BHANUBEN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                           [2015) 9 S.C.R. 1124


~   A                     BHANUBENANDANR.
                                     v.
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2015)
    B
                          SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
              [T. S.THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)
              Penal Code, 1860: s.498A, 306 - Dowry death -
    c   Allegation that deceased committed suicide by taking poison
        as she was harassed for bringing dowry - Conviction of
        husband and mother-in-law and sister-in-law by courts below
        ~ Husband undergof"!e the sentences passed against him :-
        Instant appeal by mother-in-law and sister-in-law - Held:
    D   Evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial
        evidence makes it amply clear that deceased was subjected
        to cruelty at the hands of her husband and her in-laws which
        had caused her grave mental and physical injury- The same
        had made her run away from matrimonial home several times
    E   - Ingredients to constitute offence uls.498A fully satisfied
        against appellants - However, it cannot be said that the
        cruelty meted on the deceased led her to commit suicide or
        that accused had abetted in the commission of the same -
        Dying declaration was to the effect that she took poison by
    F   mistake which was corroborated by the doctor who had
        examined her and declared her stable and conscious to make
        statement - Thus prosecution failed to prove beyond
        reasonable doubt that accused had abetted the deceased in
        commission of suicide - Conviction u/s. 306 set aside -
    G   Keeping in view the age of the appellants i.e. mother-in-law
        of'the deceased who is said to be around 60 years of age
        and sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than 35 years
        of age and having a child to take care of, the sentence is
    H   limited to the period of imprisonment ;:ifready undergone by
        them.
                                     1124
          BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                      1125


     Partly allowing the appeal, the Court·                 A

      HELD: It is an undisputed fact that the deceased
was frequently taking refuge at Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh,
Rajkot, Mahi la Vikas Gruh and Gonda I Bala Ashram and
that her paternal relatives had pacified her many a times   B
and she was sent back to her in laws' home after
compromise. The same has been proved by the
deposition of PW-6 paternal uncle of the deceased and
PW-7-the wife of PW-6 and PW-9-the brother of the
deceased. The same has also been further corroborated       C
by PW-19 who is a social worker atAmreli Mahila Vikas
Gruh. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased had
filed a complaint against the accused for maintenance,
which was not paid to her by her husband. She had also
filed an FIR against the accused under Sections 498A,       D
506(2) 114 of l.P.C and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. On several occasions after the
compromise, the deceased was again thrown out of her
matrimonial home. These witnesses have also stated that
the deceased was regularly taunted and mentally· and        E
physically harassed by the accused and she had
complained about the same to them. It was also deposed
before the trial court by several other independent
witnesses who were the neighbours of the accused and        F
live in the same vicinity that they had witnessed heated
exchanges and quarrel between the accused and the
deceased which has been corroborated by PW-.8. It was
also noticed that the deceased had spent several days
sleeping at odd places like, empty buses, etc. as she had   G
nowhere else to go. Further, PW-12 in his testimony had
stated that the deceased was loitering outside his street
and had asked for his help, thereby claiming that her
husband and in-laws were trying to kill her and that is
why she ran away from their home. She also had burn         H
    1126        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 9 S.C.R.


     A marks branded on her hands. Therefore, he had helped
       her and paid her an amount of Rs.200/- for the bus fare.
       The mother-in- law ignored the pleas of the deceased
       by calling her act as "epileptic fits" when the deceased
•      had come running out of her house and was calling out
     B to her for help on the day of the unfortunate incidence.
       The reason that the deceased kept coming back to her
       matrimonial home by way of compromise in spite of all
       the cruelty and torture meted against her is because of
       her minor daughter who was living with her husband.
     c Thus, the ingredients to constitute the offence under the
       provision of Section 498A of l.P.C. have been fully
       satisfied againstthe appellants. [Paras 17, 19, 20] [1133-
       F-H; 1134-A-H; 1135-A-C, F-H]
     D          Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath Agrawal
                (2012) 7 SCC 288: 2012 (7) SCR 607 - relied
                on.
                 2. The point whether the accused had abetted in
           the commission of suicide of the deceased as provided
     E     under Section 306 of l.P.C. cannot be proved with
           conclusive evidence in the light of the fact that the
           deceased in her dying declaration had clearly stated t~at
           she had consumed the poisonous tablets by mistake.
           The same was further corroborated by the doctor who
     F
           had examined her and had declared her as stable and
           conscious enough to give a reasonable statement.
           Further, the accused were present inside the house at
           the time thEl deceased consumed the poisonous tablet
     G     and they had taken her to the hospital as soon as they
           realized that she was in a critical condition . .Thus, even
           though the cruelty aspect meted on the deceased was
           proved beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be said
           that the same had led her to commit suicide or that the
     H     accused had abetted in the commission of the same, as
           is clear from the facts and circumstances of the present
          BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                       1127


case. Appellant no.1 even though had behaved stoically A
in the beginning by calling the act of the deceased as
"epileptic fit", but as soon as she realized the gravity of
the situation she called her son and they took her to the
hospital for examination and treatment. This act of the
accused clearly showed that they did not abet the B
deceased in the commission of the suicide, if at all it was
a suicide. [Paras 22, 23] [1136-H; 1137-A-B, F-H; 1138-A]

     Bhola Turha v. State ofBihar (1998) 9SCC15-
     relied on.                                              C

       3. From the facts and circumstances ofthe'present
case and upon the examination of the body of deceased,
it is clear that her death was a result of an accident and
she had mistakenly consumed the poisonous tablet as          o
the same· was kept with other medicines. Had the
deceased wanted to implicate the accused, she would
have revealed their names in the final moments before
her death, as she had nothing to fear fdr and her
antecedent showed that she had previously filed a             E
complaint against the accused when they harassed her.
If the accused had any hand in her death, the same
would have been revealed in the dying declaration of
the deceased. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had              F
abetted the deceased in the commission of suicide as
provided under the provision of Section 306, l.P.C. Merely
because an accused was held liable to be punished
under Section 498A IPC, it does not follow that O"! the
same evidence, he must also and necessarily be held          G
guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by
the women concerned under 306 IPC. Therefore, the
conviction and s~ntence for offence punishable under
Section 306 read with Section 114, IPC of the present        H
appellants is contrary to the legal evidence on record
1128        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     particularly, the dying declaration of the deceased and
       the conduct of the accused who took the deceased to
       the hospital. [Paras 24 and 26] [1138-C-E, H; 1139-A-C]

            Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9
 B          SCC 618: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 - relied on.

         4. Keeping in view the age of the appellants i.e. the
   appellant No. 1-mother-in-law of the deceased who is
   said to be around 60 years of age and appellant No.2-
 C sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than 35 years
   of age and having a child to take care of, the sentence is
   limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone
   by them. [Para 28] [1140-B]

                          Case Law Reference
 D
       2012 (7) SCR 607          relied on.          Para 21
       (1998) 9 sec 15           relied on.          Para 22
       2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 relied on.            Para 26
 E
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
       Appeal No. 1209 of2015

            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2015 of the
       High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.
 F     101 of2010                                     .

            Santosh Krishnan, Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook
       Bafaki for the Appellants.

 G         Hemantika Wahi, Jesal Wahi, Puja Singh for the
       Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted.
 H
             BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                            1129
                 [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.)

        2. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the A
  impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2015, passed in
  Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010, by the High Court of
  Judicature of Gujarat atAhmedabad, wherein the High Court
  has dismissed the appeal of the appellants and upheld the
  order of conviction and sentence of the appellants under B
  Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian
  Penal Code, 1860 (in short"l.P.C.") passed by the Fast Track
· Court, Veraval, Camp Una, in Sessions Case No.9 of 2007
  (hereinafter "the trial court") in its judgment and order dated
  21.11.2009.The appellants have prayed to set aside the same C
  and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by
  the respondent-State, urging various legal grounds.

