JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J 1. The present appeal has been filed by Hem Karan son of Sher Singh; his brother Udey Singh and two sons of Udey Singh namely Manoj Kumar and Daulat Ram. They were tried in case FIR No. 93 dated 06.05.1996 registered at Police Station Jatusana under Section 306/34 IPC. They were charged by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari that they, on 6th May, 1996 in the area of village Shahadatnagar, abetted suicide of Meena daughter of Pohap Singh and they had committed offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Appellants were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.1997 under Section 306/ 34 IPC and were awarded four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. ASI Inder Singh PW-12 on 6th May, 1996 was present at tea point in the area of police post Nahar, where Pohap Singh (complainant) made a statement (Ex.PA), on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was recorded. It was stated in (Ex.PA) by Pohap Singh (complainant) that he is resident of village Shahadatnagar and is posted as Head Constable in Police Station Beri, District Rohtak in Haryana. He was having a litigation regarding a hurt case with Hem Karan alias Hemla and Udey Singh, sons of Sher Singh and on 15th April, 1996, case was fixed for hearing. On that day, his wife Krishana and other witnesses had gone to the Court for their deposition and when they had returned to the village on that night, Hemla gave abuses to the family members and used bad words with his daughter Meena and in order to insult her, he caught hold of Meena and pushed her. Family members and other residents of the mohalla suggested that no action should be taken as the same pertains to the girl. Therefore, the matter was made to rest there and no report was made to the police. It was further complained that this way, Hemla alias Hem Karan, Udey Singh, Manoj and Daulat Ram, who were his neighbours, one way or the other were taunting his daughter. Therefore, the matter was made to rest there and no report was made to the police. It was further complained that this way, Hemla alias Hem Karan, Udey Singh, Manoj and Daulat Ram, who were his neighbours, one way or the other were taunting his daughter. When she had gone to Gatwar, the girl told her mother that Manoj and Daulat daily taunt her and she is fed up of the taunts. She stated that she is the sister in relation and she cannot tolerate this kind of taunts any more, but she was made to understand by wife of the complainant, her mother, all the times. Yesterday on 5th May, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. the girl had gone to throw garbage. When she was coming back then on the road, Hemla, Udey Singh, Daulat and Manoj met her. Udey Singh stated that Daulat Manoj, see my “Bhocharia” is coming. Then Daulat and Manoj said that she is our “Chachi” (aunt). Hemla stated that ‘she is my wife’, upon which her daughter hearing all this told them that she is their sister or daughter in relation and she started giving them abuses. These things were heard by Jai Narain son of Ganeshi Lal resident of the village. On reaching home, Meena started weeping and disclosed everything to her mother and wife of the complainant and also to the elder brother of the complainant. While weeping, daughter of the complainant stated that she had no right to live and as and when she will get an opportunity, she will commit suicide. On hearing this, wife of the complainant and his elder brother made her understand and told her that they will inform the complainant. She was also advised not to keep anything in her mind because there is a question of prestige in the society and her marriage is to be performed. On 6th May, 1996, family members had gone to the plot, on the tubewell to do their work and at about 9.00 a.m., Meena committed suicide by hanging herself by tying a rope in her neck. It is stated that she committed suicide being fed up of the taunts given by Hemla, Udey Singh, Daulat Ram and Manoj. Dead body of his daughter was hanging when he left Raj Kumar and Jai Narain to get the body and was going to report the matter. It is stated that she committed suicide being fed up of the taunts given by Hemla, Udey Singh, Daulat Ram and Manoj. Dead body of his daughter was hanging when he left Raj Kumar and Jai Narain to get the body and was going to report the matter. ASI met him and he got recorded his statement. 4. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. As stated above, appellants were charged and the trial commenced. Complainant (Pohap Singh) appeared as PW-1. in the Court he stated that on 5th May, 1996 at 5/ 5.30 p.m. Udey Singh accused stated that Meena was his ‘Bodriya’ (younger brother’s wife). Both Daulat and Manoj remarked that she was their ‘Chachi’ (aunt). In cross-examination, he admitted that appellant Hem Karan and Udey are real brothers. Both are married. Manoj and Daulat being sons of Udey are also real brothers. He admitted in cross-examination that his daughter had failed to qualify 10th class examination and she had dropped studies and she was approximately 18 years old. He further stated in cross-examination that on th May, 1996 at 10.00 a.m. he was informed on telephone about the death incident by his nephew Naresh. He further stated in cross-examination that he had received all information from his wife and brother, however Jai Narain had also told him about what he heard regarding the incident or harassment of Meena at the hands of accused, but complainant had never heard and seen with his own eyes. He stated that no panchayat was convened in the village regarding the