Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Gurnam Singh husband, Dhram Singh father-in-law, Sukhiwnder Kaur mother-in-law and Balbir Kaur sister-in-law of the deceased Jasbir Singh were tried for committing dowry death of Jasbir Kaur vide judgment dated 9.5.1996, by Sessions Judge, Faridkot convicted them under Section 306/34 IPC and all of them except Balbir Kaur were sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. However, Balbir Kaur was ordered to be released on Probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. The allegations in brief are that Jasbir Kaur was married with Gurnam Singh accused 2-1/2 years prior to the incident. The accused being dissatisfied with dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage, had been harassing and maltreating her. After one year of marriage, having suffered cruelty at the hands of the accused, Jasbir Kaur had left for her parental house where she stayed for 7 or 8 months. However, the dispute was solved with the interventions of the respectables. About 2 months prior to her death, Manohar Singh maternal uncle of the deceased visited to her (in her in-laws house) where Jasbir Kaur disclosed that all the accused were pressurizing her to bring Television and Refrigerator. Ultimately, on 25.4.1994, Dhram Singh accused went to Manohar Singh at Muktsar and told him that Jasbir Kaur had committed suicide by sprinkling diesel. Manohar Singh sent his brother Mohinder Singh to the father of the deceased and he himself along with Kishan Lal reached village Wadian where Jasbir Kaur was found lying dead. At this, Manohar Singh got registered a case against the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were arrested and after necessary investigation, they were challaned. Consequently, they were charged under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta PW-1, Nirmal Singh ASI PW-2, Balkar Singh, ASI PW-3, Chander Mohan HC PW-4, Avtar Singh HC PW-5, Krishan Lal PW-6, Ajit Sharma, Draftsman PW-7, Manohar Singh, Complainant, PW-8, Bahal Singh father of the deceased PW-9, Surinder Singh ASI PW-10. 4. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted their relations inter se and that Jasbir Kaur was married with Gurnam Singh accused about 2-1/2 years prior to her death. The rest of the allegations of the prosecution were denied. 4. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted their relations inter se and that Jasbir Kaur was married with Gurnam Singh accused about 2-1/2 years prior to her death. The rest of the allegations of the prosecution were denied. The accused took up the following plea :- "Bahal Singh is Jat. His wife Pritam Kaur is Arora by caste. They had not married, rather Bahal Singh father of the deceased Jasbir Kaur is living with Pritam Kaur mother of the deceased. They are financially weak and they had been receiving money for the marriage of their daughters and had taken Rs. 7,000/- from us for the marriage of Jasbir Kaur with me. My father had taken loan of Rs. 8,000/- through a pronote from Tara Singh to pay Bahal Singh. There was no question of dowry. Due to the over poverty, nobody was ready to give hand of her daughter to me. We had to pay money as the price of the bribe (bride ?). Bahal Singh and his wife were trying to take Jasbir Kaur from our house in order to give her hand to Narinder Singh, Dewar of his elder daughter. Due to the poverty, the marriage of mine and Jasbir Kaur was performed in Hazi Rattan Gurdwara of Bathinda. The brothers of Pritam Kaur were not on speaking terms with her due to her elopement with Bahal Singh and they never visited her house. Only after the death of Jasbir Kaur they started joining hands with Bahal Singh. Manohar Singh and Mohinder Singh PWs were living in different houses for the last ten years." 5. The accused further took up the plea that Gurnam Singh accused and his wife were living separately from the remaining accused. 6. In defence accused examined, Shri Kirpal Singh DW-1, Shri Tara Singh DW-2, Gurbachan Singh DW-3 and Smt. Veero DW-4. 7. Ultimately on scrutiny of evidence, the trial Court observed as under :- "From the evidence brought on record it is amply established that Jasbir Kaur was treated with cruelty and she was harassed and maltreated on account of the demand of additional dowry by all the four accused and under those circumstances Jasbir Kaur committed suicide by burning herself on 25.4.1994. So certainly all the accused were held guilty of abetting Jasbir Kaur to commit suicide and as such they were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC even if charge was framed against the accused under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC." 8. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of Gurnam Singh but sought some indulgence of this Court on the quantum of sentence on behalf of Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur on the ground that Dharam Singh father-in-law was aged about 66 years and Sukhwinder Kaur was aged about 56 years in the year 1994 when the offence was committed. Now, they must be completing their innings of life. They have already undergone 8 months of the substantive sentence. Arguments heard. Records perused. 9. Krishan Lal PW-6 deposed that Manohar Singh PW is the brother of his wife and about 1-1/4 years prior to the occurrence, Mohinder Singh brother of said Manohar Singh came to him and told that his sisters daughter Jasbir Kaur had died of burns. At this, he went to Manohar Singh at Muktsar where he was told by latter that father-in-law of Jasbir Kaur had come to him and told him about the incident. Then they went to village Wadian and found the dead body of Jasbir Kaur lying in a khola of the house of the deceased. Out of the three accused, only one was present in their house. Manohar Singh PW-8 maternal uncle of the Jasbir Kaur, while unfolding the allegations of dowry, stated that the accused being dissatisfied with the dowry given in her marriage used to harass Jasbir Kaur and compel her to bring more dowry. The accused continued maltreating her despite the fact that Bahal Singh father of the deceased had given one buffalo, one pair of ear rings and clothes to the accused and also placed the demand of Refrigerator and Karha but on the other hand Bahal Singh PW-9 has stated that accused had placed the demand of Television, Refrigerator and golden Karha as additional dowry. 10. 10. On completion of the entire evidence, though it is not completely established that the accused had been raising the demand of dowry yet it is categorically established that accused had been harassing the deceased and created such circumstances that she lost control of herself and could not think of anything else except to get rid of her own life. As such the conviction as awarded by the trial Court against the accused under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is ordered to be maintained. 11. At the same time, I am of the view that it was Gurnam Singh, who was the actual custodian of the deceased and there are direct allegations against him of harassment and cruelty upon the deceased, therefore, there is no good ground to reduce the sentence in his case. 12. Though no arguments regarding reduction of sentence of Gurnam Singh has been urged but he has pleaded for only Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that marriage took place in the year 1992 and the occurrence in the case had taken place on 25.4.1994. Dharam Singh accused father-in-law was about 66 years and Sukhwinder Kaur was about 56 years at that time. Now, they may be completing their innings of life. They have already undergone 8 months of the substantive sentence. In such circumstances, the Apex Court in case Mohd. Hoshan and another v. State of A.P., 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 155 (SC) reduced the sentence to already undergone. Similarly in case Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 133 (P&H), where the girl had committed suicide within six months of the marriage, this Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 306 IPC had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 13. Having considered the aforesaid judgments cited by the counsel for the appellants and circumstances attending upon the case, this court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence qua Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence so as to reduce the same to the period already undergone qua Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. 15. The copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for compliance.