JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 15/2012 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula dated 31st May, 2014 recording conviction of the appellant-accused persons as stated in detail in the judgment. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are that:-- "2.1 As it transpires from the material and evidence, the daughter of the complainant was married to the appellant-original accused No. 1 and within short span of 7-8 months of the marriage, she committed suicide. Initially the information was given by the in-laws to the son of the complainant that the deceased has received shock, for which, she is being taken to the Hanumant Hospital. Thereupon, the complainant, his wife and son proceeded to go to Jafarabad and found the dead body of the victim and, thereafter, it was learnt that she has committed suicide by setting her on fire due to harassment cause to her by the appellants-accused persons. For which, complaint was filed by the complainant-father, which has been registered as C.R. No. I-30/2011 before Jafarabad Police Station for the offences under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2 After the investigation was over, the chargesheet for the alleged offences came to be filed and as the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Judge framed the charges and proceeded with the trial. 2.4 In order to bring home the charges leveled against them, the prosecution examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence as mentioned in the impugned order. 2.5 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Sessions Judge recorded further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2.6 After hearing learned APP as well as learned advocates for the defence, the Sessions Judge passed impugned judgment and order recording conviction as stated therein." 3. Heard learned advocate, Shri P.M. Lakhani for the appellants-accused and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the State. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani referred to the charge at Exh. 5 and also referred to the testimony of the PW-2, complainant-father at Exh. 21. He also referred to complaint at Exh. 22. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani referred to the testimony of PW-4, brother at Exh. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani referred to the charge at Exh. 5 and also referred to the testimony of the PW-2, complainant-father at Exh. 21. He also referred to complaint at Exh. 22. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani referred to the testimony of PW-4, brother at Exh. 31 and also PW-7 at Exh. 38. He pointedly referred to the testimony of PW-1, father at Exh. 21 and also testimony of PW-4, brother at Exh. 31. He submitted that as it transpires, the harassment was caused to her with regard to the dowry or the gift which she had brought at the time of marriage. He submitted that though it is stated that in short span of marriage, the deceased committed suicide due to such harassment and there are no specific allegations. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani submitted that the brother of the deceased is an advocate and, therefore, subsequently the complaint has been given. He also submitted that PW-7, who is cousin brother and the advocate, has stated that the deceased used to visit parental house, however, same is not stated in his statement before the Police. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani also referred testimony of the mother, PW-8 and submitted that as admitted in the cross-examination, there is an association of the prominent person of the caste, to whom, no complaint has been made and it has also been stated that there is a practice of getting divorce by mutual understanding in their caste. It has been specifically stated that she has not stated in her statement before the Police that harassment is caused to the deceased due to less dowry. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani also referred to the testimony of PW-15, Investigating Officer at Exh. 75 and, thereafter, referred to the discussion regarding the appreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani submitted that in order to attract the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, the harassment must be of such a nature, which would amount to cruelty as provided in explanation to Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that there is no evidence and in fact, testimony of PW-8, mother on the contrary suggests that they had not scolded or there was no talk and if there was any harassment, it would not have been brought to the notice of the people in the caste when they have such arrangement. He submitted that there is no evidence and in fact, testimony of PW-8, mother on the contrary suggests that they had not scolded or there was no talk and if there was any harassment, it would not have been brought to the notice of the people in the caste when they have such arrangement. He submitted that it is also provided for divorce by mutual consent and, therefore, it would not amount to cruelty for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Similarly, learned advocate, Shri Lakhani submitted that even if the cruelty is believed, that itself would not establish the abetment for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He emphasized that there must be an intention to compel the victim to commit suicide by creating circumstances, by which, she is driven to commit suicide leaving no other option. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani submitted that the judgment has also referred to this aspect regarding the ingredients for the offence of abetment and the Court below has committed error in appreciating this evidence. He emphasized that there is no evidence by which it can be said that there was any intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He therefore submitted that conviction for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code may not be sustained. 6. Similarly, he submitted that even for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Court below. Learned advocate, Shri Lakhani submitted that in any case, sentence of three years has been served by the appellant No. 1-original accused No. 1 and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 has also partly served the sentence as they have been on bail. He alternatively submitted that while maintaining conviction, the sentence may be modified considering the fact that the appellant No. 1-original accused No. 1 has served the sentence and other two appellants are females. 7. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that though the charge is framed without any specific charge for the offence under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the fact remains that the demand for the dowry has been made. 7. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that though the charge is framed without any specific charge for the offence under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the fact remains that the demand for the dowry has been made. Learned APP Shri Jani referred to the testimony of the witnesses and submitted that conduct is required to be considered as they initially made a case about the burn injuries due to electrical shock and intimation was also given to the complainant on the same basis. However, he pointedly referred to the testimony of PW-2 at Exh. 21 read with complaint, Exh. 22 clearly suggests that there was a harassment. He therefore submitted that the deceased had burn injuries and she was not removed immediately. He further submitted that the span of marriage life is six months only. Therefore, learned APP Shri Jani submitted that witnesses including brother, PW-4 and mother, PW-8 have stated about the harassment, for which, there would not be any doubt merely because the brother is an advocate. He referred to the judgment and submitted that as discussed in the impugned judgment and order, the conviction has been recorded on appreciation of material and evidence on record and, therefore, it may not be disturbed. 8. Learned APP Shri Jani, however, submitted that alternate submission requires consideration on its own merits as the appellant No. 1-husband may have served the sentence but remaining two appellants-accused would not remain in jail and, therefore as stated in detail in the jail remarks, they have not served the sentence and, therefore, modification may also be made qua them. 9. In view of these rival submissions and material and evidence, moot question is whether the present appeal calls for any consideration and whether the impugned judgment and order can be sustained or not. 10. As could be seen from the rival submissions, the Court below has recorded conviction for the offence under Section306 of the Indian Penal Code, which is stated to be without proper appreciation of evidence. The moot question therefore is whether the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained or not. The testimony of witnesses including the complainant, PW-2, Exh. 21 as well as testimony of PW-4 (brother) at Exh. 31 and the testimony of PW-7 (mother) at Exh. The moot question therefore is whether the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained or not. The testimony of witnesses including the complainant, PW-2, Exh. 21 as well as testimony of PW-4 (brother) at Exh. 31 and the testimony of PW-7 (mother) at Exh. 38 clearly suggests that the deceased is said to have stated to them about the harassment whenever she visited the parental house. Thus admittedly stated by the witnesses, the deceased used to visit parental house on occasions. It is also stated that they would send her to the matrimonial home and tried to give solace that the things will improve. It is also the fact that marriage was arrange through the sister-in-law and she is said to have stated that she will try to make in-laws understand and take care of the deceased. PW-4 in the cross-examination has also stated that when she had visited the parental house and when she returned to the matrimonial house with husband, the appellant-original accused No. 1 (husband) was not scolded and in fact, they had sent her with the accused No. 1-husband without any reprimand or warning stating that it may otherwise spoil the matrimonial relations. PW-7 in her testimony at Exh. 28 has also stated that the deceased used to visit parental house. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her statement before the Police that the deceased used to talk to her about the harassment. She has admitted that there is an association of the persons in their caste and they have not made any complainant to the prominent person in the caste. It is also admitted that in their caste, there is provision for the consent divorce and they have not resorted and they used to send her to the matrimonial house after some understanding. This itself suggests that even if it is accepted that there was a harassment caused to the victim, she had enough space to ventilate her grievance when she used to visit her parental house. Further she was returned to the matrimonial house looking to the short span thinking that she could adjust. This itself suggests that even if it is accepted that there was a harassment caused to the victim, she had enough space to ventilate her grievance when she used to visit her parental house. Further she was returned to the matrimonial house looking to the short span thinking that she could adjust. This suggests that even the complainant-father, mother and brother were also believing that things will improve with passage of time and it was not so bed that they would make the complaint to anybody including prominent person of the caste or to take any further steps for the customary divorce, which was available. Therefore if this is a set of evidence, it cannot be said that the circumstances were such that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide. The basic ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the abetment and/or instigation are required to be proved. It is well settled that in order to convict under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens-rea to commit the offence which in turn require an active act or direct act which led the deceased or compel the deceased to commit suicide as no other option is left. In order words, it requires mens rea, by which, circumstances are so created that the victim is left with no option but to commit suicide and thus, there has to be a mens rea proved that he wanted by such active act to push the deceased into a position that she commits suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of M. Mohan v. State, reported in AIR 2011 SC 238 has elaborately considered this aspect. Word "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. Therefore in order to record conviction, necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code like abetment or instigation has to be proved or established. Assuming that there was a harassment or ill-treatment by itself would not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as it depends upon the relevant factors that it was only such harassment amounting to cruelty of a grave nature, that drive the deceased to commit suicide leaving no other offence. Assuming that there was a harassment or ill-treatment by itself would not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as it depends upon the relevant factors that it was only such harassment amounting to cruelty of a grave nature, that drive the deceased to commit suicide leaving no other offence. In the facts of the case, as stated above, she was visiting the parental house, which would give her sufficient time and opportunity for ventilating the grievance and to calm down and balance her. Further even the complainant-father, brother and mother in their testimony have stated as stated above that they would hope for better to save matrimonial life, meaning thereby, the situation was not so grave and it is in these circumstances, the ingredients for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established. The impugned order recording conviction for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the reasons recorded by the Court below cannot be readily accepted. However conviction for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code could be believed on appreciation of evidence that harassment was admittedly caused to her, which was brought to the notice of the complainant-father and other family members and they have also stated that whenever she used to visit parental house, there was some talk about such harassment but they used to send her back considering short span of marriage with the hope that thing will improve. This would imply that there was harassment. Again reference is also made with regard to some demand and, therefore, provision of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted. Explanation to Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code clearly provides that harassment caused to a married woman for such demand would be a cruelty. Further considering short span of marriage life, the presumption as provided under the law would also be attracted. Therefore without any elaboration, the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be confirmed. 11. Further considering short span of marriage life, the presumption as provided under the law would also be attracted. Therefore without any elaboration, the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be confirmed. 11. It is in these circumstances, if the judgment and order recording conviction for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the conviction for the offence under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, the aspect of sentence requires consideration. The submission made by learned advocate, Shri Lakhani with regard to the modification of the sentence while maintaining conviction under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code again requires to be considered in background of the fact that the appellant No. 1-original accused No. 1 (husband) has in that case served the sentence of three years. Therefore the appellant Nos. 2 and 3-original accused Nos. 2 and 3 are required to serve the sentence. However considering the fact that both are females and the fact that the husband has already served the sentence as imposed by the Court below, the interest of justice would be served if the sentence of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3-original accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code are modified and reduced to SI for two years instead of SI for three years while maintaining conviction would be proper. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order recording conviction for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. However, impugned judgment and order recording conviction for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. Therefore the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code qua the appellant No. 1-original accused No. 1 is hereby confirmed subject to set off as may be available. However while maintaining conviction for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code qua appellant Nos. 2 and 3-original accused Nos. However while maintaining conviction for the offence under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code qua appellant Nos. 2 and 3-original accused Nos. 2 and 3 as they are females and considering totality of the facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed upon them by impugned judgment and order is reduced to two years instead of three years. The sentence qua the appellant No. 2-original accused No. 2 shall stand modified, as stated above, instead of SI for three years to SI for two years. The appellant No. 3-original accused No. 3 is on bail and, hence, her bail bond stands cancelled. As requested by learned advocate, Shri Lakhani, time to surrender before the jail authority is granted and the appellant No. 3-original accused No. 3 is directed to surrender before the jail authority within a period of four weeks from today. The present appeal accordingly stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted."