JUDGMENT Asim Kumar Ray, J. CRA No. 269 of 2009 and CRA No. 270 of 2009 are directed against the same judgment and order of conviction dated 27-3-2009 and sentence dated 30-3-2009 passed in Sessions Case No.IX (September), 2007 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 30(9) of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Krishnagar, Nadia. In CRA No. 269 of 2009, there are three appellants, namely, Bapi Mondal, Kalyani Mondal and Sukumar Mondal. In CRA No. 270 of 2009 there are two appellants, namely, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha and Ujjal Mondal. 2. All the appellants have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 9 months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Bapi Mondal, Kalyani Mondal and Sukumar Mondal are sentenced to suffer further R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. 3. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The prosecution case in brief was that Dolly Mondal, victim got married with Bapi Mondal, son of Sukumar Mondal and Kalyani Mondal before 5/6 years from the date of lodging the FIR as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The de facto complainant Kumud Banik, father of victim gave cash of Rs. 10,000/-, ornaments, furniture and different gift articles at the time of marriage of his daughter Dolly. It is alleged that Dolly was subjected to torture, physically and mentally at her matrimonial home by the appellants. Due to such torture Dolly came to her father’s house and stayed there for a month. The matter was taken up by Mahila Ashray Kendra at the instance of the victim. The discord in the life of the victim on one hand and the appellants on the other was set to rest through a compromise and the victim returned to her matrimonial home. She gave birth to a child. She was asked by the appellants to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her father’s place and on failure on her part to bring that money she was subjected to physical torture. On 23-4-2007 the appellants poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. The victim was shifted to hospital for treatment. 5. She was asked by the appellants to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her father’s place and on failure on her part to bring that money she was subjected to physical torture. On 23-4-2007 the appellants poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. The victim was shifted to hospital for treatment. 5. The de facto complainant Kumud Banik, father of the victim lodged a FIR with Nakashipara P.S. on 25-4-2007 at 15.10 hours. On the basis of that FIR Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 125 of 2007 dated 25-4-2007 under Section 498A/307/34 of IPC was started against all the five appellants. The matter was investigated into. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 498A/307/34 IPC. 6. The trial began following commitment and framing of charge against the appellants under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the appellants/accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses and exhibited the compromise paper, treatment sheet of the victim, bed head ticket and some other documents. On appreciation on the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court–III, Krishnagar passed the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence. Hence, these appeals. 7. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, counsel appearing for the appellants has advanced two fold argument. Firstly, he has dealt with the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and secondly he has dealt with the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC. 8. He has urged that there is no evidence on record to connect Sukumar Mondal, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha and Ujjal Mondal for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. He has taken us to the compromise papers (Ext.8/2) and has contended that the compromise regarding discord between the victim and her husband was set at rest by the intervention of Nakashipara P.S. and Mahila Ashroy Kendra, Nadia. The said compromise bears the signature of the victim Dolly Mondal, the appellant Bapi Mondal/husband and Kalyani Mondal/mother-in-law. The de facto complainant Kumud Banik and his wife Laxmi Banik have signed as witnesses. The said compromise bears the signature of Dinesh Chandra Sen /P.W. 12 and Gita Bain/P.W.11. The compromise is silent about the appellants Sukumar Mondal, father-in-law, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha, sister-in-law and Ujjal Mondal, brother in law. The de facto complainant Kumud Banik and his wife Laxmi Banik have signed as witnesses. The said compromise bears the signature of Dinesh Chandra Sen /P.W. 12 and Gita Bain/P.W.11. The compromise is silent about the appellants Sukumar Mondal, father-in-law, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha, sister-in-law and Ujjal Mondal, brother in law. He has invited our attention to the oral evidence of P.W.1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and has contended that P.W. 1, 2 and 9 are related to each other. They are the victim and her parents whereas P.W.10, 11 and 12 are councillors and police officer who were present at the time of compromise. P.W. 1, 2 and 9 are interested witnesses, and their oral evidence tussles with the compromise. 9. Therefore, there is no substantive evidence to connect all the appellants with the offence punishable under Section 498A and the finding of the learned Court below in respect of the aforesaid offence is erroneous. 10. The evidence of P.W.7 does not speak about the involvement of Sukumar Mondal/father-in-law of the victim. Ext. 2 is a statement of the victim recorded by him which is silent about the role of the father-in-law. The evidence of the victim regarding the alleged snatching of the child from the victim by the father-in-law has been contradicted at the time of taking down the evidence of the investigating officer. No independent witnesses have been examined. All witnesses except councillors and police personnel are interested witnesses. Therefore, the finding of the learned Court below for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is also erroneous. 11. Mr. Ganguly has advanced an alternative argument regarding sentence. He has contended that there is mitigating circumstances coming out from the record. The appellant/mother-in-law poured water on the body of the victim to put off the fire. She took the victim to the hospital for treatment. She is aged about 47 years. Appellant Bapi Mondal/husband alleged to have committed the offence at a tender age. His age factor may be considered as a mitigating factor. Wrong doers are given scope to correct themselves and the punishment given is for correction and not for taking punitive action. The sentence against Kalyani Mondal /mother-in-law and Bapi Mondal/husband may be modified from life sentence to a sentence of 10 years. His age factor may be considered as a mitigating factor. Wrong doers are given scope to correct themselves and the punishment given is for correction and not for taking punitive action. The sentence against Kalyani Mondal /mother-in-law and Bapi Mondal/husband may be modified from life sentence to a sentence of 10 years. He has cited a decision reported in 1995 SC (Cri) 36 (Hem Chand -vs- State of Haryana) to substantiate his argument regarding lesser sentence. 12. Mrs. Kakoli Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the victim has stated about the torture on her by the appellants. She gave a statement before the doctor. She has stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her person and father-in-law snatched away the child from her lap and husband set her at flame. She has supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. She has cited a decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 1782 (Om Prakash -vs- State of Punjab) to show that intention of the wrong doer is the factor for consideration at the time of dealing with an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and completion of one part of the offence is enough to bring the offence home to the accused persons/appellants. 13. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties. To bring home an offence under Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution is to prove : i) That a woman has been subjected to cruelty as contemplated in clause (a) or clause (b) to the explanation; ii) That the woman must be married; iii) That the cruelty has been practiced by her husband or his relative. 14. It is an admitted fact that the victim Dolly Mondal, P.W.1 was married to the appellant Bapi Mondal before 5/6 years prior to the alleged date of incident. It is also an admitted fact that appellant Bapi Mondal is the husband of the victim and the other appellants are her husband’s relatives. Now the need is to see the evidence on record to attract Section 498A IPC to rope in the appellants. 15. The case was initiated on a FIR lodged by the father of the victim Kumud Banik, P.W.2. The FIR has been marked as Ext.3. Now the need is to see the evidence on record to attract Section 498A IPC to rope in the appellants. 15. The case was initiated on a FIR lodged by the father of the victim Kumud Banik, P.W.2. The FIR has been marked as Ext.3. On perusal of the content of the FIR it transpires that the victim was subjected to both mental and physical torture at the instance of all the appellants after her marriage. The victim had to stay in her parental home for a year. The victim was subjected to torture as she failed to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her father. P.W. 2, FIR maker has stated in his evidence that her daughter was assaulted for more money by his son-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. He came to know about such assault from his daughter. The matter was taken up by Nakasipara P.S. for settlement and it was settled with an undertaking by the husband, mother-in-law and grand mother-in-law of the victim that the victim will not be subjected to further assault and torture. 16. The victim has been examined as P.W.1. She has stated in her evidence that her husband asked her to bring money from her mother. Money was paid 3/5 times. All the accused persons assaulted her as the victim failed to bring more money for purchasing cycle, light and other materials. She stayed in her father's house for one month after such torture. She submitted an application in Sahayeta Kendra of Nakashipara P.S. The members of Sahayeta Kendra called the in-laws and the accused and the matter was settled. The accused persons took her back to her matrimonial home. The compromise was reduced in writing wherein they put their respective signature. She lived in her matrimonial house in peace for some days and thereafter she was subjected to assault and torture for money. 