Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The prosecution story is that the appellant-accused maltreated Smt. Mohini Devi @ Lalita Rani. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and gambling. He kept demanding money from the parents of the deceased and sometimes from the deceased. Sometimes, he demanded Rs. 100/- and sometimes Rs. 200/- from them. The appellant sold all ornaments of the deceased. 2. On October 9, 1987 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellant-accused gave 3-4 slap blows to Smt. Mohini Devi @ Lalita Rani, PW-12 Mahabir Singh, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, stopped him. 3. After sometime, PW-11 Smt. Kanta Rani came at the place of occurrence and saw that the deceased was being burnt by the appellant-accused. She extinguished the fire. 4. The deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar where she was examined by PW-1 Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Sharma on October 9, 1987 at 12.00 (noon). 5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PW-1 Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Sharma, PW-2 Dr. K.K. Arora, PW-3 Dr. Bimal Kumar Prinja, PW-4 Shri Ranjan Photographer, PW-5 Sub Inspector Gurdev Singh, PW-6 Inspector Narinder Singh, PW-7 Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Kishan, PW-8 Head Constable Jagir Singh, PW-9 Constable Raj Pal, PW-10 Balkar Singh, PW-11 Smt. Kanta Rani, PW-12 Mahabir Singh, PW-13 Madan Lal, PW-14 Jagdish Lal, PW-15 Kosh Raj, PW-16 Nand Lal and PW-17 Sub Inspector Parmal Singh. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the trial Court and the statements of the witnesses. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that PW-17 Parmal Singh, Sub Inspector had in connivance with PW-13 Madan Lal, father of the deceased, foisted a false case on the appellant and the investigation was dishonest. PW-17 Parmal Singh, Sub Inspector, was not competent to take over the investigation from PW-7 Ram Kishan, Assistant Sub Inspector. PW-7 Ram Kishan, Assistant Sub Inspector had reported that it was a case of bursting of a stove. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further stated that deceased Mohini Devi @ Lalita Rani had given birth to five children. Out of them, four had died. If she was maltreated and was not kept properly in the house, she could not have given birth to five children. It shows that she was kept well and both, the appellant and the deceased had good relations. Out of them, four had died. If she was maltreated and was not kept properly in the house, she could not have given birth to five children. It shows that she was kept well and both, the appellant and the deceased had good relations. He has further stated that there is discrepancy in the statement of PW-13 Madan Lal. There is an improvement in his statement which had times, is contradicting the First Information Report. It has come in evidence that the appellant accused put off the fire, which was burning on the body of the deceased; put her in a rickshaw and took her to the hospital. He informed his in-laws. If there was any wrong act done by the accused appellant, which would have put the deceased on fire, then he would not have extinguished the fire or would not have taken her to the hospital. 9. Learned Counsel for the State has stated that the statements made by PW-11 Smt. Kanta Devi, who is the neighbourer of the deceased along with PW-13 Madan Lal, an eye-witness to the occurrence, have gone unshattered. 10. In view of the above discussion. The sentence awarded to the appellant is on the higher side. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine will remain intact. 11. With the above modifications in the matter of sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal is dismissed.