The main legal point established is that the appellant's overt act abetted the suicide of the deceased, leading to his conviction under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

N.K. Gupta, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in ST. No. 182 of 1995 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000 and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo one year and six month rigorous imprisonment respectively. Prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Kalawati was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place in the year 1993. The appellant was habitually beating his wife after consuming liquor. On 30.8.1995 the appellant assaulted the deceased Kalawati after consuming some liquor and he also told the deceased Kalawati that she should commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon her. The deceased poured the kerosene oil upon her and set herself on fire. Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Tendukheda. Dr. Ahirwar (P.W. 2) had sent an information to the Police about the incident and that the deceased was admitted in the hospital. On receiving a requisition, Dr. Ahirwar recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/8 of the deceased Kalawati. Investigation Officer Sub-inspector R.C. Jat (P.W. 7) had also recorded a dying declaration Ex. P/10 of the deceased. The deceased was shifted to the district Hospital, Narsinghpur but, she took her last breath at about 11.40 p.m. in the night. A Merge inquiry was initiated. In post-mortem, Dr. B.K. Saksena (PW 1) found that the deceased Kalawati died due to burn injuries. He gave his report Ex. P/2 in that respect. After taking evidence of the parents and relatives of the deceased, the Police had registered a crime and after due investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara who, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara.

2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea in the case that he was falsely implicated. He had more than a sum of Rs. 1 lac in his bank account and, therefore, there was no need for the appellant to harass the deceased Kalawati for dowry demand, etc. Actually she sustained the injuries while she was cooking. When it was informed to the parents of the deceased that she sustained burn injuries they demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac from him and since he had not given that sum to the parents of the deceased they stated falsely against the appellant. In defence one Laxmi Prasad Soni (DW1) who took the deceased Kalawati to the hospital, was examined to explain the behavior of the parents of the deceased at that time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased died due to an accident and it was not a case of suicide. Police as well as the doctor had recorded the dying declarations due to the instigation of the parents and relatives of the deceased and also the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and, therefore, they are not believable. In support of this contention learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the various judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay, (2004) 13 SCC 314, Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC 112, Samadhan Dhudaka Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 705; and Muthu Kutty and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 113. It is also submitted that the investigation was not fair and the appellant is falsely implicated in the ma