Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. The Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter described as `the trial Court), vide his judgment dated 1.8.1996, convicted appellant- Parkash Kaur under the provisions of Section 306 of the I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which she was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts of the case are that Kulwant Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh (PW4) made a statement (Ex-PL) before the police, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. was recorded, that her daughter-Kuldip Kaur, who was married to Lakhwinder Singh (son of the appellant) about four months earlier, consumed poison at her in-laws house on 28.4.1995 and committed suicide on account of the mal-treatment meted out to her by the appellant. It was stated that Lakhwinder Singh was living abroad and in his absence, the appellant treated the deceased with cruelty. 3. The police, who had investigated the matter, prima facie found the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the said offence and after submission of challan under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court charged her under Section 306 of the I.P.C. to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. 5. In her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant stated that she was innocent. 6. In defence evidence, DW1-Mastan Singh, DW2-Sant Singh DW3-Harjinder Singh and DW4-Gulzar Singh were examined. 7. After appraisal of the entire evidence before it, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 8. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, at the out-set, contended that without adverting to the merits of the case, his prayer would be confined only to the fact that this Court may take a lenient view of the situation considering the fact that the appellant was 70 years old at the time of recording of her statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and by now, she is around 82 years of age. 9. 9. Initially, the learned counsel for the appellant had expressed his inability to argue the matter in view of the fact that he did not have any information regarding the well-being of the appellant, which was then enquired into by the State and an affidavit of Shri Harpreet Singh Mandher, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, has been filed on its behalf stating therein that the appellant was, indeed, well advanced in age and was not keeping good health as told by the relatives and the residents of the area, who had pointed out that she is not mentally fit and is sick and is residing at Jalandhar with her daughter. The affidavit is taken on record. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the appellant created such circumstances in which the deceased was compelled to take the extreme step of ending her life. Therefore, her conviction as recorded by the trial Court does not require any interference. 11. However, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the appellant is at an advanced stage of her life and is not well and she has already suffered the agony of trial for the last more than twelve years, I am of the opinion that a lenient view in the matter of sentence deserves to be taken. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the following manner :- (i) The conviction of the appellant is maintained. (ii) The sentence as awarded by the trial Court is reduced to that of already undergone by the appellant.