JUDGMENT :

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants - original accused against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 359 of 1994 whereby the appellants accused have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. The complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons for the offences under sections 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellants - original accused have mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.

6. Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants - original accused has taken this Court through the entire judgment and record and argued that the parents of the victim had not at all supported the case of the prosecution and even the complainant had disowned his complaint and also went to the extent that the deceased had not at all stated anything involving the present accused with the crime in question. He further pointed out that though there appears four dying declarations on record i.e. one alleged to have been recorded by the police, second came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate, third appears to have been recorded by the treating Doctor and the fourth oral dying declaration appears to be before her parents. He submitted that learned trial Court has held that as nothing was emerging out regarding any instigation or inducement to the deceased, due to which, she poured kerosene over her person on 4.2.1993 and therefore, the appellants accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, while convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC holding that there was persistent harassment and abuse to the victim deceased for not properly doing household work, due to which, she has committed suicide. It is, therefore, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellants accused submitted that even if two dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate or by the treating Doctor may be believed to be true, then also nothing is emerging out so as to constitute the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC as ingredients of section 498-A of IPC are required to be established and the willful conduct which is of such nature which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. In the present case, nothing is emerging out that the accused had done any willful overt act so as to lead the victim to commit suicide or to induce her to commit suicide as such and therefore, learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants accused and hence conviction is required to be set aside, as such.

7. On the