Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1.7.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 498A read with Section 114 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, further imprisonment for one year for the offences under Section 306 read with Section 114 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused No. 1-Kanubhai Premjibhai was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2. The case in brief is that the present appellant-accused No. 1, Umeshbhai Kanubhai is husband of deceased Menaben and appellant-accused No. 2, Champaben Kanubhai is mother-in-law of deceased Menaben. On 2.5.1997, Medical Officer, Gondal, Government Hospital got message that Menaben, wife of Umeshbhai aged 20 years received burn injuries and she was admitted in hospital for treatment. He conveyed the said message to PSO, Gondal Police station on telephoneand entry was made in the station diary and thereupon, Head Constable Jadeja made inquiry. Mr. Jadeja also made arrangement for recording of dying declaration of Menaben by sending necessary yadi to Executive Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration of Menaben and an accidental death was registered being No. 0/97 with Gondal police station. As Menaben succumbed to injuries, inquest panchnama of the body of the deceased was carried out and investigation was handed over to Head Constable Jadeja. As the incident took place within the jurisdiction of Kotda Sangani police station, papers of this case was sent to Gondal City police station for further investigation. During the investigation of accidental death case by Dy. S.P., Bhuria, he made enquiry with mother of deceased Menaben and mother of deceased lodged complaint before him alleging that in-laws of the deceased did not provide her sufficient food as well as she was beaten up by them and deceased Menaben was subjected to mental and physical torture. It is also alleged in the complaint that in-laws of the deceased were constantly taunting at the deceased that she has not brought enough dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint that in-laws of the deceased were constantly taunting at the deceased that she has not brought enough dowry. Because of the physical and mental cruelty committed by the present appellant-accused No. 1, original accused No. 2 and original accused No. 3, Menaben committed suicide by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene. Offence was registered as CR. No. 30/97 and investigation was carried out by PSI R.P. Zala. He recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. During the investigation, he also recovered muddamal by drawing panchnama and he also sent the muddamal to FSL for analysis. At the end of the investigation, charge sheet for the above referred offence was filed against all the three accused persons and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 728/97. As the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case for the above referred offences, he passed order under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code and committed the said case to the Sessions Court. Charge sheet was framed at Exh.11 dated 5.11.2003 and all the accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including the complainant, witnesses, Medical Officer. Executive Magistrate, Investigating Officer etc. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence such as panchnama of scene of offence Exh.19, inquest panchnama Exh.23, post mortem report Exh.29, complaint Exh.27, dying declaration Exh.32 and FSL report Exh.62 and other relevant documents. 4. On submission of closing pursis by the prosecution, learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which it is submitted by the accused persons that a false case was filed against them. 5. After hearing the arguments of learned APP as well as learned Advocates, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 1-Kanubhai Premjibhai and convicted original accused No. 2 and 3 - present Appellants No. 1 & 2 as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment and order and hence this appeal. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the appellants and learned APP Mr. K.P. Rawal for the State of Gujarat. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants-original accused No. 2 and 3 has submitted that he is pressing this appeal only on the point of quantum of sentence qua Appellant No. 1. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the appellants and learned APP Mr. K.P. Rawal for the State of Gujarat. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants-original accused No. 2 and 3 has submitted that he is pressing this appeal only on the point of quantum of sentence qua Appellant No. 1. It is submitted by him that the second marriage took place between the accused and Manishaben Umeshbhai and during the wedlock two sons and one daughter were born and they are minors. The second wife of the present Appellant No. 1 is residing with her in-laws at her matrimonial home. Affidavit filed by Manishaben, second wife of the present appellant-accused is placed on record. The present Appellant No. 1-accused-No.2 is in jail since 4 years. His jail record is also good. This is his first offence and there is no criminal antecedents. 7. So far as accused No. 3 is concerned, it is argued by Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the appellants that the dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Poonaji Somaji Kharadi, PW. 6 on 2.5.1997 which is proved through his deposition and is exhibited at Exh.33. In the dying declaration, deceased Menaben did not make any allegation against the mother-in-law i.e., the present Appellant No. 2-accused No. 3 and the deceased made allegations only against the husband and father-in-law. PW 7 Nanuben at Exh.36 has stated a totally contradictory story in her cross examination in Para 8 which is not stated in FIR and so also the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua accused No. 3 so she is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 8. Learned APP has not disputed the facts narrated by the learned advocate for the appellants. He, therefore, submitted that if legally entitled, the accused may be given the benefit of doubt. 9. This Court has gone through the records as also the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is only alleged in the dying declaration that her husband made allegation that she became pregnant through his father and not by him and always there was quarrel in this regard. Now if complaint Exh.37 is perused, it is narrated that deceased Menaben disclosed before this witness (her mother-in-law) that her husband quarreled with her and made allegation that she conceived through her father-in-law. Now if complaint Exh.37 is perused, it is narrated that deceased Menaben disclosed before this witness (her mother-in-law) that her husband quarreled with her and made allegation that she conceived through her father-in-law. It is also narrated in the complaint that because of this reason she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and mother-in-law i.e., appellants No. 1 & 2. 