Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Pritpal Singh, his wife gurcharan Kaur, his son Arvinder Singh and daughter Gurpreet Kaur were charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, jalandhar under Sec.304b of the Indian penal Code for the death of Varinder Kaur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that Varinder Kaur daughter of Jagjit Singh, resident of village Jalalabad was married to Arvinder Singh in November, 1990. After the marriage; the couple lived in Guru Ravi Dass Nagar, Jalandhar with the parents and sister of Arvinder singh appellant. The couple used to sleep in the upper portion of the house and on 19.9.1991, at about 8.00 a. m. , Arvinder singh had left for the College where he was teaching. At about 9.00 a. m. , Varinder Kaur had gone upstairs but when she did not come down till 1.00 p. m. Pritpal Singh thought that she had gone to sleep and gurcharan Kaur went upstairs to ask her to join them for lunch. The mother-in-law found the door of the room bolted from inside and when on knocking she got no response, Gurcharan Kaur came down and informed Pritpal Singh. Pritpal Singh also went upstairs. He tried to open the door and on peeping in through the window, he found the dead body of Varinder Kaur hanging with the ceiling fan. Pritpal Singh approached Charanjit Singh, who was working as an Extension Officer in the All India radio and got sent a telegram to the parents of the deceased. He also approached the police where he got his statement recorded. On reaching the house of pritpal singh, the police sent for a Photographer and in the presence of Charanjit Singh, arvinder Singh etc. , Satish Kumar, Photographer, took the photographs and after bolt of the door was broke open, it was found that Varinder Kaur had tied a Dupatta around her neck and committed suicide. The statements of Pritpal Singh, charanjit Singh, Arvinder Singh, gurcharan Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Piara singh and Manmohan Singh were recorded and post-mortem got done on the dead body of Varinder Kaur. 3. The statements of Pritpal Singh, charanjit Singh, Arvinder Singh, gurcharan Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Piara singh and Manmohan Singh were recorded and post-mortem got done on the dead body of Varinder Kaur. 3. On 20.9.1991, Jagjit Singh, father of the deceased, had moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station, division No. VI, Jalandhar, alleging that even though at the time of wedding of varinder Kaur he had given dowry according to his capacity yet Gurcharan kaur, pritpal Singh and Gurpreet Kaur sister-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied and had developed bad relations with the deceased. After sometime Arvinder Singh had also developed a similar attitude and started raising certain demands in the shape of small articles and money. He also asserted that he had tried to meet the demands but when about a month ago prior to her death, varinder Kaur had visited her parents, she had told them that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding a Maruti car for rehabilitation. Jagjit singh had taken along with him some respectable and requested the in-laws not to harass her as also about their inability to give a Maruti car. They had returned to dharamkot and on 20.9.1991, an employee had told them that Varinder Kaur had died. The case was investigated into and on completion thereof a challan was put in court under Sec.304b of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After going through the papers sent up with the challan, the Ilaqa Magistrate found that the offence disclosed therein was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and he committed the case to the said Court. 5. The trial Court on finding that aprima facie case under Sec.304-B of the Indian penal Code against the appellants has been made out, had framed charge under the aforesaid section to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. When examined under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the appellants, they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. However, pritpal Singh took the following plea: "as already submitted by me, varinder and Arvinder could not pull on together on account of advanced views of Varinder. The husband and wife had mutually decided to divorce each other. However, pritpal Singh took the following plea: "as already submitted by me, varinder and Arvinder could not pull on together on account of advanced views of Varinder. The husband and wife had mutually decided to divorce each other. When she came on 16.9.1991, she clearly told us that she had been compelled by her parents to come to Jalandhar and otherwise, she never wanted to join Arvinder singh. She also expressed her desire to open Beauty Parlour which Arvinder Singh had not allowed. She told us that her father was compelling her to live in her in-laws house as their family had already been defamed in the public due to desertion of her sister harminder Kaur Varinder committed suicide as she was under mental pressure from her parents to live in our house of which she as a matter of fact, she never wanted. I had earlier sent a registered notice to Jagjit Singh as to why they were compelling varinder to live with us when as a matter of fact she never wanted to live with Arvinder. This notice was received by Harminder Kaur. We are absolutely innocent. Story of demand of dowry/maruti car and other dowry articles has been concocted. I am Gazetted officer and drawing salary of Rs.8,000. My entire family has been implicated falsely by Jagjit Singh. When Varinder Kaur returned on 16.9.91 the husband and wife had not resumed cohabitation as husband and wife. On the day of occurrence, Arvinder had gone to phillaur to attend to his duties. When Varinder did not open the door we became suspicious and we checked up through grilled window that Varinder Kaur had committed suicide by hanging herself with a fan, I immediately reported the matter to the police and also sent telegram to Jagjit Singh. I myself brought the police to the spot. My daughter Gurpreet Kaur is minor and is college student and at the relevant time she was away to college. " In defence, the appellants examined nachhattar Singh DW 1, Harpal Singh dw 2, V. K. Ghai DW 3, R. K. Mahajan DW4 and Harminder Kaur DW 5. 7 The trial Court after hearing arguments came to the conclusion that the death was unnatural and had taken place within seven years of the marriage. " In defence, the appellants examined nachhattar Singh DW 1, Harpal Singh dw 2, V. K. Ghai DW 3, R. K. Mahajan DW4 and Harminder Kaur DW 5. 