JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The Criminal Revision has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 25th of November, 1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj in Criminal Appeal No 24 of 1980 confirming the judgment dated 19th January, 1990 passed by Shri A.P. Sahoo, Assistant Sessions Judge, Udala in S.T. No 11/78 of 1989 convicting the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The peti¬tioner was not found guilty under Sections 304-B/306/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted of the said charges. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the appellant and his father Bhaskar Pradhan faced trial under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/201/34 IPC on the allegation that on 18th January, 1989 they subjected jayanti Pradhan, wife of the appellant and daughter-in-law of said Bhaskar Pradhan to cruelty which compelled her to commit suicide by taking oliander seed. Admittedly the death occurred within seven years of marriage of Jayanti Pradhan. From the statements made in the FIR it is revealed that deceased Jayanti was subjected to cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry. Admittedly the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs about three years prior to the date of occur¬rence. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born. On the basis of the FIR, Ext. 1, G.R. Case No./15 of 1989 was registered which was subsequently converted to S.T. No. 11/78 of 1989. 3. To substantiate the prosecution case, thirteen witnesses were examined, out of whom P.W.1 was the informant and father of the victim. P.W.2 Sumamani Rout was the mother of the victim. P.W. 8 Paramananda Rout was the brother of the victim. P.W.12 Mardaraj Mishra was the investigating officer who took up the preliminary investigation and P.W.13 Padmanav Kar was the Inspec¬tor of Police who was the main investigating officer. He conduct¬ed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.3 Rukmani Sahu, P.W.4 Satrughna Rout, P.W.5 Rasananda Rout, P.W.6 Nityananda Rout, P.W.7 Sukasini Rout, P.W.9 Basistha Parida, P.W.10 Sridhar Parida and P.W.11 Nisakara Pradhan who were outsiders were also examined to sub¬stantiate the prosecution case. 4. He conduct¬ed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.3 Rukmani Sahu, P.W.4 Satrughna Rout, P.W.5 Rasananda Rout, P.W.6 Nityananda Rout, P.W.7 Sukasini Rout, P.W.9 Basistha Parida, P.W.10 Sridhar Parida and P.W.11 Nisakara Pradhan who were outsiders were also examined to sub¬stantiate the prosecution case. 4. Apart from the oral evidence, prosecution also exhibited seven documents in support of its case. 5. The plea of the petitioner was complete denial and it was submitted that the case had been falsely foisted against him and his father and that at no point of time the accused had tortured the deceased or exhibited any cruelty towards her, It was further stated that after their marriage, the petitioner and his wife, the deceased, had a blissful married life and a belated FIR was filed at the behest of some enemies of the accused. In support of its case, defence examined two witnesses and exhibited two docu¬ments. 6. The trial Court after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that deceased Jayanti was the legally married wife of petitioner Laxmidhar that their marriage took place three years prior to the date of occurrence and that a female child was born out of their wedlock. After discussing the oral evidence, the trial Court also arrived at the conclusion that there was no material to reveal that accused Bhaskar Pradhan had any time harassed, ill treated subjected Jayanti to cruelty and/or demanded any dowry. The trial Court, however, was con¬vinced on the basis of the materials available on record that after the marriage, petitioner Laxmidhar subjected deceased Jayanti to cruelty and harassment and demanded dowry. According¬ly, the trial Court held petitioner Laxmidhar guilty under Sec¬tion 498-A IPC while finding accused Bhaskar Pradhan not guilty under the said Section. 7. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 besides that of other witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the morning of the date of occurrence the petitioner had assaulted deceased Jayanti with an ‘amari’ stick and further held that such assault could neither cause death, nor was the cause of death. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial Court found that there were no materials to hold that any of the ac¬cused were liable under Section 304-B IPC. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial Court found that there were no materials to hold that any of the ac¬cused were liable under Section 304-B IPC. 8. On the basis of the materials available, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in fact deceased Jayanti had commit¬ted suicide by consuming oliander seed. The trial Court also disbelieved the allegation of any offence having been committed under Section 201 IPC. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution partly succeeded to prove its case against accused-petitioner Laxmidhar and accordingly found him guilty only under Section 498-A IPC and convicted him there under. Petitioner laxmidhar was found not guilty of the charges under Sections 304-B/306/201/34 IPC and was acquitted of the said charges. The trial Court also found accused Bhaskar not guilty of the charge under Section 498-A/304-B/306/201/34 IPC and acquitted him of all the charges under Section 235(1) CrPC. After hearing arguments on the question of sentence the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 only, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 9. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1990. The learned Sessions judge, mayurbhanj after a thorough discussion of the evidence and other materials confirmed the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The said judgments are impugned in the present Criminal Revision. 10. I have heard Mr. S. D. Das, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner, and the learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the evidence of witnesses and other materials available on record. 11. Mr. Das forcefully submitted that there is no iota of inde¬pendent evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. It was also submitted that there was no reason or occasion for the petitioner to demand any dowry after a lapse of three years of marriage. Mr. 11. Mr. Das forcefully submitted that there is no iota of inde¬pendent evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. It was also submitted that there was no reason or occasion for the petitioner to demand any dowry after a lapse of three years of marriage. Mr. Das contended that the petitioner and his deceased wife had a blissful married life and were blessed with a daughter and that due to certain extraneous reasons deceased Jayanti committed suicide by taking oliander seed and the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be guilty for the death of the deceased who was very sentimental in nature. Mr. Das submitted that most of the prosecution witnesses are relatives and the Courts below acted illegally and with material irregular¬ity in relying upon the statements of such witnesses. There was no independent statement to connect the petitioner with the crime and it is a fit case where the Criminal Revision should be al¬lowed and the petitioner to be acquitted. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction submitting that the offence of sub¬jecting a wife to cruelty and torture can only be witnessed by the members of the family and relatives and no outsider, special¬ly in an orthodox family in a remote village would have any access to the house to witness an offence of this nature being committed by a husband. According to the learned counsel for the State, both the Courts below have analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, in extenso and the order of conviction and sentence passed thereunder are just and proper. He further sub¬mitted that after holding the petitioner guilty, the Courts acted liberally by sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for three years only and in view of the nature of offence and its effect on the society, the sentence should have been exemplary and it is a fit case where the sentence should be enhanced. 13. After hearing learned counsel for both sides in the light of their arguments I once again scrutinised the evidence on record. P.W.8 was the brother of the deceased. He had gone to the village of the deceased. It was deposed by him in Court that in his presence the petitioner had demanded dowry and did not allow his sister, the deceased, to accompany him to his village. P.W.8 was the brother of the deceased. He had gone to the village of the deceased. It was deposed by him in Court that in his presence the petitioner had demanded dowry and did not allow his sister, the deceased, to accompany him to his village. It was further stated by him that the deceased had expressed the help¬less condition of her parents and their financial stringency and also insisted to go to her parents’ house for which the petition¬er became enraged and assaulted her with an ‘Amari’ stick in presence of P.W.8. The evidence of P.W.8 was criticised only on the ground that he is a young boy. But then after going through the evidence, I find no infirmity in his statement. Though P.W.8 was subjected to vigorous cross-examination, no contradictory statement could be elicited from him. 14. The most crucial and interesting episode in the case was that even after death of Jayanti, her father P.W.1 was not in¬formed. On hearing the news from others. P.W.1 rushed to the village of the petitioner and found his daughter’s dead body being placed on burning pyre. Such action throws a cloud of suspicion. Be that as it may, as has been rightly found by both the Courts below, the death of the deceased had occasioned due to consuming poison by the deceased herself, and it could not be attributed to the petitioner. But the fact remains, Jayanti, the married wife of the petitioner, met with an unnatural death within a period of three years of her marriage. Enough materials are there on record which reveal that Jayanti was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, the petitioner. The evi¬dence of P.W.8 and that of other witnesses also reveal that the petitioner had been demanding dowry. To add to the aforesaid facts, the oral evidence further reveals that the petitioner had illicit relationship with another woman and was always threaten¬ing the deceased to marry the said other lady unless she (Jayanti) brought some money towards dowry. 15. Mr. Das, criticising the aforesaid evidence, submitted that the said facts are based only on hearsay evidence and no cogent materials are available on record. 15. Mr. Das, criticising the aforesaid evidence, submitted that the said facts are based only on hearsay evidence and no cogent materials are available on record. It is further submitted that after the death of the petitioner’s wife, the daughter born to them is under the care and custody of the petitioner and if the petitioner is made to suffer the imprisonment, the said daughter will be neglected as there would be no one in the family to look after her. 16. In view of such submission and after going through the records, I find that the occurrence took place in the year 1989 and after such a long lapse of time it would not be equitable to direct the petitioner to suffer imprisonment, especially when the materials do not clearly and unambiguously prove the prosecution case. On a cumulative assessment of all the facts and circum¬stances as also the evidence, both oral and documentary, while affirming the findings arrived at by the Courts below, I modify the sentence by sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, I enhance the fine from Rs. 500.00 to Rs.3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred). Out of the said amount Rs.3,500.00, a sum of Rs.3,000.00 (three thousand) shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the daughter of the petitioner for ten years. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Criminal Revision is thus partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.