17. P.W. 9 is the mother of the victim. She has stated in her evidence that her daughter was assaulted by the accused person as they were unable to pay money as per the demand of the accused. Her daughter came to her parental home as the accused persons assaulted her. Thereafter the matter was reported to Sahayeta Kendra at the police station. The accused persons took her daughter back to her matrimonial home from the Sahayeta Kendra. Her daughter came to her parental home as the accused persons assaulted her. Thereafter the matter was reported to Sahayeta Kendra at the police station. The accused persons took her daughter back to her matrimonial home from the Sahayeta Kendra. She was subjected to assault as she failed to bring a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per the demand of the accused persons. 18. P.W. 11 and 12 have stated about the compromise. P.W. 11 is a worker of Mahila Ashray Kendra and in course of her evidence the compromise papers was marked as Ext. 8/2. P.W. 12 is a retired school teacher who was present at the time of compromise. He has stated that compromise papers was written by one Biplob and it was signed by Dolly, the victim, Bapi /husband and Kalyani/mother–in-law. The de facto complainant Kumud Banik and his wife Laxmi Banik put their L.T.I. on the compromise paper. 19. The compromise was effected on the basis of a settlement at Mahila Ashray Kendra. Ext. 7 is the signature of the victim on the application alleging torture on her by Bapi Mondal, Sukumar Mondal and Kalyani Mondal. That application was submitted before Mahila Ashray Kendra through the officer-in-charge, Nakasipara P.S., Nadia. The application was forwarded to the Mahila Ashray Kendra on 31-12-2005. On perusal of the application it appears that it is silent regarding the demand of money. This Court can take judicial note of it specially when the said application was taken as base to effect the compromise which has been reduced into writing and marked as Ext.8/2. The compromise papers is aimed at Bapi Mondal/husband and Kalyani Mondal/mother-in–law. It is silent regarding Sukumar Mondal/father-in-law though the name of Sukumar Mondal has been noted at the heading. The compromise papers was signed by the victim Dolly Mondal and Bapi Mondal. Kalyani Mondal, Kumud Banik and Laxmi Banik put their LTI on it. P.W. 10 and 12 put their signature on it also. The compromise was effected on 8-1-2006. 20. On analysis of the afore-placed evidence it appears that the FIR maker in his oral evidence has not stated anything about torture being inflicted by the father-in-law. There is also no evidence from the victim to the effect that she reported the torture to her father i.e. FIR maker. The compromise was effected on 8-1-2006. 20. On analysis of the afore-placed evidence it appears that the FIR maker in his oral evidence has not stated anything about torture being inflicted by the father-in-law. There is also no evidence from the victim to the effect that she reported the torture to her father i.e. FIR maker. The compromise petition which is an exhibited document has said about involvement of the husband and the mother-in-law. It is silent regarding the involvement of the father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, vis-à-vis demand of money and the evidence in respect of the said persons is not convincing. Therefore, the substantive evidence is that the husband and mother-in-law had a role in the ill treatment and torture meted to the victim. The finding of the learned Court in including the father-in-law/Sukumar Mondal, Sister-in-law/Runu Bairyagi @ Runu Saha and brother-in-law/Ujjal Mondal is not based on convincing evidence. Under such circumstances the judgment, order of conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC against the aforesaid three persons appears palpably erroneous. But the order of conviction and sentence passed against Bapi Mondal/husband and Kalyani Mondal/mother-in-law is based on substantive evidence. 21. Regarding the charge under Section 307 of IPC we find that the victim has stated in her evidence that she was engaged in stitching her blouse in front of room in the courtyard and her son was in her lap. At that point of time her mother-in-law came from behind poured kerosene oil on her head and body, her father-in-law Sukumar Mondal took away her son and husband/Bapi Mondal put her on flame with the help of a match stick. Her whole body was covered with fire. She was running in the courtyard. Someone poured water over her body. She was sent to hospital by the accused persons. She was treated at Saktinagar Hospital and thereafter at N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta. 22. P.W. 6, Dr. Sutapa Biswas. She has stated in her evidence that on 23-4-2007 she was posted at Bethuadhori Rural Hospital as Medical Officer. On that day she treated the victim around 8.30 a.m. Provisional diagnosis was burn injury. She referred the patient to Saktinagar Hospital. 