JUDGMENT 1. - Today S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 410/2013 preferred by the applicant-appellant Kapil is listed. During the course of arguments, a joint request was made by Shri M.K. Garg, counsel for the applicant and Shri A.R. Nikub for State that since the record from the trial Court had already been requisitioned and the same are available. The appeal itself be decided. On the joint request and with the consent of the parties, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 623/2010 is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The appellant Kapil along with Iris parents was named as accused in case F.I.R. No. 510/2010 Police Station, Khamera for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Neelam about three years before from the date of occurrence was married with the present appellant Kapil. Neelam died on 3.1.2010 due to burn injury in the matrimonial home. PW-3 Narendra Pachori (father of the deceased) made statements before the police on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. In the statements, it was stated by the complainant that three years ago his daughter was Neelam used to harass her for bringing less dowry and they were demanding dowry. It was further stated that she was often neaten by in-laws who used to demand dowry. It was also stated that a few days before she came to the house of her parents and disclosed that the accused gave her beating and were demanding dowry. The complainant stated that he had sent her daughter back to the matrimonial house with an assurance that better times shall prevail. 3. The above said F.I.R. was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Session Judge (FT), Banswara. The appellants along with his parents was charged for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. 4. The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.2010 acquitted the parents of the appellant for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and Section 306 I.P.C., however held the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him for the above offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. vide a separate order of even date, for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer three months S.I. Further, for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one month S.I. The Court below had ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant. 5. Shri Badami Lal who appeared as PW-1 slated in the Court that daughter of his nephew was married with the present appellant. During the cross-examination, it was admitted that by this witness that before two and half year of the occurrence, Neelam was married to the appellant. For six months she was kept well and the appellant Kapil being suspicious never allowed Neelam to go out of house. He was extraordinary suspicious if she used to contact anybody. 6. The learned trial Court has returned a finding so far as demand of dowry and infliction of cruelty and harassment of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution could not prove its case. It further held that since the appellant used to doubt the character of his wife, on that account, lie used to quarrel with his wife and beat her. 7. Shri M.K. Garg counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the allegation that the appellant used to beat his wife doubting her character is concerned, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the witnesses as they have intentionally told lie to the Court that the accused used to demand dowry and harass the deceased. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the witnesses have falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. It is further contended that the witnesses have been partly disbelieved. 8. I have gone through the record of the case and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. The Court below has extended benefit of doubt to the parents of the appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the witnesses have been disbelieved, even otherwise principle oi falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not being followed in the Indian Courts. The Court below has extended benefit of doubt to the parents of the appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the witnesses have been disbelieved, even otherwise principle oi falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not being followed in the Indian Courts. Badami Lal, PW-1 being uncle of the deceased is a true witness and he has very candidly stated in his cross-examination that present appellant used to beat and ill-treat his wife by suspecting her character. Thus, the appellant was treating his wife with cruelty Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act raise a presumption against the appellant in case of death of wife within 7 years of marriage to abetment of suicide. 9. At this juncture, the counsel for the appellant submits that the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 306 I.P.C. is 10 years R.I. It is submitted that it has come in evidence of PW-1 that for six months or one year the relations between husband and wife were cordial. It has also come into evidence that for earning the livelihood the appellant had gone to Quwait. It has been urged that it is natural for the husband who is away from the house to earn livelihood to suspect character of the young lonely wife. 10. The counsel for the appellant submits that this Court should consider reduction of sentence. At the time of occurrence, the appellant was aged 27 years. It is further contended before this Court that the appellant has to look after his old parents who have been acquitted by the trial Court and were necessarily tried for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C./306 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the son of the deceased is being brought up by the family of the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant is not involved in any case before or after registration of the present case. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant is not involved in any case before or after registration of the present case. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. The trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and has convicted the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and considering the age protected trial, this Court is of the view that while maintaining conviction for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C., sentence can be reduced from 7 years to 5 years under Section 306 I.P.C. Sentence of fine and default is however maintained. The sentence for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is also maintained. Sentence given qua both the offences as ordered by the trial Court shall run concurrently. 12. In view of disposal of criminal appeal, the application for suspension of sentence has been rendered in fructuous.Appeal disposed of. *******