1. Heard.

2. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years on account of commission of suicide by his wife Geeta Bai on 30.5.2007.

3. The appellant was married with Geeta Bai about 20 years back from the date of incident. The Gauna ceremony was performed 10 years before the incident. They had two sons and one daughter out of the wedlock. On the date of the incident, the appellant returned to the house at 10:30 p.m. in a state of intoxication and started beating his wife, therefore, she poured kerosene oil and set herself on fire. In the course of treatment, she succumbed to the severe burn injuries at about 3:30 a.m. on 31.5.2007.

4. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P/13) proved by PW-8 Constable Jagmohan Panna and PW-10 D.K. Vahane, Naib Tehsildar, who recorded the dying declaration as also on the basis of statements made by PW-1 Kunwaria Bai, mother of the deceased, PW-2 Ram Naresh, brother of the deceased, PW-3 Ramdas, father of the deceased and PW-4 - Urmila Bai, cousin of the deceased.

5. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that normal household discord or dispute between the husband and wife has led to commission of suicide by the wife, which cannot be termed as such instigation by the husband driving her to commit suicide. According to him, the dying declaration has not been proved in accordance with law, which is a suspicious document, therefore, reliance placed on such dying declaration by the trial Court is not proper. He would further submit that if there would have been such regular ill-treatment by the appellant to his wife, she would have made any previous report, which is not available in the case, therefore, the allegations made by her relatives, as an afterthought, should not have been relied by the trial Court.

6. Per contra, Mr. R. Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, would submit that merely because the wife somehow tolerated the cruel treatment and behaviour of the appellant to maintain the cordial family relations, it would not mean that the allegations are afterthought. According to him, the relatives of the deceased have duly supported the prosecution case and moreover, a person on death bed would not speak false, therefore, the dying declaration has to be believed, which is otherwise proved in accordance with law.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. I shall first deal with the argument as to the genuineness and reliability of the dying declaration.

9. In the matter of Ashok Manekar Vs. Smt. Jagriti Manekar (FAM No.151/2016, decided on 29.6.2017), the Division Bench of this Court after referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994) 1 SCC 337, Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 250, Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73, Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619, Parveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706, Chetan Dass Vs. Kamla Devi, (2001) 4 SCC 250, A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar Patil, 2007 AIR SCW 896, Manisha Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar, AIR 2010 SC 1042 and Ramchander Vs. Ananta, (2015) 11 SCC 539, has held that even though the appellant therein has denied all the allegations in his deposition yet considering the documentary evidence in form of two criminal trials, in which, the allegations against the appellant was of beating/assaulting and injuring his wife in a state of intoxication, the allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondent therein against the said appellant are found to be duly proved.

10. In the present case, if the dying declaration- Ex.P/13 is examined in