23. P.W. 7 is Dr. Sk. Abdul Goffar. He has stated in his evidence that on 23-4-2007 he was posted at District Hospital, Nadia. On that day she treated the victim around 8.30 a.m. Provisional diagnosis was burn injury. She referred the patient to Saktinagar Hospital. 23. P.W. 7 is Dr. Sk. Abdul Goffar. He has stated in his evidence that on 23-4-2007 he was posted at District Hospital, Nadia. On that date one patient named Dolly Mondal was referred from Bethuadhori Block Primary Health Centre with history of burn injury. She was admitted under his care on that date. He examined the patient. The patient stated to him that “her husband and mother-in-law poured kerosene oil over her face and body and caught fire over her garment at about 8.30 a.m. on that date i.e. on 23-4-2007.” He recorded the statement of the patient. The said statement has been marked as Ext. 2. 24. Ext. 2 displays the role of husband and mother-in-law and speaks as to how the victim was set on flame. The evidence of the doctor, Ext.2 and evidence of victim in part have corroborated each other. It is clear that the mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on the person of the victim and the husband put the victim on flame. The victim has survived after prolonged treatment so a case has been initiated for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The evidence of the doctor and Ext. 2 is silent regarding the involvement of the father-in-law/Sukumar Mondal. The victim has stated in her evidence that the father-in-law took away her son from her lap but the Investigating Officer/P.W. 10 has stated in his evidence that Dolly did not state that all the accused persons assaulted her. It was also not stated by Dolly that the accused persons demanded money for purchasing cycle and light. She did not state to him that when she sat in the courtyard she had a child on her lap. She has not stated to him that her father-in-law snatched the child from her lap. Therefore, the evidence against the father-in-law to connect him with the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is lacking. But the evidence on record has clearly projected the role of the husband and mother-in-law to set the victim on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person. The evidence inspires confidence. It is specific and unambiguous. Therefore, the evidence against the father-in-law to connect him with the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is lacking. But the evidence on record has clearly projected the role of the husband and mother-in-law to set the victim on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person. The evidence inspires confidence. It is specific and unambiguous. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the husband and mother-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC appears to have been based on substantive evidence. But the finding of the learned Court below connecting the father-in-law along with the rest two appellants named above is erroneous. 25. Although Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 36 for the proposition that imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC should be given in rare case. In the instant case the victim was 20 years old at the time of incident. She sustained burn injury on her head, face, hand and frontal upper portion of the body. Her appearance took an ugly look. She is to bear this scar of torture throughout her long future life. The husband and mother-in-law of the victim are the perpetrator of the offence which has actually embedded painful future life of the victim. Therefore, we do not think it a fit case where the sentence awarded by the learned Court below against the husband and mother-in-law may be altered. 26. On the contrary the decision reported in AIR (1961)SC 1782 justifies the punishment as it has been held in the said decision that a person commits an offence under Section 307 IPC when in pursuance of the intent to commit murder does an act towards its commission irrespective of whether that act is the penultimate act or not. In the instant case too the act is an act in a series of acts with the intent to murder and is punishable under Section 307 IPC. 27. On appreciation of the overall evidence on record the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against all the appellants be modified to the extent that the judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Bapi Mondal/husband and Kalyani Mondal/mother-in-law be affirmed. The judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed against Sukumar Mondal/father-in-law, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha/sister-in-law and Ujjal Mondal/brother-in-law be set aside. 28. The judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed against Sukumar Mondal/father-in-law, Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha/sister-in-law and Ujjal Mondal/brother-in-law be set aside. 28. In the result, the appeal being CRA 269 of 2009 is allowed in part and appeal being CRA 270 of 2009 is allowed. 29. Appellants Sukumar Mondal be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case. Appellants Runu Bairagya @ Runu Saha and Ujjal Mondal who are on bail be discharged from their bail bonds. Urgent Photostat certified copies of judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. Patherya, J.: I agree.