Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No.409-B of 1997 titled as "piara Singh and Others V/s. State of Punjab" and Revision No.621 of 1997 titled as "sadhu Singh V/s. Piara singh and Others" shall be decided together. 2. The appeal has been preferred by four appellants namely Piara Singh son of Bant Singh, his brother Raj Paul Singh, father Bant Singh, and mother gurdev Kaur. 3. Raj Paul Singh, appellant, was married with Jagdish Kaur, aged 32 years (at the time of death ). The marriage of Raj Paul Singh was solemnized with Jagdish Kaur six years before the date of occurrence. The date of occurrence in the present case is 9.8.1991. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 6.5.1997 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he convicted all the four appellants for the offence under Section 304-B read with Sec.34 IPC and under Sec.498-A IPC. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence under Sec.304-B read with Sec.34 IPC. . They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under section 498-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 4. Criminal Revision No.621 of 1997 has been preferred by Sadhu Singh, brother of Jagdish Kaur, deceased. In the present case, FIR Ex. PJ was registered on the statement made by Sadhu Singh. In the revision petition, it has been prayed that sentence of imprisonment be enhanced to the maximum and furthermore sentence of fine should also be adequately enhanced and fine should be ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. In the above said revision petition, no notice was issued, however, same was ordered to be heard along with Criminal Appeal No.409-SB of 1997 filed by the accused. Sadhu Singh son of Ajit Singh, on 10.8.1991, along with some other persons met Jagir Singh, Assistant Sub inspector, who was posted at Police Post Manvi, on the outskirts of village manvi and got recorded his statement on basis of which present FIR was registered. The statement Ex. PF was recorded on 10.8.1991 at 10.30 A. M. The statement Ex. PF on the same date was recorded in Daily Diary Report Register vide entry No.9 dated 10.8.1991. The statement Ex. PF was recorded on 10.8.1991 at 10.30 A. M. The statement Ex. PF on the same date was recorded in Daily Diary Report Register vide entry No.9 dated 10.8.1991. The Daily Diary Report is exhibited as Ex. PG. Registration of the case was deferred to await the report of Chemical Examiner. The viscera of deceased Jagdish Kaur was sent to the Chemical Examiner, patiala, on 13.8.1991. On basis of statement Ex. PF formal FIR Ex. PJ was registered. The formal FIR was assigned docket No.89 dated 13.10.1991 registered at Police Station Amargarh, under Sec.304-B, 34 IPC. 5. A per the report of Chemical Examiner, which was exhibited as Ex. PC, aluminum phosphide a pesticide was detected in the contents of viscera. Medical officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, taking into consideration report of chemical Examiner Ex. PC, vide Ex. PD opined that cause of death of Jagdish Kaur wife of Raj Paul Singh, appellant was consumption of aluminum phosphide a pesticide and it was a case of poisoning. 6. To appreciate the evidence and contentions raised before me, it will be appropriate to reproduce true translation of the statement Ex. PF made by sadhu Singh, complainant, on basis of which the present FIR was lodged. "Statement of Sadhu Singh son of Ajit singh, caste Jat, resident of village Chakoha, aged about 32 years. Stated that I am resident of village Chakoha, and do agricultural work. My sister jagdish Kaur, about six years ago, was married with accused Raj Paul Singh son of Bant Singh resident of Village Chhokran, Police Station Amargarh. No child was born from the womb of my sister. Due to this reason, Raj Paul Singh, his mother Gurdev Kaur, father Bant Singh and Piara Singh, brother of Raj Paul singh, used to harass my sister saying that since Jagdish Kaur had not given birth to a child, therefore, they would marry their son somewhere else. This fact was disclosed many times by my sister to me and other members of family. She expressed her apprehension that accused may not administer something poisonous to her. This fact was disclosed many times by my sister to me and other members of family. She expressed her apprehension that accused may not administer something poisonous to her. On 9.8.1991 at about 3.00 P. M. Joga Singh son of santa came to our house and told that Jagdish Kaur had suddenly expired, upon which I, my father Ajit Singh and Kesar Singh son of Modan, Bachan Singh son of modan Singh accompanied by other respectable persons reached village Chhokran where my sister was lying dead. We have suspicion that above said persons had administered something poisonous to my sister. Accused Raj Paul Singh and his relations were preventing us from getting the post mortem conducted. We want that autopsy on the dead body be conducted so that cause of death is known. I have sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, malerkotla. The dead body was escorted by my father Ajit singh and other residents of the village. I along with Kesar Singh, Bachan singh son of modan Singh was going to Police Post Manvi when you have met me in the way. I have got recorded my statement. Action be taken. I have heard my statement and the same is correct". 7. A perusal of above said FIR reveal that no allegation of demand of dowry on the part of accused was narrated by the complainant party. They had stated in categoric terms that the deceased was harassed for not advancing the progeny of accused Raj Paul Singh. It will be pertinent to notice here that statements of Ajit Singh and Kesar Singh, father and uncle of Jagdish Kaur, respectively, were recorded on 10.8.1991, and they had also disclosed that deceased was harassed due to not giving birth to a child. However, later on 25.10.1991 statements of Jaswant Kaur, mother, Ajit Singh, father, and Kesar singh, uncle of the deceased were recorded, respectively, in which they introduced that accused were demanding dowry, cash and television. The investigating Agency concluded the investigation and submitted report under section 173 Cr. P. C. against the accused. 8. The appellants were charged by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 10.7.1992. The investigating Agency concluded the investigation and submitted report under section 173 Cr. P. C. against the accused. 8. The appellants were charged by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 10.7.1992. The charge stated that on 9.8.1991, in the revenue area of village Manvi, death of Jagdish Kaur occurred in circumstances other than normal within seven years of her marriage with accused Raj Paul Singh and soon before her death, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected Jagdish Kaur to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. Therefore, they all committed offence under Sec.304-B read with Sec.34 IPC. On these facts, second charge under Sec.498-A IPC was also framed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led its evidence. 9. Dr. Parveen Jindal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, appeared as PW.1. He stated that on 10.8.1991 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jagdish Kaur, aged 32 years. There was no external mark of injury. Therefore, the opinion regarding cause of death was deferred. On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, the cause of death was opined to be due to consumption of aluminum phosphide a pesticide. In cross-examination, he admitted that odour and taste of aluminum phosphide is bitter, therefore, it is commonly used for suicide. Sadhu Singh, complainant, brother of deceased jagdish Kaur, appeared as PW.2. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR but in his examination-in-chief improved the version and introduced demand of dowry. Two lines, recorded in examination-in-chief, read as under:- "The accused also used to ask my sister to bring more dowry. They were demanding colour television and Rs.20,000/- in cash". 10. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not stated to the police that his sister was married in december 1984. He denied the suggestion that marriage was performed in January 1984. This suggestion was given by the defence to say that marriage was more than seven years old so that presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of indian Evidence Act is not attracted. This witness deposed that he had told the police that accused were demanding colour television and Rs.20,000/-. He was duly confronted with the statement Ex. PF where it was not so recorded. This witness admitted that he had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 506 and 504 ipc against other four persons of the family besides the present appellants. This witness deposed that he had told the police that accused were demanding colour television and Rs.20,000/-. He was duly confronted with the statement Ex. PF where it was not so recorded. This witness admitted that he had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 506 and 504 ipc against other four persons of the family besides the present appellants. Names of those members of the family are Charan Kaur, Rano, Darbara Singh and maghar Singh. He further stated that all the eight accused were maltreating her sister. He further admitted that in the complaint he has not specified the date and month of marriage. Sadhu Singh further admitted that no report was lodged with the police regarding maltreatment inflicted upon her sister for not giving birth to a child. Further recording of statement of Sadhu Singh was deferred as an application under Sec.319 Cr. P. C. was filed for summoning other four persons of the family namely Charan Kaur, Rano, Darbara Singh and Maghar Singh. The application filed under Sec.319 Cr. P. C. was dismissed by Additional sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 1.6.1993. Attention of witness was drawn to statement Ex. DB made by him on 5.12.1991 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate ist Class, Malerkotla, in a criminal complaint filed to summon other four members of the family. The complaint qua those other four members was also dismissed. The witness admitted that in the statement recorded before the judicial Magistrate Ist Class, malerkotla, he had not mentioned the date or year of the marriage. The witness further stated that he does not remember whether in the statement Ex. DB he had mentioned regarding the demand of Rs.20,000/- and colour television or more dowry by the accused. Attention of witness was drawn to his statement Ex. DB where it was not so recorded. The following lines of cross-examination being important are reproduced below:- "Before this I have not told any body till I made this statement that accused were harassing and maltreating my sister for bringing more dowry and demanding Rs.20000/- and colour T. V. till I made this statement". 11. The witness explained that he was not aware about the demand of dowry and this fact was better known to his parents. He admitted that he was residing with his parents. 11. The witness explained that he was not aware about the demand of dowry and this fact was better known to his parents. He admitted that he was residing with his parents. This witness further denied the suggestion that Raj Paul singh, husband of deceased, was residing separately with her in the fields and other three appellants were having a separate residence. PW.3 Malkiat Singh appeared in the witness box being neighbourer of complainant Sadhu Singh. He stated that one week before her death Jagdish Kaur came to his parents. He was called by her parents to discuss some matter. When he reached the house of parents of Jagdish Kaur, it was disclosed that accused were compelling Jagdish Kaur to bring Rs.20/30,000/- from her parents and a colour television. This witness asked Ajit Singh whether the necessary amount is available upon which father of the girl apprised that he can give the amount only after the crop is harvested. On 9.8.1991, on receipt of the information, he accompanied the complainant to the village of accused and they brought the dead body of deceased to Civil hospital, Malerkotla for conducting post mortem. He was confronted with statement Ex. DD recorded under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. where the factum qua discussing the matter was not mentioned. He was also confronted with his previous statement Ex. DD where demand of dowry was not mentioned. He was further confronted qua the fact that he had asked father of Jagdish Kaur whether the amount is available or not. In nutshell, on all material aspects regarding demand of dowry, this witness was confronted with his statement recorded by the police under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. This witness further stated that he is not in a position to tell the date and month in which Jagdish Kaur had come to village and tell regarding the demand of dowry. He further stated that date of marriage was not specifically told by him to the Investigating officer. This witness admitted that the Assistant Sub Inspector had recorded his statement in the hospital and, thereafter, his statement was not recorded. 12. Jaswant Kaur, mother of the deceased died during the pendency of trial and Pws Kesar Singh and Harchand Singh were given up being unnecessary. PW.4 Jangir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, proved Ex. PF, statement recorded by him, on basis of which FIR was registered. 12. Jaswant Kaur, mother of the deceased died during the pendency of trial and Pws Kesar Singh and Harchand Singh were given up being unnecessary. PW.4 Jangir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, proved Ex. PF, statement recorded by him, on basis of which FIR was registered. He also proved inquest report Ex. PE and the request made to Medical Officer for conducting post mortem examination. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had correctly recorded statement Ex. PF and Ex. DD without any addition or alteration including the marked portions. He further stated that on 10.8.1991 complaint of maltreatment of the deceased was made but nothing was stated regarding demand of dowry. 13. Dharminder Singh, Draftsman, was examined as PW.5. He proved scaled site plan Ex. PK of the spot. 14. Affidavit of Pritpal Singh, Constable, Ex. PK was tendered into evidence to prove link evidence. PW.6 Baljit Singh, Head Constable, had also tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PL. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. 15. All incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined in the defence. 16. I have heard Mr. T. S. Sangha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. S. Sangha, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and Mr. Anmol Partap Singh mann, Advocate, appearing for the complainant. 17. Mr. Sangha has urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the date of marriage. According to the counsel, in the statement Ex. PF, in the complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, to summon other accused and in the statement made by complainant when preliminary evidence was led in the complaint case Ex. DB, no date and year of marriage has been specified. It was contended that it is imperative that the complainant should specifically mention the date of marriage so that the prosecution is able to discharge the onus that the deceased died within seven years of marriage. It was submitted that until this onus is discharged, the appellants cannot be convicted for offence under section 304-B IPC. To controvert this assertion of counsel for the appellants, mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. It was submitted that until this onus is discharged, the appellants cannot be convicted for offence under section 304-B IPC. To controvert this assertion of counsel for the appellants, mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Anmol partap Singh Mann, Advocate, has stated that it has been specifically stated by the complainant that the marriage of Jagdish Kaur was solemnized with appellant raj Paul Singh six years before the date of occurrence. 