JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Mohan Singh and is wife Piar Kaur have been convicted under section 306 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 6.7.1991 and have been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. 2. It may be noted here that Mohan Singh appellant has since died. There is a report to this effect by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. Photostat copy of the death certificate is also attached with the report. The State counsel has also confirmed this fact. Consequently, the present appeal qua Mohan Singh appellant stands abated and survives qua Piar Kaur only. 3. Piar Kaur at the time of registration of the case was of the age of 60 years. She is now about 73 years of age. Jaswinder Kaur who was married to Amarjit Singh son of the present appellant is the deceased in this case. 4. The case of the prosecution in short is that Amarjit Singh has gone out of India for 13 years and he had come to India only two times during that period. The case of the prosecution further is that Mohan Singh (since dead) and Piar Kaur the appellant herein were maltreating Jaswinder Kaur and were asking her to go to her parents house. She was also turned out 3/4 times in this regard. The prosecution case further goes that Amarjit Singh her husband had come from foreign about two months before the occurrence and had got written a document from Jaswinder Kaur regarding dissolution of marriage on the pretext that those documents were required for the purpose of passport and left Jaswinder Kaur at her parents house and two weeks prior to the occurrence Amarjit Singh left India. The parents of Jaswinder Kaur when came to know about the divorce papers, went to the house of the present appellant and asked them to keep Jaswinder Kaur but they refused. A Panchayat was also convened in this regard and on persuasion of Panchayat, Jaswinder Kaur was left in the house of her in-laws. However, on the fourth day, she committed suicide. Piara Singh brother of Jaswinder Kaur made statement Ex.PA to the police on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded. 5. A Panchayat was also convened in this regard and on persuasion of Panchayat, Jaswinder Kaur was left in the house of her in-laws. However, on the fourth day, she committed suicide. Piara Singh brother of Jaswinder Kaur made statement Ex.PA to the police on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded. 5. After the completion of investigation, the present appellant and her husband were booked in this case. They were charged under section 306 Indian Penal Code. 6. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the present appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly concedes that he does not assail the impugned judgment and instead has prayed for a sympathetic lenient view qua the present appellant. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appellant is aged 73/74 years. She remained in custody for one months. She has also lost her husband in 1999 as is clear from the death certificate; she is suffering from many ailments and as such her case calls for taking a lenient view in regard to quantum of sentence. 9. Mr. Hundal further states that although he has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits but one factor may be considered as one of the mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant with regard to quantum of sentence that the husband of the appellant had also executed a sale deed in favour of Jaswinder Kaur (since deceased) parting with some portion of the land falling in the share of her husband who was staying abroad. 10. Learned State counsel has refused the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the present appellant does not deserve any leniency as she alongwith her husband Mohan Singh had been torturing her daughter-in-law for a pretty long time and ultimately she was force to commit suicide. He then contends that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant which would call for indulgence of this Court with regard to sentence part. 11. He then contends that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant which would call for indulgence of this Court with regard to sentence part. 11. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits yet I have scanned the entire evidence and I am of the view that the present appellant is rightly convicted for the charge framed against her. I also uphold the conviction of the appellant. 12. However, after giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the time elapsed (13 years) in hearing the present appeal; the time elapsed between the marriage and the death of Jaswinder Kaur; the age of the present appellant; and the fact that she has lost her husband just three years back, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of the present appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by her. My view in this regard is strengthened by a latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Mohd. Hoshan and another v. State of A.P., 2002 AIR SCW 3795. In Mohd. Hoshans case (supra) the mother-in-law who was convicted under sections 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code and was of the age of 60 years, her sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. She had undergone about two months. In the said case, the incident had taken place in 1988 and the appeal was decided in September, 2002. The girl had died within a year of the marriage. The allegations were of dowry demand. 13. The present incident is also 13 years old. Jaswinder Kaur died after 13 years of the marriage. The bone of contention in the present case was that her husband wanted to get rid of her and for that purpose divorce papers were got signed from her by her husband. All these factors have weighed in my mind collectively in granting the above said relief to the appellant as her further incarceration would be uncalled for and as such the period of substantive sentence already undergone (one month) is justified. Ordered accordingly. No other point has been urged before me. As a sequel to the above said discussion, the present appeal stands dismissed, however, with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above. Appeal dismissed.