ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. There are two appellants. These two appellants along with one Brij Kumar, brother of Naresh Kumar (A-1) were tried for the offence punishable under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal. The High Court while confirming the appeal in respect of Brij Kumar convicted Naresh Kumar, the husband of the deceased and Bhagwanti, the mother-in-law of the deceased and mother of Naresh Kumar under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each and in default to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. Hence this appeal is filed by the two convicted accused. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the two appellants treated the deceased Krishna in a cruel manner. Having married with the first accused, and having got disgusted she committed suicide on July 8, 1981. Consequently the two appellants were held liable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in view of the abetment to commit suicide and were accordingly convicted. 3. The trial court acquitted all of them on the ground of defence theory, namely, that the accident could not be ruled out and the prosecution has not established abetment of the suicide, as alleged. The High Court, however, referred to the letters written by the deceased to her parents and also several other circumstances which established that the deceased was being treated cruelly and, therefore, held that the incident has resulted in suicide and sentenced the accused under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 4. We have perused the records and the evidence. The fact that the deceased died of burns is not in dispute. The High Court has carefully gone through the defence theory that it is an accident and has given cogent and convincing reasons against the same. We see no grounds to disagree with that. Therefore, the prosecution has established as a case of theory of conduct of the accused to amply show that the deceased was being treated in a cruel manner. There is enough evidence to that effect which could not be demolished. In the result we see no ground to interfere in the appeal. 5. Now coming to the sentence, we find that there are extenuating circumstances. There is enough evidence to that effect which could not be demolished. In the result we see no ground to interfere in the appeal. 5. Now coming to the sentence, we find that there are extenuating circumstances. Admittedly, the husband was not there when this unfortunate incident took place and the mother-in-law took the injured immediately to the hospital and rendered all possible assistance. Further, this incident took place in 1981 and the High Court has interfered against the order of acquittal in the year 1991. The accused have also undergone sentence for all these years. In these circumstances, while confirming the convictions and sentences, we reduce the sentence to 2½ years against each of the appellants. The sentence of fine and clause of default in payment, is, however, confirmed. If the accused have already served out the sentence, they may be released. 6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.