18. Second argument advanced by senior counsel for the appellants is that till 25.10.1991 nowhere the version regarding demand of dowry was available. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 9.8.1991. The statement of complainant was recorded on 10.8.1991. Father and uncle of the deceased, in their statements recorded on 10.8.1991, had also not stated anything regarding demand of dowry. Therefore, no offence under Sec.304-B IPC is made out. This Court has perused the evidence of witnesses and has heard counsel for the parties. 19. From the analysis and dissection of the evidence, it is apparent that in the complaint which contained first version of the complainant, only grievance projected was that the deceased was harassed as she was not giving birth to a child. On the basis of statement made by the complainant on 10.8.1991, case FIR No.89 was registered on 13.10.1991. At that time also, allegations regarding demand of dowry had not surfaced. On 25.10.1991 statement of Ajit Singh, Jaswant Kaur, parents of deceased Jagdish Kaur and Kesar Singh was recorded. In those statements, allegation that the accused were demanding Rs.20/30,000/- in cash and a colour television was introduced. This was done to satisfy the necessary ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B IPC. Jaswant Kaur, mother of the deceased, had died during the trial. Ajit Singh, father of the complainant, has not been examined. Kesar Singh and Harchand Singh were given up as won over. Only PW.2 sadhu Singh, brother of the deceased, complainant, and PW.3 Malkiat Singh, a neighbourer, had appeared. They both have been confronted with their previous statements Ex. PF, Ex. DB and Ex. DD, respectively. In those statements, no reference to the demand of dowry was made. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that after consultations and deliberations demand of dowry was introduced. This court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the statement Ex. They both have been confronted with their previous statements Ex. PF, Ex. DB and Ex. DD, respectively. In those statements, no reference to the demand of dowry was made. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that after consultations and deliberations demand of dowry was introduced. This court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the statement Ex. DB was made by sadhu Singh on 5.12.1991, four months after the occurrence and this statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla. There also nothing was stated against the accused regarding demand of dowry. Hence, it will be difficult to sustain conviction of the accused for the offence under section 304-B IPC. 20. The blemish on the part of witnesses to introduce demand of dowry will not render their testimony unreliable. Testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they have deposed regarding one fact falsely. In the present case, defence has also not proved the date of marriage. Hence, this court is bound to believe PW.2 Sadhu singh and PW.3 Malkiat Singh that deceased died after six years of marriage. Now the question arise if the deceased was harassed and maltreated for not giving birth to a child, what offence is made out. There is no doubt that deceased had died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide a pesticide. Therefore, the deceased was driven to commit suicide for not giving birth to a child. Therefore, offence under Sec.306 IPC is made out. 21. The next question which require attention of this Court is that whether all the accused were responsible or only husband is liable to be convicted and sentenced. Piara Singh, appellant, was the elder brother of Raj paul Singh, husband of the deceased. The complainant, during the course of trial, also named other four members of the family, namely Charan Kaur, Rano, darbara Singh and Maghar Singh and an application under Sec.319 Cr. P. C. was also filed. The same was dismissed. These four persons were also named as accused in the complaint and complaint qua them was also dismissed. Thus, PW.2 sadhu Singh, complainant, has not only introduced the demand of dowry but has introduced other persons as accused. Thus, no implicit reliance can be placed upon his testimony. P. C. was also filed. The same was dismissed. These four persons were also named as accused in the complaint and complaint qua them was also dismissed. Thus, PW.2 sadhu Singh, complainant, has not only introduced the demand of dowry but has introduced other persons as accused. Thus, no implicit reliance can be placed upon his testimony. As a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt is to be extended to appellants Piara Singh, parents of husband, Bant Singh and Gurdev kaur, who according to judgment of trial Court, were aged 80 years and 70 years, respectively. Bant Singh and Gurdev Kaur being old parents would be least concerned with the matrimonial life of their son Raj Paul Singh especially when their other son Piara Singh was having his own family. Thus, this Court extend benefit of doubt to appellants Piara Singh, Bant Singh and Gurdev Kaur and their appeal is accepted and they are acquitted of the charges. 22. Having held Raj Paul Singh, husband, guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC, this Court has to ponder as to what sentence should be adequate, taking into consideration the fact that accused/appellant Raj Paul Singh has suffered protracted trial. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1991. The accused/appellant is in the corridors of the Court for the last more than 18 years. Counsel for the appellant has cited judgment rendered in Balwant Singh and Another V/s. State of Haryana 2005 (3) Recent Criminal reports 124 wherein various judgments were noticed where the sentence for the offence under Sec.306 IPC was reduced. Relevant portion of the judgment read as under:- "In the case of Jagsir Singh and another V/s. State of Haryana, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 123, conviction was recorded under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Occurrence was 13 years old. The accused were on bail. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (13 months ). In the case of mohan Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 697, conviction was recorded under Sec.306 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Incident was 13 years old. Father- in-law had died. Mother-in-law was aged 73/74 years. Sentence of mother-in-law was reduced to already undergone (1 month). Mohd. Incident was 13 years old. Father- in-law had died. Mother-in-law was aged 73/74 years. Sentence of mother-in-law was reduced to already undergone (1 month). Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A. P. , 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155 (SC), was relied upon. In the case of Rajbir V/s. State of Haryana 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 932, two accused were convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. They were facing trial for the last 11 years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (one accused 26 months and other 18 months ). In case of Jagbiri and others V/s. State (U. T. Chandigarh) 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 826, there was abetment to suicide by the bride and the conviction was recorded under Sec.306 of the Indian penal Code. Occurrence related to the year 1991. The accused suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 13 years. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (Jagbiri and Bimlesh remained in custody for 2 months and a few odd days whereas Sham Narayan remained in custody for about 6/7 months after his conviction. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Hoshan and another V/s. State of A. P.2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 155 (SC)." 23. Reliance can also be placed on judgment rendered in Satto and Others V/s. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.177-SB of 1989 decided on 23.10.2002) where sentence was reduced to already undergone. According to counsel for the appellant, Raj Paul singh has undergone one year and five months out of his actual sentence. Therefore, his sentence should be reduced to already undergone. Taking into consideration that Jagdish Kaur was harassed for not giving birth to a child as aggravating circumstance and protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case appellant Raj Paul Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Sec.306 IPC. The sentence imposed upon appellant under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. However, the appellant need not pay fine separately for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. 24. Thus, to conclude, conviction of appellant Raj Paul Singh for offence under Sec.304-B IPC is set aside. The sentence imposed upon appellant under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. However, the appellant need not pay fine separately for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. 24. Thus, to conclude, conviction of appellant Raj Paul Singh for offence under Sec.304-B IPC is set aside. He is convicted under Sec.306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. His sentence under Sec.498-A IPC is maintained. However, no fine is required to be paid by appellant Raj Paul Singh for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The appellants Piara Singh, Bant Singh and gurdev Kaur are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges. As a result of above discussion, appeal of appellants Piara Singh, Bant Singh and gurdev Kaur, is accepted and appeal of Raj Paul Singh is disposed of with the modification made above. In view of the enhancement of fine and payment of compensation to the complainant, no separate orders are required to be passed in Criminal Revision No.621 of 1997 as no notice was issued in the same. In the light of discussion made above, above said criminal revision petition shall also stand disposed of.