JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. 1. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh have been convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each. Appellant Suresh has also been -convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh, Meera Jain, and Pinki have been convicted under Section 324/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. 2. Sunita (P.W. 1) was married to accused Suresh Jain on 22.2.1995. The couple lived happily for about four months at Raipur. There was unhappihess in the next six months and Sunita (P.W. 1) left her matrimonial home with her father on 30.11.1995 and came back to her parental abode in Bhilai. Accused Ramkishan and Ramesh are elder brothers of Suresh. Accused Meera Jain is wife of accused Ramkishan and accused Pinki is his daughter. 3. The prosecution case is that after four months of the marriage the accused persons started harassing and ill-treating Sunita (P.W. 1). They asked her to bring a Yamaha motor-cycle and a colour T. V. as dowry. They also asked her to bring Rs. 40,000/- from her father so that her husband may commence cloth business with that money. Sunita (P.W. 1) and her father Sajjan Agrawal (P.W. 3) expressed their inability to meet such a demand. Thereafter the accused persons started torturing Sunita (P.W.I). They attempted to hang her, administer calmpose tablets to her and her husband cut arteries of her both the hands near the wrist joint with a blade. These injuries started bleeding. At that time accused Ramesh and Ramkishan had caught hold of her hands and accused Meera Jain and Pinki were holding her legs. Her husband uttered that she would die on account of bleeding from these arteries. The incident of cutting of the arteries is of 30.11.1995. Ori the same day her father reached there and brought her from Raipur to Bhilai. She was treated by Dr. D. Mahapatro (P.W. 6) for the injuries which she had sustained in her hand 3. Sunita (P.W.I) lodged the F.I.R. at Raipur Police Station on 11.12.1995 at 2.30 p.m. She was sent for medical examination. She had written two letters (Ex. P/2A and Ex. P/2B) from Raipur to her father complaining the harrassment to which she was being subjected by her husband and the persons related to him. Sunita (P.W.I) lodged the F.I.R. at Raipur Police Station on 11.12.1995 at 2.30 p.m. She was sent for medical examination. She had written two letters (Ex. P/2A and Ex. P/2B) from Raipur to her father complaining the harrassment to which she was being subjected by her husband and the persons related to him. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that Sunita (P.W. 1) and her father are trying to black-mail them. They never demanded any dowry or money. They never harassed or ill-treated Sunita (P.W.I). 5. The Trial Court after an exhaustive and critical analysis of the evidence on record held that Sunita (P.W. 2) was subjected to cruelty by appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh and all the appellants had formed common intention to cause hurt to her and in furtherance of their common intention Suresh caused injuries to Sunita (P.W. 1). In this appeal it has been argued that the charges against the appellants are not established beyond reasonable doubt; there is unusual delay in lodging the F.I.R. (Ex. P/l); there is no independent corroboration of the testimony of Sunita (P.W. 1); she has exaggerated her version; the two letters which are said to have been written by her are forged and the injuries which are said to have been sustained by her on her wrist joints were in all probability self-inflicted. 6. The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard and the evidence on record has been carefully scrutinised by this Court. Sunita (P.W. 1) has deposed that her Jeth Ramkishan after four months of her marriage expressed dissatisfaction over the dowry brought by her. He complained to her that the dowry which was agreed has not been given. He asked her to prevail upon her father to give Yamaha motor-cycle and a colour T.V. as dowry. He also asked her to bring Rs. 40,000/- so that her husband may start cloth business. She replied that her father would not be able to meet such demands. Thereafter the accused persons started taunting and harassing her. In the intervening night of 24 and 25 November, 1995 her husband Suresh tried to hang her with two Saris. She shouted and that attempt was foiled. Then on 27.11.1995 she was forced to consume calmpose tablets. She was also asked to write a suicide note by her husband. Thereafter the accused persons started taunting and harassing her. In the intervening night of 24 and 25 November, 1995 her husband Suresh tried to hang her with two Saris. She shouted and that attempt was foiled. Then on 27.11.1995 she was forced to consume calmpose tablets. She was also asked to write a suicide note by her husband. She was taken to the nursing home of Dr. Tawry. She found her in the hospital when she gained consciousness. Her father came to see her there. After being discharged from that hospital she came back home. On 30.11.1995 accused Meera Jain and Pinki pressed her legs, accused Ramesh and Ramkishan caught hold of her hands and her husband Suresh cut the arteries of her both the hands near the wrist joints by a blade. She showed the marks of these injuries to the Trial Court when she was in the witness-box. Her husband expressed at the time of incident that she would die on account of bleeding from these injuries. Incidently her father happened to arrive there and he took her to Bhilai. Since then she is living with her father. She was treated by Dr. D. Mahapatro (P.W. 6). She lodged the report at the Police Station Raipur on 11.12.1995 that is Ex. PI. She has written two letters to her father in the month of November, 1995. These letters are Ex. P/2A and Ex. P/2B. There is no date on the letter Ex. P/2A. She has deposed that she had written this letter in the first week of November, 1995. The letter (Ex. P/2B) bears the date 26.11.1995. These inland letters bear the postal seal. It is difficult to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants that these letters are forged. A perusal of the contents of these letters shows that these have been written in the normal course. In the letter (Ex. P/2A) it is mentioned that everything is alright. Sunita (P.W. 1) has explained that this is the usual way of writing letter and, therefore, she has used this sentence in the letter. She has mentioned in para 2 of this letter that her husband and his relations are not satisfied with the dowry which was given in the marriage and everyone was displeased with her. The same story has been repeated in the letter Ex. P/2B. She has mentioned in para 2 of this letter that her husband and his relations are not satisfied with the dowry which was given in the marriage and everyone was displeased with her. The same story has been repeated in the letter Ex. P/2B. In that letter it is mentioned that an attempt was made to hang her and to force her to consume calmpose pills. She has further mentioned in this letter that she is afraid of the accused persons. The contents of these letters corroborate the version of Sunita (P.W. 1) in the Court. 7. Sunita (P.W. 1) has further stated in cross examination that in April-May, 1995 also she was admitted in the nursing home of Dr. Tawry in connection with her pregnancy. She is candid enough to say that at that time her husband and his relations had spent about Rs. 10,000/-inhertreatmentandtheyhadalsogiventhree bottles of blood for transfusion. In para 32 she has narrated the details of the gifts which were given to her by her in-laws at the time of engagement and the marriage. She has also admitted that there was a Panchayat after mis incident and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the accused with the caste Panchayat. 8. Sajjan Agrawal (P.W. 3), father of Sunita (P.W. 1) has corroborated the evidence of his daughter. He has deposed that in the first week of November, 1995 accused Ramkishan and Ramesh came to his house in Bhilai and asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to them so that the husband of Sunita (P.W. 1) may start a cloth shop. He received a telephone call on 29.11.1995 from accused Ramkishan informing him that Sunita (P.W. 1) is admitted.in the hospital. He went there and found his daughter lying in the hospital in unconscious condition. He asked accused Ramkishan what had happened and then Ramkishan told him that Sunita (P.W.I) and accused Suresh had consumed sleeping pills. He has further stated that he found accused Suresh moving here and there and Sunita lying unconscious and when he brought it to the notice of accused Ramkishan he kept quiet. He came back to Bhilai and narrated the whole scene to his wife. He went to Raipur again next day. He reached the house of Sunita and found injuries in her both the hands. There was bleeding from those injuries and she was crying. He came back to Bhilai and narrated the whole scene to his wife. He went to Raipur again next day. He reached the house of Sunita and found injuries in her both the hands. There was bleeding from those injuries and she was crying. He brought her to Bhilai. In cross examination he has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs. 51,000/- to accused Ramkishan at the time of the marriage. Ramkishan (D.W. 1) has admitted this fact in his cross-examination. Sajjan Agrawal (P.W. 3) has further deposed that he had spent about Rs. 1.5 lacs in the marriage and that was somewhat beyond his financial capacity. He has further stated that he did not immediately report the matter to the police as he thought that gradually things would improve. He was worried about Sunita. 9. Gita Agrawal (P.W. 2) is the mother of Sunita (P.W. 1). She has also deposed that her daughter had complained to her regarding the harassment which was being meted out to her. She has also stated in cross-examination that she did not report the matter to the police earlier as she thought that gradually the matter would be set right. 10. Dr. D. Mahapatro (P.W. 6) has deposed that he had examined Sunita at the house of her father and found sharp cut wounds on both the wrists in anterior aspect. The size of the injuries was approximately 1 1/2" x 4". His report is Ex. P6. Dr. Sarita Dubey (P.W. 7) has deposed that she had examined Sunita on 11.12.1995 and there were healed wounds on her both the wrists. Her report is Ex. P7. According to her, patient was actually examined by Dr. Smt. Snehlata Singh. 11. The first ground of attack on the prosecution case by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the F.I.R. (Ex. P1) has been lodged on 11.12.1995 and during the period between 30.11.1995 and 11.2.1995 the whole story was cooked up. No-doubt, there is delay in the F.I.R. But in such cases the delay in reporting the matter to the police occurs because the woman who has been subjected to cruelty and her parents are placed in a dilema. They very well realise that in case they knock at the doors of the police station, the doors of the matrimonial home of the Woman would be closed for ever. They very well realise that in case they knock at the doors of the police station, the doors of the matrimonial home of the Woman would be closed for ever. At that stage they are required to take a very delicate dedsion. The tolerance of the Indian woman and her parents is well-known. They suffer and still they do not hasten to the police station in the hope that good sense would prevail upon the husband and his relatives and the woman would be taken back and the passage of time would heal the wounds. This is what has been expressed by all the prosecution witnesses in the Court. That is so natural that there is no reason to disbelieve them on this point. Therefore, it is not permissible to make capital because of the delay in the F.I.R. 12. The next argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that there is no independent corroboration. Such incidents occur inside the four walls of the house and, therefore, it is difficult to expect independent witnesses. The neighbours also are reluctant to intermeddle in such matters. Much depends upon intrinsic worth of the testimony of the woman who is victim of cruelty. In the present case the testimony of Sunita (P.W. 1) has been scanned keeping in view that aspect and it has been found that her version is truthful. She has no reason to make a false charge against her husband and his relations. She does not stand to gain anything by that except making her life more precarious. In the normal course a married woman takes such step when the treatment being meted out to her becomes intolerable. The testimony of Sunita (P.W. 1) finds corroboration from the evidence of her parents and also from the medical evidence. It is difficult to accept the plea that the injuries which were found on the two hands of Sunita were self-inflicted. She was tortured by her husband and the other accused persons. There was demand of dowry coupled with cruelty. The Supreme Court has observed in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 2184 =111 (1996) CCR39 (SC), that the alarming increase in cases relating to harassment, torture, abetted suicides and dowry deaths of young innocent brides has always sent shock waves to the civilised society but unfortunately the evil has continued unabated. The Supreme Court has observed in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 2184 =111 (1996) CCR39 (SC), that the alarming increase in cases relating to harassment, torture, abetted suicides and dowry deaths of young innocent brides has always sent shock waves to the civilised society but unfortunately the evil has continued unabated. Awakening of the collective consciousness is the need of the day. Change of heart and attitude is needed. A wider social movement not only of educating women of their rights but also of the men folk to respect and recognise the basic human values is essentially needed to bury this pernicious social evil. The role of the Courts, under the circumstances, assumes a great importance. The Courts are expected to deal with such cases in a realistic manner so as to further the object of the legislation. 13. Again in Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 =1 (1989) DMC 132, there was demand of dowry and money for starting business and that was held to be covered by Section 498A, I.P.C. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 = I (1998) DMC 165 (SC)=I (1998) CCR 265 (SC)=II (1998) SLT 525, also it has been held that repeated demand of dowry and mental torture amount to cruelty. 14. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in a criminal case the guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt is unexceptionable. That has been accepted by the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Orilal jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 = I (1994) DMC 138 (SC)=IV (1993) CCR 393 (SC). However, the question what evidence should be sufficient to discharge that burden depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court observed in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR 1988 SC 2154 , that what decree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case. It has been further observed that the concepts of probability and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of me degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. It has been further observed that the concepts of probability and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of me degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and ultimately, to the trained intuitions of the Judge. 15. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Sunita (P.W. 1) was subjected to cruelty as defined in Explanation (b) to Section 498A, I.P.C. by accused Suresh, Rafresh and Ramkishan. They have been rightly convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. The conviction of appellant Suresh under Section 324 and of appellants Ramkishan and Ramesh under Section 324/34, I.P.C. is also well-merited. Similarly the conviction of appellants Meera Jain and Pinki Jain under Section 324/34, I.P.C. is also proper. 16. Coming to the question of sentence appellants Meera jain and Pinki Jain deserve some leniency. Pinki Jain is a young girl. Keeping in view the role attributed to them, their sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to their period of custody for one day. They are however each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine they will each suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed upon appellants Ramkishan and Ramesh for the offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. is reduced from three years to two years. With this modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed.