Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. Appellant Surinder Kumar alias Kala has preferred this appeal against the judgment/order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, he was convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one Usha Madhok, made a statement, Ex. PW7/c, before ASI Dhian Singh, wherein she has stated that she had three children. Her daughter, Manu Madhok, was married to Surinder alias Kala, accused-appellant, about 4 to 5 months ago. At the time of the marriage, dowry articles were given according to her financial status except colour T.V. Mangat Ram, husband of Reeta, sister-in-law, `nanad of her daughter, Pinky, her `jethani, and Krishna, her mother-in-law, started beating her daughter, Manu Madhok, for demand of more dowry. She gave a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to her daughter but her in-laws were not satisfied with this amount and kept on beating her. On 1.6.1999, Surinder Kumar, accused-appellant, dropped deceased Manu Madhok in front of the house of her parents after giving her merciless beatings and fled away on his scooter. Smt. Usha Madhok came out of the house and saw her daughter weeping. On enquiry, the deceased, Manu Madhok, replied that her in-laws had beaten her and her husband dropped her there and asked her to first bring colour T.V. from her parents and thereafter, enter her in- laws house. On next day, i.e., on 2.6.1999, Smt. Usha Madhok, called her husband, Shri Surinder Kumar Bhandari and narrated the whole story to him. On 3.6.1999, she along with her daughter, Mrs. Manu Madhok and her brother, Surinder Kumar Bhandari, went to the house of her daughters in-laws and requested them that they were unable to give them colour T.V. and Smt. Manu Madhok be not beaten in future. The in-laws told to leave the daughter there. On account of maltreatment given by her in-laws, Mrs. Manu Madhok committed suicide by jumping before the train on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Due to harassment caused by the above members of the house of in-laws, she had committed suicide. Surinder alias Kala, Rita, Mangat, Sapna, Pinki and Krishna, instigated Mrs. On account of maltreatment given by her in-laws, Mrs. Manu Madhok committed suicide by jumping before the train on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Due to harassment caused by the above members of the house of in-laws, she had committed suicide. Surinder alias Kala, Rita, Mangat, Sapna, Pinki and Krishna, instigated Mrs. Manu Madhok to commit suicide. 3. On the basis of this statement, a case FIR No. 77 dated 3.6.1999 under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Surinder alias Kala, Rita, Mangat Ram, Sapna, Pinki and Krishna, in Police Station, GRP, Amritsar. 4. After completion of investigation, the challan against all the accused was presented in Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against all the accused, except Sapna, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is mentioned here that Sapna was being proceeded separately by the Juvenile Court. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, Kanwaljit Singh as PW1, Constable Bhupinder Singh as PW2; Dr. Jagdish Singh Gill, Junior Resident, Government Medical College, Amritsar, as PW3, Smt. Usha Madhok, mother of the deceased, as PW4; Surinder Kumar Bhandari as PW5, Rishi Ram, Draftsman, as PW-6; SI Nishan Singh as PW-7, Ramesh Kumar, Photographer, as PW-8, Harbans Lal, Train Driver, as PW-9 and Constable Ajit as PW-10. 7. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded while putting them all the incriminating circumstances and material evidence against them to which the denied and pleaded innocence. In defence, the accused examined Inderjit Sharma as DW1 and Manjit Singh as DW2. 8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant (husband) as indicated at the outset of this judgment. The learned trial Court acquitted accused-Krishna, Pinki, Rita and Mangat Ram, of the charge as the prosecution was not able to prove case against them. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal which was admitted on 19.04.2001 by this Court. The learned trial Court acquitted accused-Krishna, Pinki, Rita and Mangat Ram, of the charge as the prosecution was not able to prove case against them. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal which was admitted on 19.04.2001 by this Court. The accused-appellant was admitted to bail by this Court on 16.08.2001. 10. Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is a false case against the husband-appellant. He submitted that Mrs. Manu Madhok, deceased, was a handicapped lady who died while crossing the railway track and had been run over by a passing train. He further submitted that there is no demand of dowry soon before death. So, no offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the husband-appellant. 11. The learned State counsel submits that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-husband. He submitted that Harbans Lal, driver of the train, PW9, proved that the deceased jumped before the running train and died at the spot. This witness further stated that when the deceased came in front of the train by jumping, the train was at a distance of 10 meters and was at a low speed. The learned State counsel further submitted that Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, mother of the deceased, proved the demand of dowry soon before the death of her daughter, Smt. Manu Madhok. Her statement is corroborated by Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW-5, her brother, i.e., maternal uncle of the deceased. Dr. Jagdish Singh Gill, PW3, proved the post-mortem examination, Ex.PB, of the deceased conducted on police request, Ex.PC, made by the Police. This witness opined that the cause of death in this case was lacerations of brain as a result of injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This witness stated in his cross-examination that the injury on the person of the deceased could be caused in case one attempts to cross the railway line and hit against the trian i.e., running train. 12. This witness stated in his cross-examination that the injury on the person of the deceased could be caused in case one attempts to cross the railway line and hit against the trian i.e., running train. 12. The learned State counsel further submits that Kamaljit Singh, PW-1, is a formal witness, who proved memo of blood stained clothes; Constable Bhupinder Singh, PW-2, and Constable Ajit Singh, PW-10, proved the carrying of Special Reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and higher police officers, respectively; Rishi Ram, Draftsman, PW-6, proved the scaled plan, Ex. PW-6/A, while Ramesh Kumar, Photographer, PW-8, proved the photographs, Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW8/B and the negatives, Ex. PW-8/C and Ex. PW8/E; and Sub Inspector, Nishan Singh, PW-7, is the Investigating Officer of his case. So, the learned State counsel argued that the conviction and sentence may be maintained. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 14. The main point for determination in this case is that as to whether the death of Mrs. Manu Madhok, deceased is accidental or suicidal. 15. Admittedly, the deceased died due to the train running over her. The statement of Harbans Lal, PW9, driver of the train, clinches the accidental theory. This witness is an independent witness. He has categorically stated that on 03.06.1999, he was driving the train, when the train was between Railway Station, Amritsar, and Verka, a lady jumped before the running train. She died at the spot. This witness stopped the train and intimated to the guard. So, it is proved on record that Mrs. Manu Madhok committed suicide by jumping over before the train. The plea as set up by the accused that as the deceased used to limp on left leg and was handicapped, she died while crossing the railway track is not supported by any evidence. 16. Now, the next question to be answered is as to whether it was a dowry death or the deceased had committed suicide. 17. Smt. Usha Madhok, PW-4, and Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW-5, are the witnesses on record. It is admitted fact that Mrs. Manu Madhok, the deceased was married to Surinder Kumar alias Kala, the appellant, on 18.01.1999. She died unnatural death on 03.06.1999. Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, in her examination-in-chief stated that Surinder Kumar, accused, before the occurrence came to her house with Mrs. It is admitted fact that Mrs. Manu Madhok, the deceased was married to Surinder Kumar alias Kala, the appellant, on 18.01.1999. She died unnatural death on 03.06.1999. Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, in her examination-in-chief stated that Surinder Kumar, accused, before the occurrence came to her house with Mrs. Manu deceased and stated that there was strike in the factory and he demanded money from her. This witness gave a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to him. This witness further stated that the appellant-accused also demanded a colour T.V. On 01.06.1999, appellant-husband left the deceased to her parental house. On 03.06.1999, this witness and Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW-5, left Mrs. Manu Madhok, deceased to her in-laws house. After 2/3 hours, she came to know that her daughter was lying dead on the railway track. This witness in her cross-examination admitted that Surinder Kumar, appellant, was having scooter and Black and White T.V. before marriage. This witness, in her cross-examination, further admitted that her deceased daughter told her that Rs. 2,000/- which was given to her by this witness i.e., the mother of the deceased had already been spent and the accused was demanding more money for domestic purpose. Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW-5, stated that the accused-appellant tortured Manu, the deceased, and she was compelled to commit suicide. He admitted in his cross-examination that no dowry article was handed over in his presence by his sister, Usha, PW-4, to the accused, but these were sent directly to the house of the accused. There is no other evidence to prove the demand of dowry soon before death. 