        3. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to
  appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the      D
· parties:

       The appellant nos. 1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and the
 sister-in-law of the deceased respectively. It is the case of the
 prosecution that the deceased was residing with her husband          E
 and in-laws in a joint family at Kodinar with a minor daughter.
 However, within 2 years of marriage, the deceased was
 allegedly tortured by her husband and her in-laws for not
 bringing dowry and not working properly. The deceased was
 also allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home and was            F
 forced to stay at Kanta Stri Vikas Gruh at Rajkot.

        4. The deceased informed the complainant, who is her
  paternal uncle about the harassment and that her husband and
  in-laws were demanding an amount of Rs.20,000/- from her. G
  The maternal uncle of the deceased persuaded her to
. compromise with her in-laws and sent her back to her
  matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased was kept well for
 ·a month but she was later allegedly beaten up and driven out
  of her matrimonial home. A case was registered against them H
1130      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A before the Amreli Nari Surakhsha Gruh. After 2 months, the
   husband and the father-in-law of the deceased brought her
   back after making a settlement. After a month of her return to
   her matrimonial home, the deceased was again allegedly
   beaten up and thrown out of her home. The deceased then
 S filed a complaint against her in-laws before the Sabra Police
   Station and a maintenance application was fried before the
   Sabra Court. The husband of the deceased brought her back
   home again after making a settlement before the Court but
   she was again allegedly beaten up by her in-laws against which
 C she filed a case before theAmreli Mahila Vikas Gruh, where
   her maintenance was fixed at Rs.1,000/~ p.m. but the same
   was not paid by her husband.

         5. The deceased then stayed at.the Gonda! SalaAshram
 D (orphanage) and from there she again went back to her in-
   laws place at Kodinar to meet her daughter whose custody
   was with her husband as part of a compromise between herself
   and the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that
   on 12.11.2006 at about 11.30 hours when the complainant was
 E on his way to work he received an information that the deceased
   had consumed poison and later came to know through his
   daughter that the deceased had passed away.

         6. The complainant then filed a complaint being l.C.R.
 F No.172 of 2006 before the Kodinar Police. Station against the ·
   appellants and the husband of the deceased. Thereafter, further
   investigation was carried out, the panchanama of the scene
   was drawn, the statements of1he witnesses were recorded
   and the accused were arrested.
 G
         7. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of
   prosecution witnesses and on perusal of the dying declaration
   of the deceased and on consideration of the same, convicted
   and sentenced the present appellants and the husband of the
 H deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
             BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                            1131
                 [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

and 306 read.with Section 114of1.P.C. The accused were to A
undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default, further simple imprisonment of six
months for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
114 of the l.P.C. For offences punishable under Sections 306
and 114 of the l.P.C. the accused were ordered to undergo 10 B
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.12,000/-each
and in default, further simple imprisonment of one year. The
accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under
Section 3048 read with Section 114 of the I. P. C. and Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.                                 c
         8. Being aggrieved by the same the accused filed an
   appeal before the High Court of Gujarat which dismissed the
   same holding that it has been well established that the accused
   have instigated the deceased and thereby they abetted the D
   deceased in committing suicide. The High Court further held
   that the accused and his family members caused mental and
.. physical cruelty and therefore, the deceased was put in a critical
   condition and consumed poison and ended her life. It further
   held that on perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court it E
  was impossible that the deceased could have consumed
  poison by mistake and therefore, the learned trial court has
   rightly convicted the accused as they are guilty of the above
   mentioned offences. The High Court has thus upheld the order F
  of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against all
  the accused persons. It is stated that the husband of the
  deceased has already undergone the period of sentences .
  passed against him and has been released from jail. The
  present appeal has been filed by the C!PPellants-the mother- G
  in-law and the sister-in-law of the deceased praying to set aside
  their conviction and sentence and for their enlargement on bail.

      9. It has been contended by the learned counsel on behalf
of the appellants that the guilt or even the involvement of the H
1132         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     appellants in the commission of the offence has not been rightly
       pointed out by the courts below as there are no independent
       evidence/witnesses against them. Thus, the case against the
       appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 B       10. It has been further contended by him that the trial
   court did not find any incriminating material evidence against
   the accused so as to punish them under the aforementioned
   offences. In the present matter, the only evidence adduced
   before the courts below was the deposition of the relatives of
 C the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined.
   He has further submitted that as per the provisions under
   Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the abetment
   on the part of the accused has not been proved by the
   prosecution.
 D
             11. He has further contended that the courts below have
       not considered the dying declaration of the deceased and the
       deposition made by the doctor who had examined her that
       were recorded by the Executive Magistrate do not mention
 E     any allegation against the accused.

            12. On the other hand, it has been contended by Ms.
       Hemantika Wahi, the. learned counsel on behalf of the
       respondent that the trial court and the High Court after
 F     appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions
       made on behalf of the parties have rightly convicted and
       sentenced the accused for the afore- mentioned offences.

         13. She has submitted that the ingredients under
 G Sections 498A, 306 and 3048 of l.P.C. are established beyond
   all reasonable doubt against the accused. She has further
   submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses, it has been
   clearly established that the appellants were mentally and
   physically harassing the deceased and even had driven her
 H out of her matrimonial house several times.
            BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                            1133
                [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

      14. She has further submitted that the presumption as A
to the abetment of suicide as per Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, has been clearly proved and the appellants
are responsible for abetting her in the commission of suicide
which is the concurrent finding on fact and the appellants have
not made out a case for interference of this Court.             B

      15. On the b~sis of the rival legal contentions urged on
.behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, the following
questions would arise for our consideration:
                                                                    c
      1)   Whether, the Courts below have rightly convicted
           and sentenced the accused for the offences
           punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with
           Section 114 of l.P.C.?
                                                                    D
      2)   What order?

       16. Before arriving at an irrefutable conclusion, we have
to first determine as to whether the deceased was tortured
and meted with cruelty by the accused or not? To find out the
same, we have perused the evidence placed on record by the          E
prosecution viz., the deposition of witnesses.and the dying
declaration of the deceased.

       17. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was
frequently taking refuge at Kanta stri Vikas Gruh, Rajkot, Mahila    F
Vikas Gruh and Gonda! Bala Ashram. It is also an undisputed
fact that her paternal relatives had pacified her many a times
and she was sent back to her in laws' home after compromise.
The same has been proved by the deposition of PW"6 paternal
uncle of the deceased at Exh.69 before the trial court and PW-      G
7-the wife of PW-6 and PW-9-the brother of the deceased.
The same has also been further corroborated by PW-19 who
is a social worker atAmreli Mahila Vikas Gruh at Exh.135. It is
also an undisputed fact that the deceased had filed a complaint     H
1134         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     against the accused for maintenance, which was not paid to
       her by her husband. She had also filed an FIR against the
       accused on 14.02.2006 under Sections 498A, 506(2) 114 of
       I. P. C and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
       On several occasions after the compromise, the deceased
 B     was again thrown out of her matrimonial home. The
       abovementioned witnesses have also stated that the deceased
       was regularly taunted and mentally and physically harassed
       by the accused and she had complained about the same to
       the above mentioned witnesses.
 c
         18. It has also been deposed before the trial court by
   several other independent witnesses who are the neighbours
   of the accused and live in the same vicinity that they had
   witnessed heated exchanges and quarrel between the accused
 D and the deceased which has been corroborated by Ravibhai
   Dodia (PW-8) in his testimony at Exh.80 before the trial court.
   Further, another independent witness, Smt. Savitaben (PW-
   10), has also deposed before the trial court at Exh.84 that the
   deceased had sat on "Otla" of her house for 2 consecutive
 E days as the accused had locked up their house and gone
   somewhere and came back only when they received a call
   from their neighbours about the deceased sitting there. It has
   also been noticed that the deceased had spent several days
 F sleeping at odd places like, empty buses, etc. as she had
   nowhere else to go.

          19. Further, the deposition of the witness Hirakumar
   Kanabhai Goh ii (PW-12) in his testimony at Exh.95 had stated
   before the trial court that the deceased was loitering outside
 G his street and had asked for his help, thereby claiming that her
   husband and in-laws were trying to kill her and that is why
   she had run away from their home. She also had burn marks
   branded on her hands. Therefore, he had helped her and paid
 H her an amount of Rs.200/-for the bus fare. We have also taken
            BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                            1135
                [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

note of the fact that the mother-in- law ignored the pleas of the   A
deceased by calling her act as "epileptic fits" when the
deceased had come running out of her house and was ca]ling
out to her for help on the day of the unfortunate incidence.

       20. There is no other material evidence or fact brought B
 before this Court to show that the deposition of the above
 mentioned witness is unreliable and this Court has no reason
to believe the same to annul the finding of conviction on the
 charge against the appellants. Therefore, in the light of the
 above mentioned depositions made and based on the facts C
 and circumstances of the case, it has been aptly held by the
.courts below that the prosecution has established by adducing
 cogent and convincing evidence that the deceased had been
 tortured by her in-laws and her husband. The reason that the
 deceased kept coming back to her matrimonial home by way D
 of compromise in spite of all the cruelty and torture meted
 against her is because of her minor daughter who was living
 with her husband. Thus, the ingredients to constitute the offence
 under the provision of Section 498Aof l.P.C. have been fully
 satisfied in the present case against the appellants. The E
 relevant provisions of Section 498A read thus:

      "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
      subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the
      husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,             F
      subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished
      with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
      three years and shall also be liable to fine.
      Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,
      "cruelty" means-                                              G

      (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
      is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
      cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
      (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or                 H
1136           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A            (b) harassment of the woman where such
              harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
              person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
              for any property or valuable security or is on account
              of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
 B            such demand."

         21. The deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands
   of her husband and her in-laws and the evidence of the
   prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial evidence makes
 C it amply clear that she was harassed beyond limits by her in-
   laws, which had caused her grave mental and physical injury.
   The same had made her run away from matrimonial home on .
   several times and had ultimately resulted in her death. On the
   issue that the above mentioned witnesses are interested
 D witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted by this Court
   as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants
   is also rejected in the light of the decision of this Court in the
   case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sar/a Vishwanath
   Agrawaf', wherein this Court has held thus:
 E
         "39 ....... In a matrimonial dispute, it would be
         inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and
         depose. The family members and sometimes the
         relatives, friends and neighbours are the most
 F       natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is
         to be tested on objective parameters and not to be
         thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses
         are related to either of the spouse. Exception has
         been taken by the courts below that the servants of
 G       the house should have been examined and that
         amounts to suppression of the best possible
         evidence ....... "

             22. Now, coming to the point of determining whether the
 H
       1 (2012) 7 sec 288
              BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                         1137
                  [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

accused had abetted in the commission of suicide of the A
deceased as provided under Section 306 of l.P.C., the same
cannot be proved with conclusive evidence in the light of the
fact that the deceased in he~ dying declaration had clearly
stated that she had consumed the poisonous tablets by
mistake. The same was further corroborated by the doctor who B
had examined her and had declared her as stable and
conscious enough to give a reasonable statement. Reliance
has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Bhola Turha v. State of Bihar, wherein this Court
has held thus:                                                C

       "2. The conviction of the appellant is based solely
       upon the d}'ing declaration. It has been found to be
       reliable. It was made by the deceased within about
       two  hours from the incident and a few hours before         D
       his death. In his dying declaration, he has clearly
       explained how he came to be injured by the
       appellant. After carefully scrutinising the dying
       declaration, both the courts have come to the
       conclusion that it contains a truthful version as           E
       regards the manner in which the injuries were
       caused to him."

      23. Further, the accused were present inside the house
at the time the deceased consumed the poisonous tablet and         F
they had taken her to the hospital as soon as they realized that
she was in a critical condition. Thus, even though the cruelty
aspect meted on the deceased has been proved beyond all
reasonable doubt, it cannot be said that the §ame had lead
her to commit suicide or that the accused had abetted in the       G
commission of the same, as is clear from the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The appellant no.1 herein
even though had behaved stoically in the beginning by calling
2 (1998) 9 sec 1s                                                  H
1138           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A the act of the deceased as "epileptic fit", but as soon as she
   realized the gravity of the situation she called her son and they
   took her to the hospital for examination and treatment. This
   act of the accused clearly shows that they did not abet the
   deceased in the commission of the suicide, if at all it was a
 B suicide.

