( 2 ) AT the out set it may be mentioned that on account of death of Bhoop Singh the appeal stands abated against him. ( 3 ) UNDER challenge is the judgment and order dated 4-7-1988 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, barabanki, acquitting the appellants under Section 306/34 i. P. C. but convicting them under Section 498-A/34 I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each, further convicting them under section 201/34 I. P. C. and sentencing them against Order of Ram Kishore, IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, d/-4-7-1988. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and further convicting them under section 304-B/34 I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case, wrapped in brevity, are that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Ramesh Singh (convict-appellant) three years prior to the incident. Immediately after performance of the marriage the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband used to harass her on account of demand of dowry and ultimately she was done to death on 27-9-1986 and with a view to screen the evidence the dead body was cremated in a haste. ( 5 ) AFTER lodging of the report the investigation was conducted and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. As usual the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of sessions where charges under Section 498-A/34, 302/34 and 201/34. I. P. C. were framed; in the alternative one more charge under Section 306/34 I. P. C. was also framed. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. ( 6 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-P. W. 1 Shatruhan Singh - father of the deceased, p. W. 2 Jagdamba Singh - uncle of the deceased, p. W. 3 Ram Kumar Singh - co-villager, p. W. 4 Rajendra Singh - co-villager, p. W. 5 Investigating Officer. ( 7 ) IN the statement under Section 313 cr. P. C. the factum of marriage was admitted but regarding alleged screening of the evidence it was said that the father and mother of the deceased took part in funeral. ( 7 ) IN the statement under Section 313 cr. P. C. the factum of marriage was admitted but regarding alleged screening of the evidence it was said that the father and mother of the deceased took part in funeral. They were also told that the lady died on account of the cholera and she had a daughter in her lap at the time of death but when they refused their demand to return the ornaments then they implicated them in a false case. In defence one Kailash Singh of the village was examined as D. W. 1. He has deposed to have gone to infom the members of the family of the deceased and he also saw the deceased vomiting on account of her ailment of cholera. ( 8 ) THE learned court below after examining the entire evidence on record and considering the points of arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides convicted the accused persons in the aforesaid manner feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order in question these appeals have been filed by the appellants. ( 9 ) I Have heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri mohd. Azam Siddiqui learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State and perused the entire lower court record. ( 10 ) BEFORE we enter into the merits of the appeals it is worthwhile to mention that there is no quarrel on the point that the provisions of section 304-B, I. P. C. were inserted in the Indian Penal Code vide amendment dated 19-11-1986. The incident in question took place two months prior to that date i. e. on 27-9-1986. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Lokendra Singh v. State of M. P. reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)371 has laid down that if the incident has taken prior to the introduction of Section 304-B the accused cannot be convicted under that section. Earlier also in the case of lakhjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)235 : (1993 AIR SCW 2938) the following observations were made;- "7. The next question is whether an offence under Section 304-B or 306 is made out. Earlier also in the case of lakhjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)235 : (1993 AIR SCW 2938) the following observations were made;- "7. The next question is whether an offence under Section 304-B or 306 is made out. It is true that the accused was tried only under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and it is submitted that question of drawing a presumption attracted under Section 113-A or 113-B does not arise. Section 113-B deals with the presumption of dowry death. In the instant case, taking the medical evidence as such, it can only be held that at the most the prosecution has proved that the death could be suicide and Section 304-B or the presumption under Section 113-B, evidence Act cannot be invoked because section 304-B came into effect only on november, 19, 1986 i. e. much later than when this offence took place. Therefore, we are left with the other offences punishable under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. ( 11 ) THUS section 304-B, I. P. C. has no retrospective effect. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination conviction under Section 304-B, I. P. C. in respect of an incident said to have taken place prior to aforesaid cut of date cannot be upheld. Earlier also this court in the case Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1990 (Shiv Kumar and others v. The State of U. P.) decided on 11th April, 2008 (AFR no. 106 of, 2008) has observed similarly. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants confines his arguments on merit mainly in respect of conviction under Section 304-B read with Section 34, I. P. C. Concededly the incident in question took place prior to the insertion of Section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in view of the law discussed hereinabove this conviction cannot be upheld and to that extent these appeals deserve to be allowed. ( 13 ) IN respect of the conviction made by the learned court below under remaining sections 498-A/34 and 201/34, I. P. C. the learned counsel for the appellants makes the following submissions in respect of quantum of sentence and requests that the sentence may be modified suitably:- (i) The incident took place about 22 years before, (ii) The appellants were on bail during trial and also during pendency of appeal which they never misused and lived as law abiding citizens continuously for such a long period. (iii) They are not previous convicts, (iv) These appeals are pending for the last about 20 years and the appellants have already suffered a lot of mental agony without any fault on their part, (v) Convict father-in-law has already died. (vi) The mother-in-law namely Kewal Pati was 65 years of age at the time of recording statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and over the years she has now attained the age of 85 years and is towards the fag end of her life. (vii) The appellants have already been in jail for about 14 days which has been verified by the learned A. G. A. from record. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the antecedents of the appellants I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentences of the appellants are modified in the following manner:- (a) Under Section 498-A/34, I. P. C.- They are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone, as mentioned above. They are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default three months rigorous imprisonment. (b) Under Section 201/34, I. P. C.-They are sentenced/to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone, as mentioned above. They are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default 6 months, rigorous imprisonment, the amount of fine shall be deposited within two months from today failing which they shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence. It is also provided that as the appellants are on bail, their sureties shall stand discharged on deposit, if any, of the amount of fine. It is also provided that if the entire amount of fine amounting to Rs. 30,000/- is deposited, out of it an amount of Rs. It is also provided that as the appellants are on bail, their sureties shall stand discharged on deposit, if any, of the amount of fine. It is also provided that if the entire amount of fine amounting to Rs. 30,000/- is deposited, out of it an amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the daughter/father/ mother/heirs of the deceased and the rest amout of fine shall go to the State exchequer. ( 15 ) AS mentioned hereinabove the appeal is partly allowed so far it relates to convict under Section 304-B, I. P. C. and aforesaid modifications of sentences in respect of conviction under other sections. Barring the aforesaid modifications the appeal is dismissed. ( 16 ) THE lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below to ensure compliance. Petition partly allowed. .