JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.—This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in S.C. No. 91 of 1989, dated 30.9.1994. The learned Judge had convicted all the five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as also under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment and fine. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively are the husbands of deceased Prabhavathi who was married to Accused No. 4 and her younger sister Kalavathi who was married to Accused No. 3. The marriage took place on 18.6.1986. Accused No. 5 is the brother of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, Accused No. 1 is the father and Accused No. 2 is the mother. Briefly stated, the prosecution has alleged that pursuant to some negotiations, the family of the two girls Prabhavathi and Kalavathi had agreed to the marriage proposals that had emanated from Accused No. 1 and the other family members. The usual negotiations had taken place and it was finally agreed that the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and one tola of gold would be the dowry as far as Prabhavathi is concerned and a similar dowry was asked as far as Kalavathi was concerned. Since the family was unable to produce the requisite amount of money in so far as they had to also perform the marriages, the accused side agreed that the one tola of gold may be given on behalf of Kalavathi and that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- may be given in the following year. Pursuant to this understanding, the marriage of the two couples was performed on 18.6.1986 in the local Hanuman temple. The prosecution alleges that the five accused persons started harassing and illtreating the two wives because the balance of Kalavathi's dowry amount had not been paid. They were even sent away from the matrimonial home on this ground and after a long interval, they were taken back. There are also several letters on record written by the Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 demanding the balance payments and the trial Court has placed heavy reliance on these. It is also alleged that because of the non-payment of the dowry amount of Rs. There are also several letters on record written by the Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 demanding the balance payments and the trial Court has placed heavy reliance on these. It is also alleged that because of the non-payment of the dowry amount of Rs. 7,000/- that the accused had taken away the tractor belonging to the girl's family and that the harassment levels were stepped up so much so that it became impossible for the two of them to continue residing in the matrimonial house. The situation only kept worsening and it is alleged that on the night of 25.11.1988 Prabhavathi ended her life by hanging herself in the house. There is some dispute with regard to this incident because Kalavathi who was brought in a highly disturbed condition to her parents house and had to be treated for several days disclosed to them that it was the accused persons who had murdered her sister and that in order to get out of the offence they had made it appear as though it was a case of suicide. This controversy however does not require to be elaborated upon because the medical evidence does suggest that Prabhavathi had committed suicide and for a variety of reasons, the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and since the State has not filed any appeal against that order of acquittal, one does not need to reopen that controversy. After a lapse of forty three days, Kalavathi's brother who is the complainant, on 8.1.1989 lodged a complaint with the Mudhol Police alleging that his sisters had been subject to illtreatment and cruelty and that action according to law should be taken against the accused. The police commenced the investigation and finally charge-sheeted the accused and put them up for trial. As indicated earlier, the learned trial Judge convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. There is also a cross Appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence which is Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 1996 which has been preferred by the State. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. There is also a cross Appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence which is Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 1996 which has been preferred by the State. The learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the State in that appeal as also on behalf of the Respondent-State in the appeal preferred by the accused against their conviction. Both the appeals are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. Having heard the two learned Counsel and reviewed the entire record threadbare, in my considered view the issues for determination are extremely limited. As far as the first aspect of the case is concerned, there is no doubt about the fact that the evidence on record conclusively establishes that in the course of the negotiations, the demands were made for dowry by Accused No. 1 and the other persons who were part of the negotiating party and that the girls' family had agreed to these demands. It is also established that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had received the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and one tola of gold which was Prabhavathi's dowry, and that they had also received one tola of gold against Kalavathi's dowry. Despite elaborate statements on their behalf to the effect that the evidence is not conclusive, I have very carefully assessed the material on record and see no ground on which the findings of the trial Court under this head can be disturbed. 3. What happened thereafter is of some consequence because we have on record the evidence of PW-11 Kalavathi as also the complainant's evidence and more importantly, the documentary evidence in the form of letters and all of this does indicate that all the accused including Accused No. 5 who is the brother even though he stays separately were responsible for not only harassment but cruelty of a high order to which both Prabhavathi and Kalavathi were subjected to continuously. Though a submission was canvassed that some distinction should be made between the different accused, I find on a careful scrutiny of the record that if at all this Court can make any distinction it would be with regard to Accused No. 2 who is the mother. Though a submission was canvassed that some distinction should be made between the different accused, I find on a careful scrutiny of the record that if at all this Court can make any distinction it would be with regard to Accused No. 2 who is the mother. The learned Government Pleader objected to any such distinction being made because he pointed out that in all these negotiations the dominant role is always played by the mother of the boy and he further pointed out from the evidence in this case that there were constant problems in the form of unending torture which Prabhavathi and Kalavathi were subjected to and these are attributable directly to the mother-in-law. Though the learned Government Pleader has advanced this submission which is on the basis of a generalisation, in a criminal case where the consequences are serious unless there is specific evidence to indicate actual participation on the part of the mother who is the Accused No. 2, it would not be right for the Court to conclude on the basis of general situations that she must be guilty. I find that there is no specific reference to direct overtacts attributable to Accused No. 2 and under these circumstances to my mind, the trial Court was in error in having convicted Accused No. 2 for both the offences. 4. On behalf of the accused, a strong submission was advanced that the offence punishable under Section 498-A presupposes cruelty of a high order and the law envisages that it should be so grave as to either drive the wife to suicide or cause serious bodily or mental harm. Secondly, Section 498-A postulates that the purpose of the cruelty should invariably be dowry related. The submission is that the evidence in this case falls short of both these requirements. It is difficult to agree with the learned Advocate in the face of the present record because we have clear cut direct evidence of Kalavathi who was one of the two victims and she has in terms indicated as to how grave and how serious the levels of torture were and that all this was only because the balance dowry amount had not been paid. In this regard, I need to deal specifically with the submission canvassed which was to the effect that the evidence only indicates some form of illtreatment at the very highest and that this should not be grave enough to bring the case within the ambit of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC). The record indicates that it was not mere harassment but that it was harassment of the level of torture. Secondly, it was not occasional or sporadic but it was continuous and virtually unending. Thirdly, it was followed up by long periods of time when the two girls were very gravely humiliated by being sent away to their parents house and they were not allowed to come back. Apart from the social consequences which are sufficiently traumatic, the law envisages the mental torture in such a situation where a young wife is driven out of the matrimonial home and is black-mailed into a situation whereby she is not permitted to resume her marital life until the illegal demands of the husband and the family are met. This situation gets further aggravated in the present case because Kalavathi has described how there was an acceleration in the degree and levels of torture particularly as far as Prabhavathi was concerned and we have on record in this case enough evidence to establish that Prabhavathi reached a breaking point when she could tolerate the torture no longer and committed suicide by hanging herself. Though the learned Advocate who represents the accused submitted that merely because Prabhavathi committed suicide will not ipso facto establish that it was the accused who were responsible for it, in the absence of any other material having come on record to indicate that there was any other possible or conceivable reason for Prabhavathi committing suicide, the irresistible consequence that emerges is that the accused were solely and squarely responsible for driving her to this step. It is in this background that after a careful review of the record, I see no ground on which the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be interfered with. 5. Lastly, the Appellants' learned Advocate submitted that this is a case in which the demands for the dowry amount of Rs. 1, 3, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be interfered with. 5. Lastly, the Appellants' learned Advocate submitted that this is a case in which the demands for the dowry amount of Rs. 7,000/- that are held against the accused had taken place long after the marriage and that therefore they would not come within the ambit of what is contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. To my mind, that is an over simplification of the law because we have on record that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- did not represent a loan or any other head but that it was precisely the amount of dowry or unpaid dowry that was being demanded. It would further make no difference whether these demands were before the marriage, at the time of the marriage or even after the marriage as the amount in question constituted a dowry payment. 6. The learned Government Advocate has vehemently submitted that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act having been brought on the statute book in the year 1961, the social menace has not only not been curtailed or reduced but that it is raging in an aggravated form and that this is the main reason for the number of suicide, wife burning and dowry deaths. His submission therefore was that an example will have to be made of the accused in this case by awarding them an enhanced sentence. While the submissions are generally, correct, I also need to take into account what is pointed out by the learned Advocate on the other side namely that Accused No. 1 is 82 years old that as far as Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned that they are agriculturists of modest means and, a Court is required to take into consideration the status of the parties and all other relevant considerations while quantifying the degree of punishment. 7. For the reasons already indicated, the order of conviction recorded against the mother Accused No. 2 by the trial Court is set aside and it is directed that she be acquitted of the said charges. The fine, if paid by Accused No. 2 is directed to be refunded to her and the bail bond of Accused No. 2 to stand cancelled. 8. The fine, if paid by Accused No. 2 is directed to be refunded to her and the bail bond of Accused No. 2 to stand cancelled. 8. As far as Accused No. 1 is concerned, purely in consideration of the fact that he is a man of advanced age, the jail sentences awarded to him by the trial Court are reduced to the period already undergone but the fine and the in default sentence are maintained. 9. As far as Accused No. 5 is concerned, it is necessary to draw a distinction as far as the roles attributed to him are concerned and consequently, since the dominant accused are Accused Nos. 3 and 4, it is similarly directed that Accused No. 5 is concerned, though the convictions under both the Sections awarded to him by the trial Court are maintained that the sentence shall be limited to that undergone by him though the fine and the in default sentences are maintained. 10. Coming to the cases of the husbands Accused Nos. 3 and 4, I do propose to make a distinction between these accused and the jail sentence as also the fine awarded by the trial Court is maintained as far as Accused No. 3 is concerned. This Court needs to take note of the fact that Accused No. 4 is the husband of deceased Prabhavathi and the fact that she was driven to suicide grossly aggravates the situation as far as Accused No. 4 alone is concerned, the State Appeal for enhancement is allowed to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) is concerned shall be enhanced to two years rigorous imprisonment and the fine shall be maintained. 11. With these modifications, both the Criminal Appeals which partially succeed have been disposed of. The bail bonds of the accused to stand cancelled.