JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment dated 28.7.1990 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Session Case No. 13/1988, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Appellants Offence Sentence Jagdeo Singh, Nakchatra Singh Smt. Kartar Kaur, Smt. Angrej Kaur 306 IPC Four years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I. each. Jagdeo Singh, Nakchatra Singh Sm. Kartar Kaur, Smt. Angrej Kaur 498-A IPC Two years' R.l. and the pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months simple imprisonment each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the on 5.5.1987, at about 7.30 AM one Balraj Singh filed an oral report (Exhibit P-2) at the Police Station Raisinghnagar with the allegations that his sister Sarwajeet Kaur had been married to appellant Jagdeo Singh about two years back. She used to live with her husband and in-laws after the marriage. It was further alleged in the report that after about one year of the marriage, the mother-in-law Kartar Kaur, sister-in-law Angrej Kaur, brother-in-law Nakchatra Singh and her husband Jagdeo Singh started harassing and humiliating her on account of demand of dowry. It was further alleged that as dowry articles as demanded by the accused had not been given at the time of marriage, Sarwajeet Kaur was also beaten frequently. Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son, the accused appellants demanded that she should bring more articles from her parental home (Pihar). On 4.5.1987, at about 11 PM, appellant Gurdeo Singh came to the village Karadwala and told the complainant and his family members that Sarwajeet Kaur had left the house on 4.5.1987 after 12 noon and she was not traceable. On this, the complainant along with his companions started searching for Sarwajeet Kaur. Ultimately, the dead body of Sarwajeet Kaur was found in the diggi of the village Luhara. Saudagar Singh informed the complainant that on 4.5.1987, Sarwajeet Kaur was abused by Kartar Kaur and Angrej Kaur. On this, the complainant along with his companions started searching for Sarwajeet Kaur. Ultimately, the dead body of Sarwajeet Kaur was found in the diggi of the village Luhara. Saudagar Singh informed the complainant that on 4.5.1987, Sarwajeet Kaur was abused by Kartar Kaur and Angrej Kaur. She was also beaten by Jagdeo Singh and Nakchatra Singh, due to which, she became perturbed and committed suicide by jumping into the diggi of the village. 3. On the basis of this report, a case for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC in the court concerned. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar committed the case to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar framed the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused appellants. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. The accused appellants in the statements recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution. Accused appellant Jagdeo Singh stated that Sarwajeet Kaur had never been harassed for dowry (dahej). He further stated that Sarwajeet Kaur was suffering from an ailment and, thus, she had been taken to Gurudwara for taking elixir of life. It was further stated that neither he nor any other person instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Four witnesses were examined in support of the defence. The trial court ultimately came to a conclusion that the charge framed against the accused appellants needed to be amended and, accordingly, on the basis of an application filed by the prosecution the charge framed against the appellants was altered and they were charged for the offence under Section 304-B IPC by order dated 5.2.1990. An additional opportunity of cross examination was given to the accused appellants, which was availed by them. The learned trial Judge on the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold that the deceased had been harassed and maltreated by the accused persons and, thus, she was instigated to commit suicide within a period of about two and a half years of the marriage. The learned trial Judge on the conclusion of the trial proceeded to hold that the deceased had been harassed and maltreated by the accused persons and, thus, she was instigated to commit suicide within a period of about two and a half years of the marriage. The learned trial court however found that there was no prima facie material available on the record of the case to hold that the accused appellants committed any cruelty on the deceased on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and, thus, the accused were not liable for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The learned trial court finally convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants. 4. Learned counsel Mr. M.K. Garg submitted that in this case, the conviction of the appellants is absolutely illegal. He submitted that the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants from the offence under Section 304-B IPC finding that there was no evidence in support to the said charge. He further submitted that there is no material available on the record of the case to show that the accused appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide or hat they treated her with cruelty. Learned counsel thus submitted that the conviction of the appellants in this case is absolutely illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that the deceased was married to the accused appellant Jagdeo Singh just about two and a half years prior to her death. It was further submitted that the prosecution witnesses Hardam Singh (PW-1). Saudagar Singh (PW-2), Jangir Kaur (PW-3), Hardeep Kaur (PW-4) Gurdeo Singh (PW-5), Balkaran Singh (PW-7) have categorically stated that the deceased was continuously harassed by the accused persons on account of bringing lass dowry right from her marriage. It was further stated by the prosecution witnesses that after the birth of the child, more money and gifts were demanded from the deceased in chuchak as well. The learned Public Prosecutor thus submitted that the conviction of the accused appellants does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, perused the record and the judgment in challenge. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor thus submitted that the conviction of the accused appellants does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, perused the record and the judgment in challenge. 7. The summary of the prosecution is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience. 8. Hardam Singh (PW-1) was the uncle of the deceased. He clearly alleged that the accused appellants started harassing the deceased after one year of the marriage and used to demand dowry articles from her. He has specifically stated that after Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son, at that time, the appellants demanded a motorcycle and a sum of rupees ten thousand from her. Saudagar Singh (PW-2) is an important witness of the prosecution. He was a resident of the village of the accused persons. He stated that after a year of the marriage, the accused started quarreling with the deceased and used to demand dowry from her. He further stated that Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son at the village Karadwala (at her parental home) and then she came back to her matrimonial home at Luhara. On the date of the occurrence, Sarwajeet Kaur met him at about 8 OClock in the morning and requested him to take her back at her parental home. She further told him that she had been beaten by Jagdeo Singh and Nakchatra Singh and abused by Angrej Kaur and Kartar Kaur. Thereafter, he received information, from Jagdeo Singh that Sarwajeet Kaur had gone missing. On the next morning, her dead body was found in the diggi of the village. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken in cross examination. Jangir Kaur (PW- 3), the mother of deceased Sarwajeet Kaur has stated in her examination-in-chief that accused appellant Jagdeo Singh used to threaten the deceased that unless a sum of rupees ten thousand or a motorcycle is given to him, she would not be kept in the matrimonial home. Hardeep Kaur (PW-4), the sister-in-law of the deceased specifically deposed that after Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son, Jagdeo Singh demanded that he should be given either a motorcycle or a sum of rupees ten thousand, on which, he was told that the articles would be given to him after the crops were harvested. Hardeep Kaur (PW-4), the sister-in-law of the deceased specifically deposed that after Sarwajeet Kaur gave birth to a son, Jagdeo Singh demanded that he should be given either a motorcycle or a sum of rupees ten thousand, on which, he was told that the articles would be given to him after the crops were harvested. Gurdeo Singh (PW-5), a cousin of the deceased too alleged that the deceased was harassed by her matrimonial relatives on account of bringing less dowry. Balkaran Singh (PW-7), the brother of the deceased alleged that about 7 to 8 days before the death of his sister, he had gone to the village Luhara. His sister told him that Nakchatra Singh, Jagdeo Singh, Angrej Kaur and Kartar Kaur were harassing her for chuchak. Significantly enoggh, this witness has not stated that a year after the marriage the accused started harassing the deceased on account of bringing less dowry. Thus, the testimony of this witness is contrary to the testimony of other witnesses which have been discussed herein above. Abdul Aziz (PW-8), the I.O. has admitted in his cross examination that during investigation, no witness told him that the accused demanded a sum of rupees ten thousand or a motorcycle from the deceased in chuchak. The defence witnesses who have been examined by the accused were basically examined to prove that the deceased was suffering from an ailment and she had been taken to Gurudwara for giving her amrit (elixir of life). The learned trial court has discarded the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the allegation that the deceased was harassed and humiliated soon before her death on account of bringing less dowry. The learned trial court placed reliance on the testimony of Saudagar Singh (PW-2) with whom the deceased is alleged to have met in the morning of the fateful day. The deceased allegedly told him that she had been beaten by Jagdeo Singh and Nakchatra Singh and abused by Angrej Kaur and Kartar Kaur. This witness however is not categoric about any allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased in relation to the demand of dowry. 9. The deceased allegedly told him that she had been beaten by Jagdeo Singh and Nakchatra Singh and abused by Angrej Kaur and Kartar Kaur. This witness however is not categoric about any allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased in relation to the demand of dowry. 9. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that so far as the appellants - Nakchatra Singh, Smt. Kartar Kaur and Smt. Angrej Kaur are concerned, there is no clinching evidence on the record of the case, by which, they can be held responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution evidence at best can be held sufficient to uphold their conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. However, there is clinching evidence to prove that the appellant Jagdeo Singh continuously harassed the deceased in relation to some illegal demands and also assaulted her on the fateful day. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the instant appeal filed on behalf of the appellants deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Whilst the conviction of the appellant - Jagdeo Singh for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC is concerned, the same deserves to be affirmed and is hereby affirmed. However, on the question of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that as the incident took place way back in the year 1987, the sentence of four years R.l. awarded to the appellant - Jagdeo Singh for the offence under Section 306 IPC deserves to be reduced for a period of two years R.l. So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the sentence awarded to all the appellants deserves to be reduced for the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as below:- 11. The conviction of the appellant - Jagdeo Singh for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC is affirmed. However, the sentence of four years R.l. awarded to him for the offence under Section 306 IPC is reduced to the period of two years R.l. Further, the sentence of two years, R.l. awarded to him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. Appellant - Jagdeo Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. 12. Appellant - Jagdeo Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender himself to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 13. So far as the appellants - Nakchatra Singh, Smt. Kartar Kaur and Smt. Angrej Kaur are concerned, they are acquitted from the charge under Section 306 IPC. However, their conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed but the sentence of two years R.l. awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******