incident of harassment of his daughter by the accused as it was feared by his people that it shall adversely affect the future life of unmarried girl. He also admitted that there was a litigation regarding landed property between him and the accused from the year 1988 and the matter was subsequently compromised. He also admitted that the case under Section 307 IPC was registered against him at the instance of the accused Hem Karan. He denied the suggestion that his son Darminder has fired a shot with a fire-arm at Hem Karan due to which he remained admitted in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi for treatment. However, he admitted that the accused had named his brother Raj Kumar and witness Jai Narain as accused in that case. Jai Narain PW-2 corroborated the testimony of PW-1, Pohap Singh. However, he admitted that the accused had named his brother Raj Kumar and witness Jai Narain as accused in that case. Jai Narain PW-2 corroborated the testimony of PW-1, Pohap Singh. He was confronted with statement (Ex.DA) regarding what was uttered by the accused as same was not stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3 Dr.Kamal Mehar had conducted autopsy on Meena. He proved post-mortem report (Ex.PC) and opined that cause of the death was hanging, which resulted into asphyxia, which was ante-mortem in nature. PW-4, Raj Kumar stated that on 5th May, 1996 he was present in his house. When he learnt that accused had called Meena by name, then he went there and Meena told him the entire incident. He further stated that he was told by Meena that she was fed up with the behaviour of the accused and would attempt to end her life, upon which he had consoled her. PW-5 Naresh Kumar is a draftsman. PW-6 Constable Gurdial Singh has witnessed the recovery of rope from the scene of suicide. PW-7 ASI Ram Avtar on receipt of statement (Ex.PA), had recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PA/1). PW-8 ASI Tula Ram had arrested all the accused on 10th May, 1996 as he was then posted as SI/ SHO Police Station Jatusana. PW-9 Constable Karan Singh had delivered the special report to CJM, Rewari on 6th May, 1996. PW-10 SI Phool Singh had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Smt.Krishna PW-11 is wife of the complainant, Pohap Singh PW-1 and the mother of deceased Meena. She stated that about three years ago Hem Karan had inflicted injury on her head by a Gandasa and in that case accused was facing trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Rewari. She stated that due to that, her daughter Meena became target of ire and anguish of the accused. On 15th April, 1996, she had gone to depose in the hurt case against the accused that Hem Karan caught hold of her daughter Meena and dragged her into his house and insulted her and the men-folk of her family decided against reporting the matter to the police as honour of unmarried young girl was involved. Then she had narrated the incident dated 5th May, 1996 which has also been narrated by Pohap Singh PW-1. Then she had narrated the incident dated 5th May, 1996 which has also been narrated by Pohap Singh PW-1. She admitted that she was not an eye witness to the dragging incident, but these facts were narrated to her by her daughter Meena. She admitted that there was a land dispute between the accused and her family, but the same was settled. She admitted that accused and her husband are cousins. She admitted that they have betrothed Meena. The engagement continued for 4-5 months but six months before occurrence, the engagement was called off and the boy side had taken away all the jewellery which was gifted to her. PW-12 ASI Inder Singh has investigated the case and recorded the statement (Ex.PA). Thereafter, all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. They denied the same and impleaded false implication. 5. In defence, Constable Ram Pal DW-1 was examined. He proved complaint file pertaining to office of SP Rewari regarding the application dated 05.06.1996 made by Roop Singh to DIG, Rohtak. Roop Chand appeared as DW-2. He stated that Udey Singh is his son in law and Manoj and Daulat are his material grandsons. He stated that on 4th May, 1996, Manoj, Daulat and his daughter had visited his village and he had given an application, which has been proved by DW-1, to DIG Rohtak. Sajjan Singh DW-3 was also examined to prove that in panchayat it was decided that Daulat and Manoj were not present in village Shahadatnagar. Sardar Singh DW-4 was also examined to the same effect. Head Constable Rajpal DW-5 who was then posted as DIG Rohtak, was examined to prove application (Ex.D1) filed by Roop Chand. DW-6 Sri Chand, SS Master proved certificate (Ex.D3), which was issued by the school. D.R.Batra DW-7 from Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi brought the summoned record pertaining to Hem Karan appellant, who was admitted in the Hospital on 25th August, 1996 as a result of fire arm injury. Ahlmad Virender Singh DW-8 produced the complaint case titled Hem Karan v. Pohap Singh. Lakhi Ram DW-9 Head Constable proved FIR No. 172 dated 21.08.1996 for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which was registered at the instance of Hem Karan in which, besides Pohap Singh, his son Dharminder, brother Raj Kumar, Jai Narain and others were named as accused. Ahlmad Virender Singh DW-8 produced the complaint case titled Hem Karan v. Pohap Singh. Lakhi Ram DW-9 Head Constable proved FIR No. 172 dated 21.08.1996 for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which was registered at the instance of Hem Karan in which, besides Pohap Singh, his son Dharminder, brother Raj Kumar, Jai Narain and others were named as accused. DW-10 Jaswant Singh proved the certificate of school (Ex.D2 and D3) to prove the age of Manoj and Daulat. DW-11 Parmanand appeared and stated that Manoj and Daulat were in the house of their grandfather on th May, 1996. 6. I have heard Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the appellants. He, at the very outset, has stated that in the present case, Meena had appeared in the 10th Class and had dropped her studies. Her engagement had been called off six months before the occurrence. Therefore, she was a dejected soul and committed suicide for those reasons and not as alleged by the witnesses. He has stated that Pohap Singh PW-1 was not in the village. It is further stated that whatever has been stated is a hearsay evidence and is not admissible in the evidence as res-gestate is not available for lack of unity of time and action. Pohap Singh PW-1 was not available at the spot in the present case. Furthermore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Jai Narain PW-2 and Raj Kumar PW-4 as Raj Kumar is brother of Pohap Singh and PW-2 Jai Narain is his cousin. It has been further contended that there was litigation between the complainant and the accused. Jai Narain and Raj Kumar had also been named as accused. There was a land dispute also. Even from the prosecution case itself, it is evident that on 15th April, 1996 Krishana had appeared in a hurt case against the accused therefore the allegations after consultations and deliberations have been leveled against the present appellants after deceased Meena had committed suicide. Mr.Aggarwal has further stated that the taunts which are alleged are not sufficient for any prudent person to commit suicide. 7. I have also heard Mr.Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG Haryana. He has stated that sensitivity of a girl, when her prestige and respect is involved and she is maligned and scandalized in a village, is sufficient to commit suicide. Mr.Aggarwal has further stated that the taunts which are alleged are not sufficient for any prudent person to commit suicide. 7. I have also heard Mr.Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG Haryana. He has stated that sensitivity of a girl, when her prestige and respect is involved and she is maligned and scandalized in a village, is sufficient to commit suicide. From the evidence discussed above and the reading of the same the version set out by the witnesses is probable, natural and convincing. All the four witnesses, Pohap Singh PW-1, Jai Narain PW-2, Raj Kumar PW-4 and Krishana PW-11 are truthful as they had not made complaint to any body because the matter involved honour of a girl, who was of marriageable age. 8. In the present case, there is not a solitary instance of 5th May, 1996 which resulted into commission of suicide on 6th May, 1996, but prior thereto also, witnesses have stated that accused were eve-teasing Meena. On 15th April, 1996 also, when Krishana had returned from Court, Meena was caught hold of and she was dragged. Therefore in the whole village, where great value is attached to the honour of the girl, where girls are kept inside houses and are not allowed to mingle in the society, the incident dated 15th April, 1996 was sufficient to malign a girl. Furthermore, each day attempt was made by the accused to browbeat, humiliate and insult the girl only to assert that registration of a criminal case at the instance of her mother had no effect, and they are superior in muscle power and they intended to belittle the girl in the village. In our society, to assert ‘might is right’ is not acceptable. Chain of circumstances reveal that there was a consistent attempt on the part of the accused to hurt the girl of marriageable age. Therefore, abetment on their part to cause suicide of Meena is complete and they are held guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. Merely because there is a litigation, testimony of Pohap Singh PW-1, Jai Narain PW-2, Raj Kumar PW-4 and Krishana PW-11 cannot be brushed aside. 9. Therefore, abetment on their part to cause suicide of Meena is complete and they are held guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. Merely because there is a litigation, testimony of Pohap Singh PW-1, Jai Narain PW-2, Raj Kumar PW-4 and Krishana PW-11 cannot be brushed aside. 9. At the same time, I discard the defence evidence, which has been led by Roop Chand DW-2, maternal uncle of Udey and Daulat to prove that on 4th May, 1996 they were in his village as this evidence is nothing but an attempt to absolve Udey and Daulat. It is settled law that anybody to plead alibi is to prove the same to the hilt. The defence evidence do not aspire confidence and is not free from blemish and has been created as an afterthought. Resultantly, I hold appellants guilty of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 10. In the present case appellants have been awarded four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC. They were arrested on 10th May, 1996. Mr. Aggarwal stated that appellants have undergone about four months of their actual sentence. It has been urged before me that in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1996. Appellants have already suffered protracted trial of more than 12 years. Therefore, they should be leniently dealt with and sentence should be reduced to already undergone. 11. Prayer to reduce the sentence to already undergone cannot be accepted, however taking the protracted trial into account, ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to two and a half years. With these modifications, present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.