Judgment V. M. Jam, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by accused appellants Jagram alias Jaggu and Smt. Bhagwani, against the judgment and order dated 19.9.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, convicting the accused appellants under Sec.304-B IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 10 years each for the said offence under Sec.304-B IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.5.1994 at 3.30 p. m. Harphul Singh PW had made statement Exhibit PC before SI Sukhbir Singh SHO, at Sisana Adda. In the said statement, it was alleged by Harphul Singh PW that he was a resident of New Roshanpura Nazafgarh, Delhi and was running a shop at Delhi and that they were four brothers and he was the youngest and that he had three sisters of whom Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo deceased was the youngest and was aged 24 years and it was alleged that the marriage of Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo deceased had taken place five years back with accused Jagram alias Jaggu and that in the said marriage they had given sufficient dowry as per their capacity but accused Jagram alias Jaggu and his mother Bhagwani accused were not satisfied with the said dowry and since then both the accused had been harassing his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo deceased for having brought insufficient dowry. It was alleged that in the year 1990, he had given Rs.4000.00 to accused Jagram, but in spite of that whenever his sister used to come to their house, she used-to tell them that her mother-in-law Bhagwani and her husband Jagram were compelling her to bring TV and fridge. It was alleged that about 20 days back, his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had come to their house at Nazafgarh and had told him that her mother-in-law Bhagwani and her husband Jagram. accused had told her that whenever she would come to their house, she must bring scooter from her mother and her brothers otherwise, they would continue harassing her. accused had told her that whenever she would come to their house, she must bring scooter from her mother and her brothers otherwise, they would continue harassing her. It was alleged that his sister stayed with him for about 15 days and that on 11.5.1994 accused Jagram alias Jaggu had come to their house and he had assured him (hat he would give him scooter within 15 days and that he should not harass his sister, whereupon accused Jagram alias Jaggu took his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo with him to his village Mauzam Nagger but in spite of that both the accused, namely, Bhagwani and Jagram alias Jaggu continued harassing Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo for not bringing scooter and TV and it was further alleged that on that day i. e. on 17.5.1994, he (Harphul Singh) was present in his house when Tariff Singh and Molar, residents of Mauzam Nagger told him that his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had fallen in the well and had died, whereupon he along with Mehar Singh Media Ram and Dull Chained, resident of Nazafgarh came to village Mauzam Nagger and they found the dead body of his sister Smt. Daya-wanti alias Premo lying near the well. It was alleged that his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had committed suicide by jumping into the well on account of harassment used to her by accused Jagram alias Jaggu and Smt. Bhagwani for having brought insufficient dowry. SI Sukhbir Singh SHO, after recording the aforesaid Statement Exhibit IC of Harphul Singh PWS, sent the same to the Police Station with his endorsement Exhibit PC/i on the basis of which formal FIR Exhibit PC/2 was recorded in Police Station Kharkhoda at 4.15 p. m. on i7.5.1994 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. SI Sukhbir Singh had gone to the place of occurrence and had prepared inquest report Exhibit PB and had also prepared rough site plan Exhibit P1 of the place of occurrence. He also sent the dead body for post mortem examination through police constable Jagbir Singh. On 23.5.1994 ASI Ram Chander arrested accused Bhagwani while accused Jagram alias Jaggu was arrested on 25.5.1994. After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court. 3. Both the accused were charged under Sec.304-B IPC to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced its evidence. On 23.5.1994 ASI Ram Chander arrested accused Bhagwani while accused Jagram alias Jaggu was arrested on 25.5.1994. After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court. 3. Both the accused were charged under Sec.304-B IPC to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced its evidence. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Sec.313 Cr. P. C were recorded of the accused under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. were recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations against them and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. In their defence accused Jagram alias Jaggu himself appeared in the witness box as DW1 while accused Smt. Bhagwani herself appeared in the witness box as DW2. They also examined DW3 Bhag Singh, DW4 Santra, DW5 Lichho, DW6 Jee Ram and DW7 Dharam Singh. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as stated above, vide judgment and order dated 19.9. i995. Aggrieved against the same, both the accused filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted before me that no offence under Sec.304-B IPC was made out against the accused appellants. It was submitted that the marriage had taken place about five year prior to the present occurrence and it was not proved on the record that the deceased was harassed by the accused appellants on account of insufficient dowry. It was further submitted that in any case, so far as accused appellant Bhagwani is concerned, in offence under Sec.304-B IPC was made against her, considering that the only demand allegedly made by the accused was for scooter and it could not be said that Smt. Bhagwani was the beneficiary and as such accused Smt, Bhagwani is entitled to be acquitted. With regard to accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu, it was submitted that in case his conviction is upheld, it is a fit case where leniency be shown on the question of sentence. 7. With regard to accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu, it was submitted that in case his conviction is upheld, it is a fit case where leniency be shown on the question of sentence. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court had rightly convicted accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu for the offence under Sec.304-B IPC and no fault could be found with the same. PW2 Harphul Singh (brother of the deceased) and PW3 Mehar Singh (cousin of the deceased) had fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the manner in which accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu (husband of the deceased) had been harassing the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry in the form of scooter. Nothing has come on the record to discard the testimony of these two witnesses about the harassment of the deceased by accused appellant Jagram. As referred to above PW2 Harphul Singh, is the real brother of the deceased while PW3 Mehar Singh is the cousin of the deceased. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length but during their cross- examination nothing useful could be brought out by the defence. So far as defence version is concerned, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court had rightly not placed any reliance on the defence evidence. As referred to above DW1 Jagram alias Jaggu and DW2 Bhagwani are the accused and they had appeared as their own witnesses in their defence. The testimony of DW1 Jagram accused, that he had always kept the deceased with full love and affection, in my opinion cannot be accepted, considering that he had failed to explain the circumstances under which his wife Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had committed suicide by jumping into the well. Even DW2 Smt. Bhagwani accused had failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had committed suicide by jumping into the well. Her testimony that accused Jagram had never harassed Smt. Premo on account of demand of dowry, in my opinion, also cannot be accepted. So far as the testimony of DW3 Bhag Singh is concerned, the same is neither here nor there and is not relevant. Her testimony that accused Jagram had never harassed Smt. Premo on account of demand of dowry, in my opinion, also cannot be accepted. So far as the testimony of DW3 Bhag Singh is concerned, the same is neither here nor there and is not relevant. So far as DW4 Smt. Santro and DW5 Smt. Lichho are concerned, in my opinion, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of these witnesses when they stated that Smt. Premo deceased had never disclosed to them about any harassment by the accused and the deceased had been telling them that she was being kept nicely by the accused. Nothing has come on the record to show as to on what account the deceased had committed suicide by jumping into the well. Similarly, the statement of DW6 Jeet Ram is of no significance and the accused cannot take any benefit from the said statement. So far as DW7 Dharam Singh Sarpanch is concerned, in my opinion, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of this witness. He is the Sarpanch of village Mauzam Nagger i. e. the village of the accused and had simply stated that the complainants side was satisfied with the death of deceased, and about the innocence of the accused but later on a false case was got registered by them. He is the uncle of the accused and he himself admitted that one Medi is the uncle of Harphul PW and he is married with the sister of Kartar Singh Ex-Sarpanch and that he had enmity with said Kartar Singh and that Medi had instigated Harphul Singh for lodging this case. In my opinion, the statement of DW7 Dharam Singh is not worthy of any reliance. 8. From the testimony of PW2 Harphul Singh and PW3 Mehar Singh, in my opinion, it stands established on the record that the deceased was being harassed by accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu (husband) on account of insufficient dowry (scooter) and on account of the said harassment, she had committed suicide. As referred to above Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had died within seven years of her marriage and she was being harassed by accused appellant Jagram (husband) on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and as such accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu had rightly been convicted for the offence under Sec.304-B IPC. 9. As referred to above Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had died within seven years of her marriage and she was being harassed by accused appellant Jagram (husband) on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and as such accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu had rightly been convicted for the offence under Sec.304-B IPC. 9. With regard to accused appellant Smt. Bhagwani (mother-in- law), in my opinion, she is entitled to the benefit of doubt, considering that the deceased was being harassed by accused Jagram on account of non-fulfilment of his demand of dowry in the form of scooter and as such, it could not be said that accused Smt. Bhagwani was beneficiary in respect of the said demand of scooter. PW2 Harphul Singh complainant himself stated during his examination-in-chief that in May, 1994 Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo had come to their house and had told him that a scooter was being demanded by the accused and that on 11.5.1995 when accused Jagram had come to take her with him, he had told him that he will arrange a scooter very soon and that he should not maltreat her and thereupon the accused took her with him. Even in the statement Exhibit PC made by Harphul Singh complainant, it was stated that his sister Smt. Dayawanti alias Premo deceased had told him that demand of scooter was being made. Thus, it would be clear that primarily it was on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of scooter that deceased was being harassed by the accused side. In my opinion, accused; appellant Bhagwani (mother-in-law of the deceased) could not be said to be a beneficiary in respect of the scooter, which was required by accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu. 10. In Jal Singh V/s. State of Haryana, it was held by this Court that the demand was of scooter and the beneficiary of the same could only be accused appellant Jai Singh (husband of the deceased), Similarly in Madan Lal V/s. State of Punjab, it was found by this Court that only Madan Lal (husband) was the beneficiary of the alleged demand and as such while upholding his conviction, the other accused; were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. Similar is the position in Jagroop Singh V/s. State of Punjab. Similar is the position in Jagroop Singh V/s. State of Punjab. In the present case, as referred to above, it is the categorically case of the prosecution that the demand was for a scooter and as such, in my opinion, it could certainly be said that only accused Jagram alias Jaggu, being the beneficiary, the other accused Smt. Bhagwani (mother-in-law of the deceased) can certainly be given benefit of doubt as she is not beneficiary in respect of the demand for scooter. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, she is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Sec.304-B. IPC. 11. Coming on the question of sentence, the occurrence in this case took place on 17/5/1994. More than 10 years have passed since then. The appeal is pending in this Court for the last more than nine years. In Jai Singh V/s. State of Haryana (supra), the sentence was reduced from RI for ten years to RI For seven years where the occurrence had taken place about five years back. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be fully met in case the sentence awarded to accused appellant Jagram alias Jaggu is reduced from ten years RI to RI for seven years. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed, accused appellant Smt. Bhagwani is acquitted of the charge framed against her, whereas while upholding the conviction of the accused- appellant Jagram alias Jaggu for the offence under Sec.304-B IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced from ten years RI to RI for seven years. Appeal partly allowed.