Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.— This appeal has been preferred by Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.8.2006 of the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City/District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 16/2005, by which he was convicted and sentenced as under: Under Sections Imprisonment 302 of the IPC To under Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 304-B of the IPC To undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 498-A of the IPC To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are that a written report (Exhibit P.5) was submitted by one Boduram to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, on 13.9.2004 alleging that his daughter Babli was married with accused Prem Prakash @ Dhara Singh as per Hindu rites in June, 2003. At the time of marriage, he gave enough dowry as per his financial status. His daughter Babli was always harassed by her husband Prem Prakash, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Sita, brothers, in-law Harphool and Sanju, on demand of dowry. Babli Devi also complained to the information about such maltreatment. The information visited her in-law's place on 3-4 occasions and requested them not to harass her. He pleaded with them that he, being a poor person with limited means, is unable to satisfy their demand of dowry. When Babli Devi visited the house of information on the occasion of `raksha-bandhan', she narrated the incident of maltreatment by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry. When accused Prem Prakash came to take Babli Devi with, the informant tried his best to let him understand not to harass Babli Devi and thereafter sent Babli Devi with Prem Prakash for her in-laws place. She was given Rs. 1500/- in cash, a pair of gold anklet and tops and clothes. On the way, Prem Prakash started beating Babli Devi near Reengus and took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in village Rampura while quarreling, in the night at 9.00 pm on 11.9.2004. She was given Rs. 1500/- in cash, a pair of gold anklet and tops and clothes. On the way, Prem Prakash started beating Babli Devi near Reengus and took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in village Rampura while quarreling, in the night at 9.00 pm on 11.9.2004. It was there that Prem Prakash possibly put an end to the life of Babli Devi by giving her poison. Action be taken. 3. The police thereon registered the case for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused-appellant under Sections 4980A and 304-B of the IPC. The learned trial court, however, apart from framing the charges for those two offences, also alternatively framed the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution got 26 witnesses examined and exhibited 17 documents in support of its case, whereas the defence examined two witnesses and exhibited seven documents in support of his case. The learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant, as well as Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the material on record. 5. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant, argued that conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 304-B and 302 IPC is illegal and perverse. The learned trial court has framed defective charges for offence under Sections 304-B and 302 IPC. The prosecution came with two stories. It is well settled that the prosecution cannot come with two stories. There was a great delay in lodging of the first information report. The occurrence took place on 11.9.2004. Bodu Ram was informed immediately thereafter but he submitted a typed report on 13.9.2004, which shows that before doing so he had consulted some expert person and after that the story was fabricated. The complainant had no personal knowledge about the alleged beating given by the accused-appellant to deceased Babli Devi on the way near Reengus as he was not present there. In the complaint itself, the complainant has not stated as to what was the demand of dowry made by the accused-appellant. From the facts of the case it appears that deceased herself was not interested to go with the accused-appellant. In the complaint itself, the complainant has not stated as to what was the demand of dowry made by the accused-appellant. From the facts of the case it appears that deceased herself was not interested to go with the accused-appellant. She was forcefully sent by her parents and therefore she consumed poison i.e. celphos tablet, therefore, even if the case of the prosecution be taken on its face value, it being a case of suicide, the accused-appellant did not commit any offence. A person cannot give poison to another person by force. Thus the story that accused-appellant gave poison to deceased Babli Devi cannot be believed. From the facts it is clear that when the accused-appellant along-with his wife reached the house of appellant's maternal grandmother, Babli Devi prepared food and gave the same to the accused-appellant. There was neither any chance nor occasion for the accused-appellant to give her poisonous tablets. There is no evidence available on record to show that accused-appellant committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned trial Court, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, came to the conclusion that accused-appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for accused-appellant, has argued that there is no evidence available on record to show that the accused-appellant committed the offence under Section 304-B IPC. There is no evidence that soon before the death of Babli Devi, any article was demanded from her in dowry. There is general and vague evidence. It is not clear as to what was the demand of the accused-appellant or his relatives, in dowry. It is also not proved from evidence that deceased Babli Devi was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry soon before her death. 7. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused-appellant has committed offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Vimla (PW.1) has made lot of improvements in her statement, which contained contradictions and omissions. From her statement, it is clear that deceased Babli Devi forced the accused-appellant to leave the house of his father and thus, she started living separately along-with the accused-appellant. 8. Vimla (PW.1) has made lot of improvements in her statement, which contained contradictions and omissions. From her statement, it is clear that deceased Babli Devi forced the accused-appellant to leave the house of his father and thus, she started living separately along-with the accused-appellant. 8. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has argued that Namo Narain Meena (PW.2), who is brother of deceased Babli Devi, has made lot of improvements in his statement. He admitted that he came to know about the death of Babli on 11.9.2004. He has first time stated before the trial Court that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the accused-appellant and therefore his statement cannot be relied on. From the statement of Prabhu Dayal (PW. 3) it is clear that there was no demand of dowry. He has not stated a single word that there was any demand of dowry or dispute for this reason. 9. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has argued that statement of Laxmi Narain (PW. 4) is full of contradictions and omissions. He has admitted that no beating was given to Babli Devi in his presence. He took meal at the house of grandmother-in-law of Babli. From his statement, it is clear that no complaint was made by Babli. Neither accused-appellant demanded any article nor harassed her. Kanhaiya Lal (PW. 5), who is an independent witness, stated that on 11.9.2004 at 2.00 pm one person was giving beating to a lady in the bus and he was drunk. This witness has not identified the accused-appellant, but identified another person in the court. Bhanwar Lal (PW. 6) was also examined as an independent witness. He has also stated that one male was giving berating to a female and asking her for money for taking liquor. This witness does not know the accused. No test identification parade was held. This witness is known to complainant Bodu Ram and the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of the case that this witness even does not know deceased Babli Devi, who was daughter of complainant Bodu Ram. From the statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW. 7) it is clear that accused-appellant tried to save deceased Babli as he took her to hospital in a Jeep driven by this witness. This witness also stated that he informed father of Babli about the incident. From the statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW. 7) it is clear that accused-appellant tried to save deceased Babli as he took her to hospital in a Jeep driven by this witness. This witness also stated that he informed father of Babli about the incident. This witness has admitted that when the written-report (Exhibit P-2) was submitted by Jagdish Sarpanch at Police Station, father of Babli was also present at the police station along-with him. Ramji Lal (PW. 8) and Surgyani (PW. 9) have stated that accused-appellant tried to save his wife deceased Babli Devi. He took her to the doctor and purchased and gave medicines to her. Complainant Bodu Ram (PW. 10) is the father of deceased Babli Devi. He has made lot of improvements in his statement. He did not lodge the report immediately after the occurrence. As per statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW. 7), he was present when Jagdish Sarpanch submitted the written-report (Exhibit P.2) to the police. Before the trial court he came with the case that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/-. His statement made it clear that he got the report typed through an Advocate. 10. Shri Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has argued that from the statement of Dr. Mahesh Chand Singhal (PW. 11) it is clear that the deceased might have received the injuries during the course when she was taken to the hospital in a Jeep. It is argued that the conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be sustained on the basis of statements of Ram Singh (PW. 21) and Babu Lal (PW. 25). Babu Lal (PW. 25) was present when Babli consumed poisonous substance. The trial court has not properly considered and critically examined the statements of defence witnesses. It was the duty of the learned trial court to also consider the statements of the defence witnesses. 11. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and order of learned trial court be quashed and set-aside. 12. Per contra, Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that evidence in the present case clearly proved that the accused started harassing the deceased in the first month of the marriage on demand of colour television and cash. He was so angry that he broke the black and white television given in dowry. His demand of cash persisted till the death of Babli Devi. He was so angry that he broke the black and white television given in dowry. His demand of cash persisted till the death of Babli Devi. Evidence also proved that he snatched money of Babli Devi in the bus. He was annoyed with her for not bringing sufficient dowry and demanded cash from her parents and therefore instead of taking her to his native place, the accused-appellant took her to the place of his maternal grandmother and forcefully made her to consume poison. He is thus solely responsible for her death. 13. Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that the invitation card (Exhibit P.7) of the marriage has been proved by Bodu Ram (PW. 10), the father of deceased Babli Devi. The marriage, according to this evidence, was solemnized on 23.6.2006 and the incident in which the deceased died, took place in the intervening night of 12th-13th of September, 2004, thus the death had taken place in mysterious circumstances within seven years of the marriage. A presumption against the accused would therefore assume under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. From the statements of Vimla (PW. 1), Namo Narain (PW.2), Laxmi Narain (PW. 4) and Bodu Ram (PW.10) it is categorically proved that deceased Babli Devi was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry soon before her death, which thus satisfies the pre-requisite condition of Section 304-B of the IPC. The fact that she was forced to consume poison, brings the matter within the purview of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The evidence has proved that when deceased left with the accused-appellant, he throughtout the way upto the place of his maternal grandmother, quarreled with the deceased and demanded money and when she refused to give him money, he subjected her to beating. 14. Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his argument, referred to the statements of aforesaid witnesses. He also referred to the statement of Sanwarmal (PW. 26), the maternal uncle of the deceased, who has also proved that the accused-appellant and his family members demands a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the deceased for purchase of stone slabs. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that accused asked deceased Babli Devi to pressurize her parents to give such money. 15. 26), the maternal uncle of the deceased, who has also proved that the accused-appellant and his family members demands a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the deceased for purchase of stone slabs. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that accused asked deceased Babli Devi to pressurize her parents to give such money. 15. Shri Javed Chaudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that charge for offence under Section 302 IPC has rightly been held proved because the accused-appellant continuously harassed the deceased. The accused-appellant quarreled with deceased even in the bus and was about to beat her in the bus itself but other passengers restrained him from doing so. Immediately after alighting from the bus, the accused-appellant threw the suitcase of the deceased. He snatched money from the deceased at the bus stand at Reengus and went with his friend Babulal to consume liquor. Instead of taking deceased to his native village, accused-appellant took her to the house of his maternal grandmother in Rampura village, and Babulal also accompanied them upto that place. All this was done with the sole intention of implanting Babulal as a witness in his favour. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence proves even the charge of offence under Section 302 IPC. 16. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 18. The evidence in the present matter has conclusively proved that the marriage of the deceased Babli Devi was solemnized with the accused-appellant on 23.6.2003 and she was found dead in mysterious circumstances on 13.9.2004, thus the presumption of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872, would arise against the accused-appellant. There is also ample evidence to prove that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on demand of dowry by the accused-appellant soon before her death. The statements of Vimla (PW. 1), Namo Narain (PW. 2), Prabhu Dayal (PW. 3), who are respectively mother, brother and uncle of the deceased, Laxmi Narain (PW. 4) and Badu Ram (PW. 10), who is father of the deceased, have proved that the accused-appellant used to demand dowry and on demand of dowry he used to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment. 19. Vimla (PW.1), mother of the deceased, has stated that the accused was a habitual drunkard. He used to demand colour television. 4) and Badu Ram (PW. 10), who is father of the deceased, have proved that the accused-appellant used to demand dowry and on demand of dowry he used to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment. 19. Vimla (PW.1), mother of the deceased, has stated that the accused was a habitual drunkard. He used to demand colour television. He was so much annoyed that on one day he had broken the black and white television given to deceased in dowry. Whenever the deceased would come to her parent's house, she would tell that the accused used to pressurize her that she should bring money from her parents. Even when deceased came to her parent's house on the festival of `raksha-bandhan' and stayed there for 5-6 days, she told that her entire ornaments have been taken away by the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant sent a message through her aunt-in-law that family of the deceased should give him within fifteen days an amount of rupees fifteen twenty thousand. When the deceased lastly left with the accused, this witness gave the deceased Rs. 1500/- in cash and spent the amount of Rs. 500/- on her clothes. On the way when the accused demanded money from the deceased, she refused to part with the money. The accused gave her beating and snatched the money. Namo Narain Meena (PW.2), real brother of the deceased, has stated that the accused used to demand cash of Rs. 50,000/- from them. When his another brother Laxmi Narain went to the house of in-laws of the deceased to take her to her parent's house, that time also the accused had demanded the money. He was a habitual drunkard. He used to beat deceased Babli. Instead of taking her to his own native place, the accused-appellant took her to the village of his maternal grandmother and put her to death. Laxmi Narain (PW. 4), another brother of the deceased, has also made similar statement. He stated that lastly when he went to the house of accused on 4.9.2004 to fetch the deceased Babli, accused and his mother, sister and brother started abusing him. They complained that the deceased has not brought enough dowry. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant-party and stated that deceased Babli should come back to his house only when she brings such money. They complained that the deceased has not brought enough dowry. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant-party and stated that deceased Babli should come back to his house only when she brings such money. On 6.9.2004 again when he went to the house of the accused, he found that Babli was very angry. He saw the accused in the state of intoxication, beating the deceased. Prabhu Lal (PW. 3), the uncle of the deceased, has stated that the accused used to be very upset. 20. The list of the dowry articles of dowry (Exhibit P.3) has been proved by Jagdish Prasad (PW. 7) and Bheewa Ram (PW. 18) as also Ram Singh (PW. 21). Kanhaiya Lal (PW. 5) and Bhanwar Lal (PW. 6) are independent witnesses. They were both travelling in the bus when the deceased came with the accused from her parents house. Kanhaiya Lal (PW. 5) has stated that they intervened to save the deceased and restrained the accused from beating her. Whereupon the accused stated that he would beat her as she was his wife. This witness has stated that the accused was asking the deceased as to how much money she has brought from her parents and that he was demanding money for buying liquor. He accompanied them in the bus till the bus reached Reengus. Bhanwar Lal (PW. 6) has also stated that the accused was manhandling the deceased in the bus and demanding money. The deceased took the purse and threw the same towards the accused, who was in a drunken condition. He asked the accused not to quarrel in the bus. When accused wanted to beat the deceased, this witness intervened to save her and threatened the accused not to quarrel in the bus. The deceased was weeping. Babulal (PW. 25), who is friend of the accused and accompanied them in the bus, has stated that accused called Babulal in the bus and there they together went to a public park in Reengus. The accused brought country-made liquor and they both consumed the same. Then they went to srimadhopur by Bus. On alighting from the bus at Srimadhopur again the accused demanded money from the deceased and told him that his wife had amount of Rs. 1000/- but she was making false statement that her purse is missing somewhere. The accused demanded from him a sum of Rs. Then they went to srimadhopur by Bus. On alighting from the bus at Srimadhopur again the accused demanded money from the deceased and told him that his wife had amount of Rs. 1000/- but she was making false statement that her purse is missing somewhere. The accused demanded from him a sum of Rs. 100/- on the promise that he would return the same on following day. The accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other. The accused even threw the suitcase of the deceased at Srimadhopur and the suitcase got opened and her clothes scattered on the road. A person, who was a passer by, asked the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. The accused was demanding money from her whereas the deceased was stating that her purse was lost on the way somewhere. All the three of them went to Rampura by bus and reached there around 7.00 in the evening. The deceased prepared the food for them. The accused brought the food and both, the deceased and this witness, consumed the food. Thereafter he heard the sound of whooping of the deceased. She was vomiting also. The accused and the deceased went to sleep on a cot behind the `kuchha hut', whereas this witness stayed in the front. After 15-20 minutes, the accused came to him and told that deceased was vomiting and also she had dysentery. Then they brought a jeep around 11.00 pm and took the deceased to private hospital at Shahpura, who then referred her to a Government hospital. The police also came at the Hospital. On enquiry by the police, the deceased told that the accused used to subject her to beating but she did not disclose the reason why she vomitted. The accused then wanted to take her to Jaipur but he had no enough money. This witness went to Rampura to arrange the money. He along-with the maternal uncle of the accused, came back in the night at 1.00 amand then they came to know that Babli Devi had breathed her last. 21. Dr. Mahesh Chand Singhal (PW. 11), who was the member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy of the deceased, has proved the postmortem report (Exhibit P. 9). As per the postmortem-report the deceased had following injuries, 1. Linear abrasion 3.5 cm x 0.25 cm on nose encircling the tip of nose. 2. 21. Dr. Mahesh Chand Singhal (PW. 11), who was the member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy of the deceased, has proved the postmortem report (Exhibit P. 9). As per the postmortem-report the deceased had following injuries, 1. Linear abrasion 3.5 cm x 0.25 cm on nose encircling the tip of nose. 2. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.25 cm on lower lip left side. 3. Abrasion (two) 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm each, on left side of neck. 4. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right side of neck. 5. Abrasion (four) 2 cm x 2 cm size each on right side of buttock. 6. Abrasion (three) 1 cm x 1 cm each on left buttock. 22. In the postmortem-report, it was opined that mode of death was asphyxia. The cause of death will be given after getting the report of chemical analysis of various viscera from the Forensic Science Laboratory. All the injuries were opined to be ante-mortem in nature. The Investigating officer has proved the F.S.L. Report (Exhibit P. 10), according to which the portions of viscera (1-4) from two packets marked (A) and (B) gave positive tests for the presence of Aluminum Phosphide and gave negative tests fro ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. The duration of the death was opened to be 24-48 hours. 23. Dr. Mahesh Chand Singhal (PW. 11) has stated that the kind of poison of which the deceased Babli Devi died, was also known as celphos but, in the cross-examination he stated that he was not in a position to say as to in what form and manner the deceased consumed celphos. He was not able to state definitely as to within what time a person would die after consuming celphos. He also could not say as to when the deceased had consumed the celphos. But this witness has stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be self-inflicted. 24. He was not able to state definitely as to within what time a person would die after consuming celphos. He also could not say as to when the deceased had consumed the celphos. But this witness has stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be self-inflicted. 24. The evidence in the present case has amply proved that the deceased was subjected to beating by the accused in the bus on the way to Reengus and thereafter at Reengus and Srimadhopur each place he demanded the money which she had brought from her parents, to buy the liquor as it is proved that the accused was a habitual drunkard but that evidence does not prove that the accused in fact murdered the deceased or that he forced her to consume celphos. The injuries, as already noticed above, are superficial and simple in nature. This only corroborates the allegation against the accused-appellant that he subjected her to beating but the evidence does not justify the finding of conviction for culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the PC. The finding of the learned trial court that the accused purposely carried his friend Babulal (PW. 25) with him to create evidence in his favour cannot be countenanced. The evidence proves that Babulal indeed accompanied the accused and they both consumed liquor together but to say that it was because the accused had the intention of murdering his wife and actually murdered her and therefore this should be a circumstantial evidence against him, cannot be accepted. The circumstances are not such which point the finger of suspicion against the accused that he murdered the deceased by forcing her to consume celphos. The chain of circumstances is not complete to prove that it is the accused who murdered the deceased especially because the mode of death was not by any outside intervention but was rather due to consumption of celphos by the deceased. However, the conviction of the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, is amply supported by the evidence on record, which proved those charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. 25. However, the conviction of the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, is amply supported by the evidence on record, which proved those charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Having held that the accused-appellant cannot be convicted for the charge under Section 302 IPC, we have now to examine whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC would be, in the facts and circumstances of the case, justified. There was in fact no justification for the trial court to choose to impose sentence of life imprisonment when minimum sentence is seven years. The trial Court ought to have given reasons why it has chosen to award maximum sentence of life imprisonment in preference to minimum sentence of seven years. There was no extraordinary reason in the present case to award the maximum sentence of life imprisonment when the legislature has otherwise intended "imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years" as the minimum sentence "but which may extend to imprisonment for life" as the maximum sentence. A criminal court in making choice of maximum in preference to minimum, has to give reasons for such choice. The sentence order must reflect application of mind in this behalf, which is found wanting in the present case. 26. The Supreme Court in Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana- (1994) 6 SCC 727 , held that extreme punishment of life imprisonment should be awarded in rare cases and not in every case. Absence of direct connection of the accused with the death of the deceased is a mitigating factor. In the present case, that ratio would apply with full force because it is a case of suicidal death as no evidence of direct involvement of the accused-appellant Gajendra Singh is there though indirectly he may have been held responsible for such death. The Supreme Court in G.V. Siddaramesh vs. State of Karnataka - (2010) 3 SCC 152 also, reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years in which case, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself within one month of marriage. It was held that sentence of life imprisonment was excessive considering that appellant was young and has already undergone six years of imprisonment and in those facts, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It was held that sentence of life imprisonment was excessive considering that appellant was young and has already undergone six years of imprisonment and in those facts, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana - (1991) SCC 1 371 also held that in a case where there is no evidence as to the cause of death and the actual part played by the accused, minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and thus altered the sentence of life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court in Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - (2012) 8 SCC 594 held that keeping in view the prosecution evidence, attending circumstances, age of the accused and the fact that they remained already in jail for considerable period, the court may take lenient view as far as quantum of sentence is concerned. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that ends of justice would be met if punishment of life imprisonment is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 9 SCC 64 = 2011(1) RLW 29 (SC) also similarly reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment holding that in a case where there is no evidence as to the role played by the accused in the death of the deceased, punishment of ten years would serve the ends of justice. 27. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. While upholding conviction of the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, we acquit the accused-appellant of the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC. The sentence for offence under Section 304-B IPC is reduced to a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, and the same are maintained. 28. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court is accordingly modified.