JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondents-accused vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the respondents to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo further SI for two months for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo further SI for two months for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They were given set off for the period already undergone. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that daughter of the complainant namely Sajjanben married with respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is mother-in-law of said Sajjanben. Out of wedlock, Sajjanben gave birth to two children, a daughter namely, Geetaben and son namely, Vanrajsinh. Respondent No. 1 has a brother namely, Budho. As per the complainant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had caused mental cruelty and physical harassment upon Sajjanben, daughter of the complainant. Even Sajjanben was driven out from the house of the respondents and thereafter, after sometime, she came back to her matrimonial home. Again she was driven out by the respondents from her matrimonial home. After some years, the children of said Sajjanben attained marriageable age and they got married. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 continued to give mental cruelty and physical harassment to Sajjanben under one pretext or the other. On 17.2.2001, a quarrel picked up between respondent No. 2 and Sajjanben. At that time, respondent No. 1 came in drunken condition and beat Sajjanben and therefore, as a last resort, Sajjanben consumed poison and died. Therefore, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 114 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondents. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused were arrested. Against the respondents, charge-sheet was filed. 2.1 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 103 of 2001. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused were arrested. Against the respondents, charge-sheet was filed. 2.1 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 103 of 2001. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents which was read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 To prove the case against the respondents, the prosecution has produced documentary evidence and also examined total 12 witnesses-before the trial Court and the defence side also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, further statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which the appellants-accused have denied the case of the prosecution. 2.3 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to this appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondents-accused. 3. It may be noted that although another appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 filed by the original accused, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence impugned herein, was ordered to be tagged and heard along with Criminal Appeal filed by the accused, somehow or the other, this Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2002 was not heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 and this Court (Coram: Z.K. Saiyed, J.) vide oral judgment dated 18.4.2012 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 and sentence already undergone by original accused No. 2-Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi was treated as the sentence while conviction and sentence imposed upon original accused No. 1 was confirmed. Thus, this Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2002 remained pending for final disposal. 4. Heard learned APP, Mr. K.L Pandya, for the appellant-State. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents-original accused though notice was duly served upon them. 5. Learned APP Mr. K.L Pandya for the appellant-State submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 filed by the original accused was not argued on merits and arguments were restricted on the quantum of sentence awarded and the conviction was confirmed. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents-original accused though notice was duly served upon them. 5. Learned APP Mr. K.L Pandya for the appellant-State submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 filed by the original accused was not argued on merits and arguments were restricted on the quantum of sentence awarded and the conviction was confirmed. He further submitted that looking to the fact that seriousness of offences having been proved against the respondents, the sentence imposed on them requires to be enhanced. 6. This Court has considered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence together with the record pertaining to the case as well as the oral judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002 filed by the original accused against their conviction and sentence. 7. It is to be noted that this Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.4.2012, has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002, filed by the original accused against conviction and sentence, whereby, the period of sentence undergone by original accused No. 2, the respondent No. 2 herein-Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi was treated as sentence, whereas, the sentence imposed upon the original accused No. 1, the respondent No. 1 herein, was confirmed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State has not disputed the said finding, however, has submitted that the said appeal against conviction, filed by the accused, was not heard on merits and since the learned advocate for the accused in that appeal had restricted his submissions qua quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court, more particularly, qua appellant No. 2 in that appeal, respondent No. 2 herein-Kashiben, the coordinate Bench of this Court decided the same accordingly and while confirming the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the period undergone by the present respondent No. 2-Kashiben ordered to be treated as sentence. The relevant para 9 to 12 of the judgment and order dated 18/04/2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2012 are extracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “9. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal, for the appellants fairly submitted that he is not arguing this matter on merits, but simply he is arguing the matter on the issue of sentence imposed upon appellant No. 2-Kashiben. He submitted that appellant No. 2, lady accused is now aged about 76 years old and she is suffering from several diseases. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal, for the appellants fairly submitted that he is not arguing this matter on merits, but simply he is arguing the matter on the issue of sentence imposed upon appellant No. 2-Kashiben. He submitted that appellant No. 2, lady accused is now aged about 76 years old and she is suffering from several diseases. He submitted that her undergone period in jail is one week, but, considering the age and health condition of the appellant No. 2, the undergone period of the appellant No. 2 may be considered as sentence. 10. The learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly imposed the conviction and sentence upon the appellants after considering the evidence on record and therefore, order impugned is not required to be interfered by this Court. Therefore, Appeal is required to be dismissed. 11. I have perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the record of the case and also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. After considering the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty and awarded sentence to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal fairly stated that he is not arguing this matter on merit, but simply he submitted that considering the ill-health and old age of the appellant No. 2 being lady accused, the undergone period may be considered as sentence. Therefore, considering the age of the appellant No. 2, she is more than 75 years and is suffering from several diseases, I am of the opinion that so far the appellant No. 2-Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi is concerned, the undergone sentence is required to be treated as sentence. 12. In view of the above, the Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No. 103 of 2001, is hereby modified to the extent that the sentence, which the appellant No. 2-Kashiben Juwansinh Dabhi has undergone, shall be treated as sentence. But so far the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant No. 1, the same is hereby confirmed. But so far the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant No. 1, the same is hereby confirmed. If the appellant No. 1 is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order. The appellant No. 2 is on bail. Her bail bond shall stand discharged. Since the appellant No. 2 is on bail, no order in respect to setting her at liberty is passed. Rest of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.” 8. In aforesaid view of the matter, when the coordinate Bench of this Court, by the afore-referred decision, has reduced the sentence of present respondent No. 2 to the period she had already undergone and when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also heard, virtually, the issue in question as to the sentence imposed by the trial Court qua respondent No. 2 herein, has attained finality. Consequently, the present appeal only survives qua respondent No. 1 herein-original accused No. 1 only and accordingly, this Court has gone through the entire record of the case. 8.1 It appears that the trial Court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence in true perspective, has rightly convicted the accused by detailed reasons. However, so far as imposition of sentence is concerned, undoubtedly, the prosecution has successfully proved its case and the accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC, however, considering the fact that the marriage span of the deceased with the original accused No. 1 was of long 22 years and looking to the lapse of 15 years since happening of the incident in question and also considering the well-settled legal position that so far as imposition of sentence to the convict is concerned, it is the discretion of the Court and the fact that the trial Court, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, has imposed such a sentence, this Court deems it proper not to interfere in the appeal, more particularly, after such a long lapse of time and accordingly, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. In view of the above, present appeal fails and dismissed. 9. In view of the above, present appeal fails and dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 3.5.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No. 103 of 2001 is hereby confirmed with the modification done by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.4.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2002. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. If the accused No. 1 has not undergone the prescribed period of sentence, he is directed to surrender before the jail authorities within twelve weeks from today to undergo remaining period of sentence. Record and proceedings shall be sent back forthwith to the trial court.