implicating the appellant earlier to the subject FIR. In short, we find that there is no scintilla of evidence against the appellant herein to hold that he has committed the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, even with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Being the husband of the second accused, Savita, who was found guilty by the courts below for the aforesaid offence cannot be a ground to hold the appellant guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material on record. 10. Para 35 and 36 of the judgment of the trial Court would reveal the manner how the appellant was found guilty. They read thus: “35. It is brought into the argument that there are no specific allegations against rest of the accused except husband and mother-in-law, However they were staying and witnessing all the incidents in the house, Though specific act of the other accused is not there in evidence making the victim to work like servant and allowing the accused no.1 to 6 do cruelty is also not different