18. In a recent case titled Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2009(1) Recent Apex Judgments 524 (SC), Honble the Supreme Court opined that the following essentials must be satisfied before any death can be termed as a `dowry death :- (1) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. (2) Such death must have occurred within 7 years of the marriage. (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her death; and (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry. 19. Now, this Court is to see, as to whether on the basis of statement of Mrs. (3) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her death; and (4) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry. 19. Now, this Court is to see, as to whether on the basis of statement of Mrs. Usha Madhok, PW4, and Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW5, above mentioned four essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 304-B IPC were satisfied or not. 20. It is admitted fact that Mrs. Manu Madhok, deceased, died otherwise than under normal circumstances. Marriage in this case was solemnized on 18.01.1999 and Mrs. Manu Madhok died on 03.06.1999. In view of the evidence, the above two ingredients are fulfilled. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the remaining two essential ingredients were made out from the statements of PW4 and PW5. 21. The statements of these witnesses clearly indicate that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before death in connection with the demand of dowry. Rs. 2,000/-, even if paid by Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, were for household expenses as there was strike in the factory of the appellant. Both the families are poor. Except the demand of colour TV, no other demand is alleged. It is admitted by Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, that the appellant was already having a scooter and a Black and White TV. It is not a case where death has taken place at the house of her in-laws. There is no instance of demand of dowry at the time of the marriage. The deceased died by jumping before a train 2/3 hours after the deceased was left at her in-laws house by her mother, Smt. Usha Madhok, PW4, and Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW5. As there was already some problem in the relationship, there must have occurred something which compelled the deceased to end her life by jumping herself before the moving train. There might have been some mental torture by the appellant which the deceased being hypersensitive lady could not tolerate. But it could not be said to be on account of demand of dowry soon before death. There might have been some mental torture by the appellant which the deceased being hypersensitive lady could not tolerate. But it could not be said to be on account of demand of dowry soon before death. Keeping in view the facts of this case, and the law laid down by the Apex Court, as referred to above, the last two essential ingredients are missing, as such, conviction of the appellant-husband, under Section 304-B IPC is not maintainable and is set aside. 22. However, at the same time, the appellant-husband cannot be absolved of his liability in compelling her wife Mrs. Manu Madhok to commit suicide on account of his cruel treatment and cruel behaviour. She might have been taunted due to her physical infirmity being handicapped. Cruelty, as defined under Section 498-A IPC does not amount only to physical cruelty but it also attracts mental cruelty. This Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant was such which had forced his wife to commit suicide. No sane lady would try to finish her life unless she is subjected to extreme cruelty. Every woman wants to live with affection and financial security at the hands of her husband. But from the evidence of Mrs. Usha Madhok, PW-4, and Surinder Kumar Bhandari, PW- 5, it appears that there was some discord and differences in domestic life may be due to poor financial condition of the in-laws family or due to temperamental differences. The husband has failed to explain as to why she left the matrimonial house and committed suicide after two hours of her joining them. Under these circumstances, the appellant-husband is held guilty of abetment for commission of offence of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The conviction is altered to Section 306 IPC. 23. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Surinder Kumar alias Kala, appellant, was arrested in this case on 22.06.1999. He was granted bail by this Court on 16.08.2001. So he remained in custody for about 02 years 02 months. He has faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 11 years. 24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be fully met if the period already undergone by the accused- appellant is considered sufficient under Section 306 IPC. He has faced the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 11 years. 24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be fully met if the period already undergone by the accused- appellant is considered sufficient under Section 306 IPC. Resultantly, the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone. Fine paid shall remain the same. 25. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.