Head Constable had taken the dying declaration, there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 15 to show that the said claim is true. The evidence of P.W.13 is very clear to the effect that when he reached the hospital, he found the victim not in a position to give the statement and 27 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. he took the statement of her brother. Here the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application. 30. Therefore, it follows that the victim was driven to commit suicide by the ill-treatment and cruel act meted out by the accused. 31. What then arises for consideration is what are the offences committed by the accused. The court below has found the accused guilty on all the three counts, namely, under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of I.P.C. 32. Before going into the question of the offences that are committed by the accused, one fact will have to be borne in mind. Suicide committed by the victim was within two years of the marriage. In order to attract offence under Section 304B of I.P.C., it has to be shown that (i) the woman died under unnatural circumstances and (ii) that soon before her death, she had been subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment in connection with any demand for dowry. Of course, P.W.3, Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 28 one of the brothers of the deceased says about the demands made by the accused for gold and money. He also says that the accused used to send her out of the house demanding her to bring more gold and money. But it has been brought out in cross-examination that these crucial statement made by him in chief-examination is conspicuously absent in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is therefore quite evident that it is a subsequent development and embellishment. It is also significant to notice that P.W.1, the brother of the victim, does not have a case that the deceased used to be harassed demanding more dowry by the accused. His evidence shows that at the time of marriage, the victim was given 5 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/-. That was given by the community to which the parties belonged and at the instance of Juma-ath. There is nothing to show that the brothers of the victim had either contributed any money towards dowry or gold ornaments. Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 29 33. The evidence would disclose that the parties hail from very poor circumstances. It is difficult to believe that knowing fully the circumstances under which the victim is placed and that her brothers were not in a position to help the victim, the accused would have demanded her to bring more dowry from her relatives. He was well informed that they had no financial capacity to provide the same. Even in Ext.P11 the only complaint made by the deceased is that the accused used to tell her that similarly placed persons like him used to receive help from the bride's house and he was not receiving any help. She does not make mention of any specific demand made by him for money or gold. In Ext.P11 there is nothing to show that soon before the suicide, there was any ill-treatment by the accused of the deceased demanding dowry. Merely because the death occurred within seven years of marriage and even assuming that the accused had stated that he did not get any help from the relatives of his bride's Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 30 relatives like similarly placed persons like him, that does not lead to the conclusion that the victim was harassed or ill-treated demanding more dowry. In fact, there is no specific finding by the court below in this regard at all. After having found that the victim was driven to commit suicide due to the ill-treatment meted out by him that the court below simply comes to the conclusion that the offences are made out. The court below has not considered whether the ingredients to attract each of the offences are established. Thus viewed from any angle, the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. cannot be attracted and the conviction and sentence in this regard is bad in law. 34. But the position is entirely different as far as the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. are concerned. Relying on the decision reported in Ganapath Pattanaik v. State of Orissa (2002(1) K.L.T. SN 105) more specifically paragraph 10 of the judgment it was contended Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 31 that the evidence regarding cruelty in this case is confined to the hearsay evidence and therefore the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. cannot be attracted. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was held as follows: “Another circumstances of cruelty is with respect to taking away of the child from the deceased. To arrive at such a conclusion, the trial curt has referred to the statement of P.W.5, who is the sister of the deceased. In her deposition recorded in the court on 4.5.1990 P.W.5 had stated: “Whenever I had gone to my sister, all the times she was complaining that she is not well treated by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of balance dowry amount of scooter and twin one.” and added: “On 3.6.1987 for the last time I had been to the house of the deceased i.e. To her separate residence. Sworna, Snigdha, Sima Apa, Baby Apa accompanied me to her house on that day. At that time, the decease complained before us as usual and added to that she said that she is being assaulted by the accused non a days. She further Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 32 complained before us that the accused is taking away the child from her, and that her mother in law has come and some conspiracy is going against her (the deceased). She further told that “Mata Au Banchei Debenahin” , such a statement appears to have been taken on record with the aid of S.32 of the Indian Evidence Act at a time when the appellant was being tried for the offence under S.304B and such statement was admissible under Clause (1) of the said section as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under S.498A of the Indian Penal Code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. S.32 is an exception to the Hearsay Rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the Hearsay Rule does not fall within the exceptions of S.32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused.” Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 33 35. Unlike the evidence in the decision referred to above, there is clinching evidence in this case to show that the victim was treated cruelly and was very badly ill-treated right from the day of marriage. P.Ws.1 and 3 categorically deposed about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused and that is also reflected in Ext.P11. It is imprudent on the part of the court to insist that there should be direct evidence of ill-treatment. Even though one can only say that there were quarrels and squabbles, they may not be in a position to depose that they had actually seen the ill-treatment or cruelty meted out to the victim. The two brothers who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 3 have spoken about the sufferings which their sister had undergone in the matrimonial house and there is no reason to disbelieve them. In Ext.P11 also the victim has narrated the agonies undergone by her right from the day of marriage and how she is used to be treated in the matrimonial house. Those evidence cannot be simply discarded by the 34 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. court below though they did appear only in the dying declaration. That may not be the cause of death. But certainly they are not valueless. 36. The evidence is very clear to the effect that she has been constantly ill-treated and on the date of the incident, the accused came home drunk and picked up quarrel with his wife. He not only asked her to bring his clothes, but was also very adamant that he will take the child along with him. The evidence discloses that the victim had objected to the taking away of the child. But then the accused threatened that he would burn down the house. Not only did he say that, he also beat her with a wooden log. The evidence is clear to the effect that the accused had ill-treated the victim in such a manner that the acts of the accused fall within the ambit of Explanation (a) of Section 498A of I.P.C. The court below rightly found him guilty. Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 35 37. Equally unassailable is the finding of the court below that the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is attracted to the facts of the case. The evidence discloses that the accused had constantly asking the victim to go from the house and suggested that why she should continue her life in his house. Times without number, he is alleged to have stated that he would be better off without her. He has also stated that she is a constant nuisance to him and he would be better off without her. Of course, the physical assaults and the other ill-treatments of the accused have already been referred to. On the date of the incident also, after taking the child with him and after beating her with a wooden log, at the time of leaving the house, the accused is alleged to have told the victim that she may go and die. Unable to bear it anymore, she poured kerosene and set fire to herself. 38. The act of the accused squarely falls within the definition of abetment as contained in Sections 107 and 108 Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 36 of I.P.C. There is clear instigation on his part inciting the victim to commit suicide. Apart from the above fact, she was left with no choice but to commit suicide in the light of the act committed by the accused. 39. All the necessary ingredients to attract Section 306 of I.P.C. are available in the case on hand. It may be recollected here that the marriage was very short lived. 40. The result is that the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that offences under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. have been made out. 41. What now remains to be considered is the sentence awarded for the offences under Section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. For the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. the accused has been awarded three years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.he has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. Crl.Appeal.1253/2003. 37 42. Considering the nature of the acts committed by the accused, the manner in which it was committed and the agony which the victim had to undergo in the matrimonial house right from the day of marriage till the end, the sentence awarded to him is just and reasonable. They do not call for any interference at all. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B of I.P.C. is set aside while confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.