10. As per the evidence of the complainant before this Court, she has stated on oath that whenever deceased Menaben came to her house, she used to say that her mother-in-law and husband always taunting at her that she has not brought any dowry and she was not given sufficient food also. If we go through the cross examination, the complainant put forward a totally different story regarding the death of deceased Menaben. According to her evidence, deceased Menaben told her in hospital that her mother-in-law-appellant No. 2 came with 5 litres kerosene can and her husband i.e. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 poured kerosene on her and thereafter both of them set her ablaze and bolted the door and thereafter they ran away. For the first time this story is put forward by the complainant before the court. She admitted that she did not disclose this fact before the police. As discussed above, in the dying declaration, deceased Menaben did not make any allegation regarding torture by Appellant No. 2-mother-in-law and so the evidence of dying declaration is totally different from the evidence given by PW 7-Nanuben, mother of the deceased. These contradictory evidences create doubt about the allegation made against the Appellant No. 2. Now, if we go through the evidence of PW 8-Ashokbhai, brother of the deceased, according to the evidence of this witness, whenever deceased Menaben came to her house, she told her that her mother-in-law always used to find fault with her. According to the evidence of this witness, her husband also used to quarrel with her and sufficient food was not given to her. According to the evidence of this witness, her husband also used to quarrel with her and sufficient food was not given to her. As far as the evidence of this witness is concerned, after they got message regarding the burn injury received by the deceased and that she was shifted to hospital, he along with other witnesses went to the hospital wherein on asking the deceased, she told that her mother-in-law, Appellant No. 2 was always taunting at her and alleged that the foetus which she is carrying is not of her husband but it is of her father-in-law. As she could not bear this allegation, she committed suicide. As discussed above, as per the dying declaration, deceased did not make allegation against her mother-in-law. There is major contradiction in the evidence of this witness-PW 8. He admitted that he did not disclose before the police whatever the deceased told him and it is not found in the statement which is recorded by the police also. This fact is also admitted by this witness. This is a major contradiction which creates doubt about the testimony of this witness. 11. As far as PW. 14 Dineshbhai Rameshbhai who is also brother of the deceased whose evidence is recorded at exh.48 is concerned, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. According to the evidence of this witness, deceased Menaben never disclosed before him or before any member of their family regarding the torture and harassment meted out to her by her in-laws. According to his evidence, he denied the facts narrated in the police statement before the police and in his evidence it is stated by him that when they reached the hospital, his sister Menaben was already expired and she did not disclose anything before them. This witness is also the real brother of deceased Menaben. According to this witness, she was leaving happily at her matrimonial home. In view of the above evidence, it creates doubt about the allegations made against the appellant-accused No. 2. 12. As discussed above, it is found that as far as the allegations made against the Appellant No. 3 is concerned, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution as there are major contradictions in the evidence of dying declaration along with the evidence of the complainant and witnesses. 12. As discussed above, it is found that as far as the allegations made against the Appellant No. 3 is concerned, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution as there are major contradictions in the evidence of dying declaration along with the evidence of the complainant and witnesses. In view of the above, she is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 13. So far as accused No. 2-Husband of the deceased is concerned, this Court, over and above the evidence on record, has gone through the affidavit filed by the second wife of the accused No. 2. So far as the conviction of the present appellants is concerned, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the accused. Hence the question to be considered is as to whether the appellant in the given facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to reduction of sentence which was awarded by the trial Court or not. 14. In this connection reference will have to be made to the decisions rendered in the case of Sanjay vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007 AIR SCW 1710) wherein taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances, while confirming the conviction of the appellants, the sentence was reduced to the sentence already undergone. 15. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on Appellant No. 1-accused No. 2 is reduced to some extent. 15.1. So far as Appellant No. 2 is concerned, as discussed above, the allegations made against Appellant No. 3 are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution as there are major contradictions in the evidence of dying declaration along with the evidence of complainant and witnesses. In view of the above, she is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed so far as accused No. 2 is concerned. The sentence of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on Appellant No. 1-accused No. 2 is ordered to be reduced to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence remain unaltered. 17. So far as Appellant No. 2-original accused No. 3 is concerned, the appeal is allowed. The sentence of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on Appellant No. 1-accused No. 2 is ordered to be reduced to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence remain unaltered. 17. So far as Appellant No. 2-original accused No. 3 is concerned, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1.7.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997 is quashed and set aside qua Appellant No. 2. Present Appellant No. 2 is acquitted of all the charges levelled against her. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid, shall be refunded.