The court ruled that mere words spoken in anger do not constitute abetment under IPC sections 498-A and 306, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to support such claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.145 of 1998 on 7^th December, 1999 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C”), this appeal has been preferred.

2. Shorne of unnecessary details, a few facts germane for disposal of this appeal are summarized as follows.

3. Deceased Sharmila got married to the appellant on 27^th July, 1994 at Pune. It was an arranged marriage. After the said marriage, Sharmila started cohabiting with the appellant at Satav Wadi, Hadapsar, Pune which was her matrimonial house. From the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with a son by name Arjun who was two years old at the time of the incident. However, since his birth, Arjun was staying with parents of Sharmila at Pune. Sharmila was working as Clerk in the Education Department whereas the appellant was employed as teacher in a School at Hadapsar.

4. Immediately after marriage, the appellant started feeling suspicion, in the sense, he was suspecting fidelity and character of Sharmila and, on that count, there used to be quarrels between the couple. It was alleged that the appellant used to ill-treat Sharmila. From time to time, Sharmila used to complain about such conduct of the appellant to her mother and sister’s husband. The said state of affairs continued ever after birth of their son.

5. On 28^th November, 1997, mother of Sharmila received a telephone call at her residence from the appellant to the effect that Sharmila had sustained burn injuries at her residence and that they should come immediately. Accordingly, father and sister of Sharmila went to her house but there they learnt that Sharmila was moved at Sassoon Hospital, therefore, they went to the Sassoon Hospital. In Ward No.27 of the Sassoon Hospital, Shamila was admitted for her burn injuries. Upon inquiry, Sharmila told that on the previous day in the evening, she came home on the Scooter with her neighbour as it was raining, which her husband saw. He did not like it and, therefore, he picked up a quarrel with her and mentally tortured her for the whole night. The harassment continued till next morning. Being fed up with the same, Sharmila told her husband that if he does not stop, she would pour kerosene on herself and would set herself ablaze. On this, her husband instigated her to do so and hence, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze.

6. On the same day, at about 10.30 a.m, a Special Judicial Magistrate recorded Sharmila’s Dying Declaration in which, she had categorically stated that she received burn injuries due to an accident. However, on 29^th November, 1997, she expressed her desire to change the said statement and accordingly on 29^th November, 1997 again the same Special Judicial Magistrate was called and he recorded another Dying Declaration of Sharmila in which, she implicated her husband i.e the appellant. An offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C came to be registered against the appellant vide C.R. No.579 of 1997. On 30^th November, 1997, Sharmila succumbed to burn injuries. Accordingly, section 306 of the I.P.C was added and on the same day, the appellant was arrested.

7. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate. He, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court.

8. Upon appearance of the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, a charge was framed under section 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. It was read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

9. Defence of the appellant as emerged from the line of cross-examination as well as from his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr. P.C”) is that he has been falsely implicated. The appellant has come up with a specific defence that mother of Sharmila wanted to get the custo