JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Convicts Harjit Kumar and his mother Smt. Jiwan Kanda have filed the instant criminal appeal. 2. Prosecution case is that on 26.10.2002, Monika since deceased was admitted in Guru Nanak Mission Hospital, Dhahan Kaleran. On receipt of message, Police went there but she was unfit to make statement. On 27.10.2002, Sita Devi complainant (mother of Monika) made statement to the Police that Monika was married with accused Harjit Kumar about 8 months ago. Jiwan Kanda is mother of Harjit Kumar, whereas Babita who was also accused but stands acquitted, is sister of Harjit Kumar. On demand of Harjit Kumar, some time after the marriage, scooter was given. However, still the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. They maltreated Monika and demanded more dowry. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to Harjit Kumar to satisfy the demand. However, again the accused started maltreating the deceased and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for sending Harjit Kumar abroad. The complainant could not satisfy the said demand. On 20.10.2002, the complainant received telephonic call from both the appellants that the complainant should take Monika to her parental home for Karva Chauth fast. Accordingly, Monika’s brother Sanjiv Kumar brought Monika on 21.10.2002. Thereafter, on 24.10.2002 both appellants came to the complainant’s village and on the next day, made demand of money for going abroad. The complainant expressed her inability to pay such huge amount. Getting angry, accused Harjit Kumar went away. On 26.10.2002 Monika was sent to her matrimonial home with her mother-in-law Jiwan Kanda appellant. Sanjiv Kumar was also sent with Monika and he came back after leaving Monika in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, telephonic call was received that Monika was not feeling well and she was lying admitted in the aforesaid hospital. The complainant went to the hospital. After some time, the family members of the accused started going away from the hospital one by one raising suspicion in the mind of the complainant. On going inside the hospital, the complainant found her daughter Monika lying dead. The complainant felt that Monika consumed some poisonous substance being fed-up with the maltreatment by the accused. Babita was also involved in the incident. On the statement of complainant, FIR was registered and investigated. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body. The accused were arrested on 30.10.2002. On competition of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. Babita was also involved in the incident. On the statement of complainant, FIR was registered and investigated. Post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body. The accused were arrested on 30.10.2002. On competition of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) was presented for prosecution of both the appellants under Section 304-B IPC whereas Babita was shown as innocent in column No.2 of the report. 3. Charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC was framed against both the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. After recording of statement of one prosecution witness, prosecution moved application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereupon Babita was also summoned as additional accused to face trial with both the appellants. Thereafter charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC was framed against all the three accused. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Complainant Sita Devi PW-1 (mother of the deceased), Sanjeev Kumar PW- 3 (brother of the deceased), Krishana Devi PW-14 (maternal grand mother of the deceased) and Anil Kumar PW-17 mediator for the matrimonial alliance of the deceased with Harjit Kumar, have broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Parveen Kumar PW-4 stated about alleged oral dying declaration made to him by Monika that both the appellants had given her poison by mixing it with milk. In addition to it, the prosecution examined Doctors and also led evidence regarding purchase of dowry articles by the complainant party and also examined police officials. 6. The accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. simply denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. However, marriage of Harjit Kumar accused with Monika deceased was admitted. Relationship of remaining accused with Harjit Kumar being his mother and sister, was also admitted. The accused claimed to be innocent, having been falsely implicated in the case. 7. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. DW-1 Subhash Thapar from Pension Branch of Bank produced account statement of appellant Jiwan Kanda and stated that she was drawing pension since the year 2001 till date. Kulbir Singh DW-2 brought salary record of Harjit Kumar accused, who was posted as Constable in Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar and stated about his salary statement. 8. DW-1 Subhash Thapar from Pension Branch of Bank produced account statement of appellant Jiwan Kanda and stated that she was drawing pension since the year 2001 till date. Kulbir Singh DW-2 brought salary record of Harjit Kumar accused, who was posted as Constable in Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar and stated about his salary statement. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar vide impugned judgment dated 13.03.2006 acquitted all the three accused of the charge under Section 304-B IPC holding the death of Monika to be natural. Babita was also acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. However, Harjit Kumar and Jiwan Kanda were convicted under Section 498-A IPC. After hearing the parties on sentence, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order of even date sentenced both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Feeling aggrieved, both the convicts have preferred the instant criminal appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 10. There is ample evidence led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC. All the material witnesses noticed hereinbefore have supported the prosecution case and deposed that the appellants had been harassing and maltreating the deceased for dowry. Some demands of the appellants were satisfied but they made more demands which could not be met. Cruelty committed by the appellants to the deceased has been proved by statements of above mentioned material witnesses. They have stated in great details about the cruelty. Their statements could not be impeached in their lengthy cross-examination. No motive has either been imputed to the prosecution witnesses for falsely implicating the accused or for deposing falsely against them. Learned trial judge has analyzed the prosecution evidence in detail and has recorded cogent reasons for convicting the two appellants under Section 498-A IPC. Death of the deceased took place within eight months of her marriage. The appellants are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. Prosecution evidence is credible and inspires confidence. Conviction of both the appellants under Section 498-A IPC is well founded based on cogent evidence led by the prosecution and supported by reasons recorded by the trial Judge. Death of the deceased took place within eight months of her marriage. The appellants are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. Prosecution evidence is credible and inspires confidence. Conviction of both the appellants under Section 498-A IPC is well founded based on cogent evidence led by the prosecution and supported by reasons recorded by the trial Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants could not advance any meaningful argument to assail the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed. 11. Custody certificate of appellant No.1 Jiwan Kanda was produced on the preceding date of hearing, whereas custody certificate of appellant No.2 Harjit Kumar has been produced today in court by State counsel and the same is taken on record. Perusal thereof reveals that appellant No.2 Harjit Kumar remained in custody for 3 years 4 months 9 days during investigation and trial and thus he had already undergone the entire period of sentence of imprisonment for two years. Consequently, he was released from jail on 13.03.2006 the date of impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 12. As regards appellant No.1 Smt. Jiwan Kanda, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction in her sentence. It was submitted that age of Jiwan Kanda is mentioned to be 53 years in the impugned judgment and therefore, she is now aged above 58 years. It was also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2002 i.e. almost 9 years ago. Prayer for reduction in sentence has been opposed by State counsel. 13. I have carefully considered the matter. As per custody certificate, appellant No.1 Jiwan Kanda has already remained in custody for 10 months 17 days. In my considered opinion, keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, ends of justice will be met if sentence of imprisonment of appellant No.1 Jiwan Kanda is reduced to the period already undergone by her in custody while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With reduction in sentence of appellant No.1 and while maintaining the conviction of both the appellants and sentence of appellant No.2, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0SL0----------