Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 11.4.1997 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby he convicted and sentenced Amarjit Singh accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine Rs.500/- under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code, with a further direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.2.1994, on receipt of message from Station House Officer, Police station City Mansa that Kiranjit Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh resident of phaphere Bhaike is admitted in Civil hospital in an injured condition, ASI Iqbal Singh of Police Station Bhikhi alongwith other police officials reached the said hospital and found Kiranjit kaur lying there. Karnail Singh who was present near dead body made statement that he is resident of Mansa and is a mason by profession. His sister Kiranjit kaur was married with Amarjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of village phaphere Bhaike about 15 years back. She had given birth to 3 daughters and 2 sons. His brother-in- law Amarjit Singh used to insist upon his sister Kiranjit kaur to fetch money as well as other articles from her parents. They have been fulfilling the demands of Amarjit Singh according to their financial capacity. On 19.2.1994, he went with Rs.10,000/- to village Phaphere Bhaike to the house of his sister and gave the said amount to her. Since by such time, the sun had set, he stayed back there for the night. On 20.2.1994 at about 10.00 Amarjit singh, his father Sukhdev Singh, his mother Raj Devi and younger brother niranjan Singh gathered at the house of his sister and demanded more money from him and his sister, who showed her inability to pay more amount. Thereupon, amarjit Singh, his parents and his younger brother Niranjan Singh started abusing her and rebuked her that if she is not to bring more money she should die by taking poison. Thereupon, amarjit Singh, his parents and his younger brother Niranjan Singh started abusing her and rebuked her that if she is not to bring more money she should die by taking poison. On this, she went inside while weeping and after sometime, she came out in an unconscious condition and stated that she had fulfilled their desire and they should feel relieved. She hugged Karnail Singh and fell down. Amarjit Singh, his parents and younger brother Niranjan Singh ran away from the spot. Karnail Singh arranged for the vehicle and brought kiranjit Kaur to Civil Hospital, Mansa, where she expired. On the basis of this statement, formal F. I. R. was registered. In due course, the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of the learned Ilaqa magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused. 2. On commitment, the accused was charged under Sec.306/498-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Asha kiran, PW-2 Karnail Singh, PW-3 ASI Iqbal Singh, PW-4 Mukhtiar Singh S. I. and closed its case. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well false implication. He pleaded that his wife was a patient of depression. She quarelled with his mother and sister one day prior to the occurrence and committed suicide. All her four brothers and mother were also patients of depression and had committed suicide. In his defence, he has examined DW-1 Vinod Kumar Goyal, Advocate, District Courts bathinda and DW-2 Ajaib Singh. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. A. P. S. Deol, strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has based the conviction on the solitary statement of highly interested witness namely Karnail Singh who is brother of Kiranjit Kaur deceased and there is no independent corroboration of supportive of the charge under Sec.306 of the Indian Penal code. The demand of dowry seems to have been introduced as an after thought, after the deceased committed suicide on account of depression. Aforesaid karnail Singh (sic) while deposing in the court as PW-2 has introduced new facts which were different from the F. I. R. Thus, he stands totally discredited and contradicted with his earlier version in the F. I. R. A witness who has changed the version cannot be believed. The allegations in the F. I. R. against other family members of Amarjit Singh appellant, namely Sukhdev Singh father-in-law, Raj Devi mother-in-law and Niranjan Singh brother-in-law of the deceased have been found to be false during investigation and that being so, they were neither challaned, nor summoned by the learned trial Court to face trial alongwith the appellant. It speaks volumes of the fact that indeed they have been named in the F. I. R. by Karnail Singh only to harass and humiliate all the members of the family. Furthermore, the police has failed to collect any poisonous substance from the place of the occurrence in order to show as to what was the nature of the poison taken by the deceased. The marriage of the deceased being more than 7 years old, the presumption under Sec.113-A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the appellant. 3. The learned State Counsel maintained that on evaluating the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the judgment under appeal warrants no interference. 4. I have well considered the rival contentions. 5. Karnail Singh (sic) has stated in categoric terms that "on the next day, I went to her (referring to the deceased) house after arranging Rs.5000/-. 3. The learned State Counsel maintained that on evaluating the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the judgment under appeal warrants no interference. 4. I have well considered the rival contentions. 5. Karnail Singh (sic) has stated in categoric terms that "on the next day, I went to her (referring to the deceased) house after arranging Rs.5000/-. I found both of them in strained atmosphere and on my asking reason for the same, she told me that the accused was scolding for not having got Rs.10,000/-. I told her that I could arrange only Rs.5000/-. On the next morning, I found my sister in unconscious state about an year ago. " This evidence can be well construed to mean that at the time of the occurrence, he was very much present in the house of the appellant. A meticulous perusal of his cross-examination would reveal that it has no where been suggested to him that he was not present in the house of the appellant when the occurrence took place. Furthermore, it has no where been suggested to this witness that it is wrong fact that the deceased had told him that the accused (referred to the appellant) scolded her for not having got rs.10,000/-. In the absence of such suggestion, the testimony of this witness has to be believed for the reason that when he reached the house of the appellant, he observed estrangement between the deceased and the appellant. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Over insistence of witnesses, having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away as ruled by the Supreme Court in case Hari Ram Vs. State of U. P.2004 (3) Recent Criminal reports (Criminal) 805. Karnail Singh PW being very much present in the dwelling house of the appellant at the time of the occurrence happens to be the most natural witness. It would be undesirable to ignore such natural witness. As a matter of fact, his ocular evidence is cogent, credible and virtually, it has gone unchallenged. Thus, there is nothing to corrode the evidentiary value of it. The autopsy on the dead body of kiranjit Kaur was performed by Dr. Asha Kiran PW-1. In her evidence a query ex. It would be undesirable to ignore such natural witness. As a matter of fact, his ocular evidence is cogent, credible and virtually, it has gone unchallenged. Thus, there is nothing to corrode the evidentiary value of it. The autopsy on the dead body of kiranjit Kaur was performed by Dr. Asha Kiran PW-1. In her evidence a query ex. PD was put to her by the police, on which vide endorsement Ex. PD/1, she declared the cause of death on the Chemical Report Ex. PE to be a chloro compound group of insecticide as the same was detected in the viscera of kiranjit Kaur. Mr. Deol had been emphatic in the course of arguments that the story of dowry demand has been introduced as an after-thought after the deceased committed suicide on account of depression. But to the utter dismay of the appellant there being no evidence in proof of alleged depression, it would be going too far to say that she has committed suicide being under depression. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded, merely because of the fact that poisonous substance was not collected from the place of the occurrence. In all such cases, there can be little spillage. It has not been specifically put to Iqbal Singh Investigator PW-3 as to whether or not some spillage of poisonous substance was present or if so, the same was taken into possession. The case of the prosecution cannot be thrown over board merely because of non-collection of poisonous substance from the place of occurrence for the reason that it cannot be said with certainty that such substance had spilled over the place of occurrence, when it was consumed by the deceased. The poisonous substance was found to be chloro compound of insecticide. 6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Goyal DW-1 has solemnly affirmed that Ex. DA affidavit pertains to Karnail Singh PW, whereas Ex. DB relates to Jarnail Singh. They both were identified by Ajaib Singh son of Bhag Singh. As per the contents of Ex. DA, Amarjit Singh (referring to the appellant) or his parents or his brothers had not been harassing the deceased. It is further mentioned that his (Karnail Singh) signatures were obtained on number of papers by the police. In identical terms are the solemn affirmations made by Jarnail Singh in his affidavit Ex. As per the contents of Ex. DA, Amarjit Singh (referring to the appellant) or his parents or his brothers had not been harassing the deceased. It is further mentioned that his (Karnail Singh) signatures were obtained on number of papers by the police. In identical terms are the solemn affirmations made by Jarnail Singh in his affidavit Ex. DB It may be mentioned here that this Jarnail Singh has not been examined in defence. A glance through the statement of Karnail Singh PW-1 would reveal that his alleged affidavit ex. DA has not been put to him in his cross-examination. If such solemn affirmations were made by him in the alleged affidavit, he ought to have been confronted therewith in his cross-examination. As the affidavit has not been put to him in his cross-examination, an adverse inference has to be drawn to the effect that indeed it is not his affidavit. For non-examination of Jarnail singh in defence, it is very difficult to say that he is deponent of Ex. DB. Sequelly, no mileage can be driven by the appellant from these affidavits. 7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Goyal, Advocate, DW-1 has testified in his cross-examination that "i do not know personally the deponents and the identifier. There is no date on Ex. DB. The purpose to purchase stamp papers is not written on Ex. DA and Ex. DB. On Ex. DA there is signatures of Karnail Singh purchaser. It is correct that I had not written attested on identification and attested Ex. DA and Ex. DB. It Is correct that entries 469- 470 do not bear signature/thumb impression of Ajaib Singh identifier." In view of this evidence also these affidavits cannot be relied upon. Coming to the evidence of Ajaib Singh DW-2 he has deposed that "i had identified Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh in their affidavits Ex. DA and Ex. DB. The deponents Jarnail Singh and Karnail Singh had put their signatures in my presence. " It is in his cross-examination that " I was under suspension on 15.4.94 on account of embezzlement of tickets. I did not write in Ex. DA and ex. DB that I know the deponents personally and they had signed in my presence. " to my mind, in the face of this evidence as well these affidavits cannot be taken into consideration. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. I did not write in Ex. DA and ex. DB that I know the deponents personally and they had signed in my presence. " to my mind, in the face of this evidence as well these affidavits cannot be taken into consideration. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. Sequelly, the conviction is upheld. 8. At this juncture, Mr. Deol submitted that the appellant has five minor children to look after and if the appellant is sent to prison to serve out unexpired portion of his sentence, there will be none to look after his children. That being so, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. 9. Statedly, he has hardly undergone a little bit more than 3 months. To my mind, if the sentence is reduced to this extent, it will shock the conscience of Karnail Singh, his parents and other relations. That being so, I do not deem it a fit case to reduce the sentence to the already undergone. The appellant has been facing the agony of trial since February, 1994. This incident is about 15 years old. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec.306 I. P. C. maintaining fine as well as its default clause inflicted under this Section. The sentence awarded under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. These sentences shall run concurrently. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. 10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the trial court as well as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa who shall take necessary steps to send the appellant Amarjit Singh to prison for serving out the remaining portion of his sentence.