The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of cruelty towards a married woman under Section 498-A and its role in instigating suicide as per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 28/08/2015 delivered in Sessions Case No.110/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha.

2. Heard finally by consent. Paper-book is dispensed with.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are stated, in brief, thus :

The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with deceased Jyoti in the year 2009 and after solemnization of the marriage, deceased Jyoti started cohabiting with the appellant. At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant and his deceased wife Jyoti were residing at village Shekapur (Bai), falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Wadner, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. Some time after the marriage, it is alleged that the appellant started harassing and treating cruelly the deceased Jyoti by subjecting her to beating under the influence of liquor. It is alleged that the appellant used to suspect character of the deceased and then under the influence of liquor, used to beat her. According to the complainant, the father of the deceased, such kind of cruel treatment of deceased Jyoti had become a regular feature before she committed suicide.

In the afternoon of 01:00 p.m. of 04/04/2014, when deceased Jyoti was present in her house, appellant returned to the house and at that time, he was drunk. As soon as he entered the house, he suspected fidelity of his wife and hurled abuses at her. This incident proved to be the last straw in the disturbed relationship between Jyoti and the appellant. It made Jyoti take extreme step of committing suicide. She went to the kitchen of her house, poured kerosene oil on her person and set herself afire. Hearing the shouts of Jyoti, appellant rushed into the kitchen and extinguished the flames by pouring water on the person of Jyoti. The appellant took her to Rural Hospital, Wadner. She was admitted there for a temporary period of time. Her dying declaration was recorded in which deceased Jyoti stated that she caught a fire in an accident triggered by sudden flare up of the kitchen stove. Later in the evening, she was shifted to the Government Hospital at Wardha, where she succumbed to the burn injuries. Before that, her another dying declaration was recorded by a different police constable in the presence of the treating Doctor. In the second dying declaration, deceased Jyoti put the entire blame upon the appellant. It was treated as a complaint and the crime was registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him.

On merits of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, with which the appellant was charged and accordingly, by the judgment and order rendered on 28/08/2015, convicted and sentenced the appellant for these offences by imposing imprisonments for two years and seven years together with fine amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- accompanied by default sentences of two months and six months respectively. It is the same judgment and order, which are under challenge in the present appeal.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal, as they do not take into account the material inconsistencies between two dying declarations vide Exh.38 and Exh.33. She further submits that except for the dying declaration vide Exh.33, there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution proving the fact that there was a cruelty of consistent nature thereby creating the desperate situation for the deceased to commit suicide.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State supports the impugned judgment and order. He submits that the first dying declaration vide Exh.38, which exonerates the appellant, is not supported by the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as it