Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires distinct elements of abetment; evidence showed cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.9.1997 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST No.21/1997 convicting the accused / appellant under S.306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rl for six years.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Jyotibai, wife of the accused / appellant. Their marriage was solemnized about six years prior to the date of incident i.e. 20.11.1996 when she suffered 90% burn injuries in her matrimonial house and while being taken to hospital died on the way. After receiving information from the ward boy, merg intimation Ex.P / 5 was recorded on 20.11.1996; inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P / 13 on 21.11.1996 and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 21.11.1996 by PW - 5 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu who noticed 90% burn injury and opined that the cause of death was shock due to extensive burn. On 22.11.1996 FIR (Ex.P / 3) was lodged by Manohar Lal (PW - 7), brother of the deceased alleging in it that her sister - deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, based on which offence under S.304B / 34 of IPC was registered against the accused / appellant, his father, mother and brother. The trial Court framed charge under S.304B or in the alternative 306 read with S.34 of IPC against all the accused persons.

3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined two witnesses.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting other accused persons of all the charges, convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

* that the accused / appellant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion;
* that on the basis of same set of evidence, once the other accused persons have been acquitted, the present appellant is also entitled for acquittal.
* even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the appellant cannot be convicted under S.306 of IPC because the basic ingredients of the said section, in particular S.107 of IPC are completely missing.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to conviction of the appellant it has been argued by the State counsel that the trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under S.306 of IPC and as such, there is no infirmity in it calling for any interference. He submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant is not liable to be convicted under S.306 of IPC, then on the basis of material available on record at least he can safely be held guilty under S.498A of IPC.

7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

8. PW - 1 Narayan Sahu had first attended the deceased in burnt condition in her matrimonial house and after noticing burn injury on her body advised her family members to take her out for treatment. PW - 2 Radhabai saw the deceased in burnt condition in her house. PW - 3 Sunderlal Bhardwaj has stated that on coming to know about the burn incident he went to the house of the accused persons where he found Jyotibai lying on a cot and on bein