JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2000 by Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in ST. 8 (ST/B) 2000 convicting the Appellant under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. 2. On 1.4.1999 Saraswati Gope, wife of the Appellant herein Sri Priya Lal Gope, committed suicide by hanging from a tree putting an end on her marital life after a period of 12 years. She gave birth to three children one of whom is no more. According to the prosecution version her life in the matrimonial home was not peaceful. Since the birth of her first child her life entered into a new chapter of regular persecution by her husband who became cruel and tortured her physically and mentally. Many a time she was unable to bear the torture and had to leave the marital home. But her relatives and village elders persuaded her to return to the marital fold. In the turbulence of the period punctuated by mounting cruelty she gave birth to two more children with her sufferings unabated. Finally she found the escape route successfully hanging her from a tree. 3. Her father Sudhangshu Majumder (P.W. 4) lodged the complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia on 3.4.1999 which was directed to be investigated by police. The case was registered under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The close neighbours of the accused-husband unequivocally stated that the deceased was subjected to torture by the husband almost regularly and on several occasions she was forced to take shelter in her parents' house. She disclosed to them that cruelty of her husband was getting intensified and it was difficult for her to survive. He implored them to save her. They, however, consoled her but expressed their helplessness advising her to take help of her parents. The version of her father and brother shows that there was a demand by the persecutor for money which she was unable to bring from her parents. This version of dowry demand has not, however, been supported by the neighbours who strongly testified to the factum of torture. Even two days before the suicide she was severely assaulted by the Appellant. 4. This version of dowry demand has not, however, been supported by the neighbours who strongly testified to the factum of torture. Even two days before the suicide she was severely assaulted by the Appellant. 4. The investigation definitely ended to a charge sheet and during trial the witnesses remained unequivocally corroborating each other that a systematic and regular torture brought about the end of the deceased. The death was suicidal, as opined by the medical officer (P.W. 13). The only question before the Court was whether the Appellant husband was responsible for abetting the suicide. A perusal of the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 firmly establish the prosecution version that the deceased was brutally tortured by her husband almost regularly. Even immediately before the suicide she was subjected to torture. Thus the learned trial Court had no difficulty to find the Appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A Of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the Appellant centered his argument only on the quantum of sentence on the ground that the two children would be left to uncertainty of food and shelter if the Appellant has to remain in prison for a period of five years. A prayer for release of the convict Appellant on probation could not be considered having regard to the maximum punishment provided in Section 306 of the IPC. Section 306 provides that an abettor to suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 498A IPC provides that husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine. Mr. Bhowmik has urged to consider the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly that of the minor children who are now in the care of the Appellant, and release the Appellant either on probation or to reduce the sentence to a minimum period. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. has made a submission that the circumstances explained by Mr. Bhowmik deserves leniency towards the sentence part, though the conviction has to be upheld. 6. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. has made a submission that the circumstances explained by Mr. Bhowmik deserves leniency towards the sentence part, though the conviction has to be upheld. 6. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the submission advanced I am of the considered view that the judgment impugned has nothing to interfere. The conviction is on terra firma. A bare perusal of the deposition of the witnesses who were all close neighbours of the Appellant, would lead to the irresistible conclusion that cruelty by the husband on regular basis forced the wife to commit suicide. Therefore, both the punishments under Sections 306 and 498A are said to have been well proved. 7. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court stands upheld. As regards the sentence, condition of the children are to be taken into account, as rightly submitted by Mr. Bhowmik. It has been oft quoted that social justice should sometimes be allowed to transcend legal justice when the consequences which may be-fall on the dependants of the convict in case of long incarceration is given due weightage. As the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent are also unanimous to the need of considering the situation which the children would face as a result of long imprisonment of the convict, I am of the considered view that a period of one year's imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and six months' imprisonment under Section 498A IPC shall meet the ends of justice. The sentence under the aforesaid provisions imposed by the learned trial Court shall thus stand reduced and the reduced sentence shall run concurrently after setting off the period, if any, already suffered. The part of the sentence relating to fine is, however, up held. 8. Subject to the modification of the sentence aforementioned this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed