JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Case No. S.T. 36(ST/B)2005. By the impugned judgment the Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 306/498A IPC and Appellants No. 2 and 3 under Section 498A, IPC. A composite sentence of 8 (eight) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50 thousand has been awarded to the Appellant No. 1,whereas sentence for parents (Appellants No. 2 and 3) is two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10000/- each. For non payment of fine, the husband has to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and the parents have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months respectively. 2. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence all the three convicts have preferred this common appeal. 3. Heard Shri A.C. Bhowmick, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned special Public Prosecutor, Tripura. I have also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence proffered by the prosecution as well as by the accused persons. 4. Apparently the wife of the Appellant No. 1 committed suicide within a period of two years of the marriage. The list of prosecution witnesses show that independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case with regard to demand of dowry and mental and physical cruelty upon the deceased. Without referring to the deposition of the informant (P.W.1) and formal witnesses to the investigation, I would briefly notice the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is true that P. Ws 2 and 3 are distantly related to the deceased. Even then going by the tone and tenore of their deposition, it is difficult to hold that these two witnesses have given unbelievable deposition, exaggerating the story. It may also be mentioned here that P. Ws. 2 and 3 are immediate neighbour of deceased and they have spoken about the constant mental and physical torture upon the deceased for not satisfying the demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/-. Not only that on the previous night of committing suicide the deceased reported to the P.W.2 that she was physically beaten. 5. P.W.4 is another witness from the neighbourhood of the Appellants. This witness has also alleged that he had seen the Appellants beating the deceased. Not only that on the previous night of committing suicide the deceased reported to the P.W.2 that she was physically beaten. 5. P.W.4 is another witness from the neighbourhood of the Appellants. This witness has also alleged that he had seen the Appellants beating the deceased. Even if this statement is considered to be a general one, P.W.4 has also stated that on the previous night he heard the cries of deceased, while returning from the neighbour's house. This statement is corroborative to the deposition P. Ws 2 and 3, who have stated that on the previous night the deceased came to their house and reported about her physical assault. 6. P.W.5 is a renowned person of the locality, being Upapradhan of the Gaon Panchayat. This witness has also deposed that about 10/12 days before the deceased (Rita) committed suicide P.W.4 reported him about torture upon Rita by her husband, father and mother-in-laws. While giving statement before I.O.P.W.5 had stated that he was reported about the torture about one month back. This discrepancy is in-significant. The fact remains that P.W.5 was reported about the torture upon the deceased long before committing the suicide and filing of the case. P.W.5 was also reported about physical assault upon the deceased on the previous night, when he visited the house of the accused persons having heard about the commission of suicide by Rita. 7. As could be gathered from the record two witnesses were also examined as defence witnesses. The deposition of P.W.1 is confined to negotiation of the marriage. In other words, D.W.1 has not stated anything about post- marriage happenings. He had no occasion to meet the deceased (Rita). D.W.2 is the accused/husband himself. In his deposition, D.W.2 has stated that his wife was insisting to stay in his in-law's house and having not accepted the proposal his wife had quarreled with him. In this way from the testimony of D.W.2 also it is gathered that the matrimonial relation was not congenial. Even otherwise the DW-2 has put forward a new story in his testimony, which was not presented while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. 8. In this way from the testimony of D.W.2 also it is gathered that the matrimonial relation was not congenial. Even otherwise the DW-2 has put forward a new story in his testimony, which was not presented while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. 8. Besides direct testimony of witnesses even Section 113A of the Evidence Act also permits the Court to draw inference of abatement of suicide, provided such suicide is committed by a woman within seven years of her marriage and she is subjected to cruelty by the husband and relatives. In the case before me, the prosecution witnesses have spoken about cruelty for not satisfying the demand of dowry and the woman had committed suicide within two years of her marriage. For the forgoing reasons, I am not persuaded to interfere with the conviction of the Appellants, both under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. In other words, convictions are hereby upheld. Coming to the question of sentence, I find that all the witnesses, who have been relied upon for recording conviction, have admitted the fact that the husband was not at home when his wife committed suicide. Besides this, the deceased has left a male child, who is now six years old. Since, I have maintained the conviction of husband and in-laws of the deceased, no persons would be left out at home to look after the minor child. In fitness of things, the substantive sentence of 8 years awarded to the Appellant No. 1, Shri Judisthir Banik is reduced to 5 (five) years. Needless to say that the period of detention already undergone will be set-off Under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Appellant will be entitled to remission as per jail manual. With regard to fine, having regard to the fact that the Appellant hails from very lower strata of the society, the fine amount is reduced to 1000/-(one thousand). In default of payment of fine the Appellant No. 1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The Appellant No. 1 shall be released by the jail authority if he has completed the sentence awarded by this Court after giving remission. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted only Under Section 498A IPC. Having regard to the amount of demand of money and also keeping in mind the respective ages ,the sentence of two years in case of Appellant Nos. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted only Under Section 498A IPC. Having regard to the amount of demand of money and also keeping in mind the respective ages ,the sentence of two years in case of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is reduced to 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment. Similarly the fine amount is also reduced to Rs.1000/- with default sentence of one month simple imprisonment. Appellants No. 2 and 3 are also entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure 9. With the modification of sentences, as noted in the previous paragraph, appeal stands dismissed. The Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to surrender in the trial court immediately. 10. Return the LCR with a copy of this judgment to the trial court. Appeal dismissed.