JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.:— Appeal No.477of 1978 by Special Leave and Appeal No. 288 of 1989 by Special Leave arising out of Special Leave (Crl.) Petition No. 250 of 1980 are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1976 (reported in 1978 Chand LR (Cri) 224) whereunder a learned single Judge of the High Court had set aside the conviction of respondent Prem Chand and acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The former appeal has been filed by the father of the deceased Veena Rani while the latter appeal has been filed by, the State of Punjab. The facts of the case are in brief as under :-

Deceased Veena Rani who died of burn injuries on 15-9-1975 was married to the respondent Prem Chand (hereinafter referred to as accused) in the year 1973. Veena Rani, who had passed the M.A. and B.Ed. degree examinations was employed in the State Bank of Patiala and was earning about Rs. 600/- to 700/- per month. The accused, who had obtained a degree in law was a prosecuting Sub-Inspector and soon after marriage he resigned his job and set up practice in his native place Sangrur. When the accused resigned his job and setup practice in Sangrur, Veena Rani obtained a transfer to Sangrur from Patiala and the couple set up house in a building owned by PW 5 Krishan Dutt. From the very beginning Veena Rani had an unhappy married life because of the accused constantly demanding her to get more money from her parents house. Even though the accused had joined the office of a senior advocate by name Shri O.P. Singhal, his earnings were meagre and consequently the household expenses were borne by her from out of her salary. Besides tormenting Veena Rani to get more money from her parents, the accused was also given to beating her frequently. Veena Rani complained to her parents, brother and brother-in-law about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused. PW 4 Shanti Devi and PW 14 Khem Chand, the mother and brother respectively of Veena Rani and PW 17 Kuldip Rai, her brother-in-law have deposed about Veena Rani telling them about the accused ill-treating her and physically assaulting her. Apart from them, PW 5 krishan Dutta, the landlord has also testified that the accused was in the habit of beating Veena Rani and that on hearing her cries he used to intervene and advise the accused to stop beating her. Since the accused did not mend his ways and continued his beatings of Veena Rani. PW 5 Kristian Dutt asked the accused to vacate his house.

2. Veena Rani conceived and gave birth to a male child. But even after the, child birth, the accused did not stop ill-treating her. Unable to bear the ill-treatment, Veena Rani took leave on loss of pay and went away to her parents house at Patiala. The separation had no effect on the accused and hence Veena Rani filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court at Patiala for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counter move, the accused also filed a similar petition in the Court at Sangrur. However, the enquiry of that petition was stayed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur till the disposal of the earlier petition filed by Veena Rani at Patiala. At that stage of matters, Shri 0. P. Singhal who was acting as the counsel for the accused and PW 9 Shri Hari Om, another advocate at Sangrur who was appearing for Veena Rani brought about a compromise between the parties and in terms thereof Veena Rani came back to Sangrur to live with the accused. The re-union, however, took place only after the accuseds counsel Shri 0. P. Singhal had personally assured that there would be no danger to Veena Ranis life at the hands of the accused.

3. This time, the parties set up residence in a house belonging to PW-12 Nathu Ram. Nothing changed, however because the accused started tormenting Veena Rani almost from the day of re-union for money and continued beating her. PW 12 Nathu Ram was a witness to the accused quarreling with Veena Rani a