          24. From the facts and circumstances of the present
   case and upon the examination of the body of deceased, it is
   clear that her death was a result of an accident and she had
 C mistakenly consumed the poisonous tablet as the same was
   kept with other medicines. Had the deceased wanted to
   implicate the accused, she would have revealed their names
   in the final moments before her death, as she had nothing to
   fear for and her antecedent showed that she had previously
 D filed a complaint against the accused when they harassed her.
   If the accused had any hand in her death, the same would have
   been revealed in the dying declaration of the deceased. Thus,
   the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
   that the accused had abetted the deceased in the commission
 E of suicide as provided under the provision of Section 306, l.P.C.

             25. In view of the above observations made, it is amply
       clear that even though the accused had tortured and harassed
       the deceased because of which she was constantly running
 F     away from her matrimonial home and had also filed a number
       of complaints against the accused, the same cannot be said
       to be the reason for her death in the light of the facts and
       circumstances of the present case and the dying declaration
       made by her.
 G
         26. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed
   reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in the case
   of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh3 at paragraph
   22 wherein it is held that Sections 498A and 306 IPC are
 H independent and constitute different offences. Merely because
       3 (2001 )9 sec s1 s
             BHANUBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT                            1139
                 [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]

 an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section A
 498A IPC, it does not follow that on the same evidence, he
 must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the
 commission of suicide by the women concerned under 306
 IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for offence
 punishable under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the B
 IPC of the present appellants is contrary to the legal evidence
 on record particularly, the dying declaration of the deceased
 and the conduct of the accused who took the deceased to the
 hospital. This fact has been grossly ignored by the courts below
 while convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid C
 offences. Therefore, .the conviction and sentence for the
 aforesaid offence is erroneous and accordingly it is liable to
 be set aside.

        27. After evaluation of evidence on record and concurrent D
· finding of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, ·
  the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under
  Section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. The
  accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under
  Section 3048 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. and Section 4 of E
  the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as they did not find any '
  evidence on record to bring home the guilt of appellants for
  the offences punishable under Section 306 as there is no
  cogent evidence in this regard in the finding of fact. Therefore, F
  the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under
  Section 498A of I. P. C. with regard to cruelty is held to be proved
  by the courts below. The same is accepted by us and they are
  required to be convicted and sentenced for the offence
  punishable under Section 498A, l.P.C. The conviction and G
  sentence passed by the High Court forthe offence punishable
  under Section 306 read with Section 114 of l.P.C. is liable to
. be set aside, accordingly, we set aside the same.

      28. Since, we have upheld the conviction for the offence        H
 punishable under Section 498A l.P.C., it is to be carefully
1140          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 9 S.C.R.


 A examined by us taking into consideration the facts and
   circumstances of the case as to what sentence is required to
   be imposed upon the appellants. Keeping in view the age of
   the appellants i.e. the appellant No. 1-mother-in-law of the
   deceased who is said to be around 60 years of age and
 B appellant No.2-sister-in-law of the deceased who is more than
   35 years of age and having a child to take care of, we deem it
   fit and proper to limit the sentence to the period of imprisonment
   already undergone by them.

 C          29. We partly set aside the impugned judgment and order
       dated 23.02.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad
       in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2010.

             We confirm the conviction on the charge under Section
 o     498Aof l.P.C. and having regard to the facts and circumstances
       referred to above we direct that the period already undergone ·
       by the appellants in custody is the sentence. We modify and
       reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already
       undergone by them.
 E
           30. Since, we have stated that period already undergone
     is the sentence which we have modified in this judgment for
     the conviction under Section 498Aofthe l.P.C. and in pursuant
     to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the
 F - appellants have surrendered to undergo the imprisonment.
     Presently, they are undergoing sentence imposed by the High
     Court and therefore, we direct the Jail Superintendent, Rajkot
     Central Prison, Rajkot, Gujarat to release them forthwith, if not
     required in connection with any other criminal case.
 G.
             31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
       extent.

       Devika Gujral                               Appeal partly allowed.