7 The trial Court after hearing arguments came to the conclusion that the death was unnatural and had taken place within seven years of the marriage. It also came to the conclusion that not only evidence regarding varinder Kaur having been subjected to cruelty and harassment had to be accepted but also the material regarding demand of dowry made in the presence of the respectable of the Illaqa. Consequently, it came to the conclusion that the charge against Pritpal Singh, Gurcharan Kaur and arvinder Singh alone was proved as there was no reliable evidence to prove the involvement of the sister-in-law in the perpetration of her co-accused against the deceased. The trial Court, consequently, acquitted gurpreet Kaur and convicted the appellants, namely, Pritpal Singh, gurcharan Kaur and Arvinder Singh under section 304b of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 8. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Pritpal Singh and gurcharan Kaur, his wife have filed Criminal appeal No.270sb of 1993 and Arvinder singh has filed Crl. A. No.375sb of 1993, whereas the complainant too being aggrieved by the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellants had filed Criminal Revision no.101 of 1994 seeking enhancement of the sentence. 9. I have heard Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Assistant Advocate general, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. P. J. S. Hundal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant and propose to dispose of both the appeals and the revision through this judgment. 10. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that though the cause of death of Varinder Kaur is attributable to the deceased having hung herself yet the evidence regarding the deceased having been pressurized to bring more dowry soon before her death cannot be relied upon. 10. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that though the cause of death of Varinder Kaur is attributable to the deceased having hung herself yet the evidence regarding the deceased having been pressurized to bring more dowry soon before her death cannot be relied upon. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage or that soon thereafter Varinder Kaur had been subjected to cruelty and harassment would not per se warrant an inference that a case under Sec.304-B of the Indian penal Code was made out against the appellants. There is evidence on the record to show, that Pritpal Singh had in letter ex. D 13 written to the father of the deceased that it would be in the interest of justice of everyone that Varinder Kaur should be taken away from the matrimonial home as she was developing suicidal tendency. Seen in the light of this, the failure of the appellants to persuade Jagjit Singh to accept the suggestion and the resultant suicide committed by Varinder Kaur would not render them guilty under Sec.304-B of the Indian penal Code and they would maximum be liable under Sec.306 of the Indian penal Code for abetment of suicide and taking into consideration the fact that over fourteen years have passed after the incident and before the final disposal of the appeals, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence imposed on the appellants is modified in a manner in which they do not have to face further incarceration, which modification would do substantial justice between the parties as well as would avoid the upsetting of any additional commitments which the parties might have entered into after 1991. 11. 11. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that all the five ingredients that the prosecution was required to prove, namely: (i) an unnatural death; (ii) within seven years of the marriage; (iii) soon before the death some demand had been made which had precipitated the issue and resulted in the death; (iv) the deceased having been subjected to cruelty and harassment; and (v) for or in connection with any demand of dowry and failure to meet the demand; have all been proved and, therefore, presumption under section 113-B of the Indian evidence Act would be attracted and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under section 304-B of the Indian Penal code has to be upheld. 12 I have carefully considered the arguments and have gone through the file from a perusal of the record, it is evident that after their marriage in November, 1990 all was not well between Varinder Kaur and arvinder Singh. This is inferable from the communication addressed by the deceased to her husband from a perusal whereof it appears that her parents-in-law were not happy with her failure to conceive. From the same, it is also inferable that she had got herself medically checked up and had been told that there was no physical malady present in her which stood in the way after conception. She had, consequently, decided to go back to the matrimonial home. It is this decision which evidently was not appreciated by the members of the family of the appellants and just before the incident she had withdrawn from the place where the rest of the family were sitting and gone to upstairs into her room where she took her own life. There are also certain suggestions on the record that a demand for a maruti car was also being made but whether or not the ultimate decision taken by varinder Kaur was due to the harassment suffered by her on account of the failure of her parents to meet the demand for a car or whether it was attributable to her in-laws finding her return unacceptable, is a matter regarding which no clear verdict can be given. One thing, however, is clear and that is the fact that no effort was evidently made by the members of the family to check up after she had left the place where everyone was sitting to placate her sentiments so as to prevent the precipitation of any untoward incident. In this view of the matter, as there is no sufficient material on the record to prove that there was a demand for a car, it would be but appropriate to accept the ground of challenge put forth by the counsel for the appellants that the case in hand would best be one of abetment of suicide. To this extent alone the appeals have got to be accepted and the appellants are accordingly, convicted under Sec.306 of the indian Penal Code. 13. Coming to the question of sentence, I am of the considered view that but for the callous attitude of the husband and the elders of the family by which they ignored the sentiments expressed by Varinder Kaur and did not make any attempt to defuse the situation by ensuring that she did not lock herself in the room, no substantial modification in the sentence is called for. The ends of justice certainly require that the appellants should undergo an imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000 each failing which they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Ordered accordingly. Except for the above modification, both the appeals and the revision fail and are dismissed.