JUDGMENT : RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: PW-1 is the complainant. She has stated that the deceased was her daughter. The marriage of the deceased with the accused took place about 12 years earlier. The deceased was a permanent resident of Tumakuru. Out of the wedlock, two male children were born, namely, PW-9 Kiran and Arun. Since the previous year the accused used to consume alcohol, quarrel with the deceased and used to abuse and assault her. This was being told by the deceased to the complainant on several occasions. Therefore, the complainant visited the place of deceased and conducted a panchayat before the elders. The elders advised him not to consume alcohol and harass his wife. 2. That on 28.06.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. the complainant received a phone call from her grand son PW-9 stating that the deceased was not well as the accused assaulted her mercilessly. Therefore, he requested the complainant to come to their house. Thereafter, the complainant visited the house at about 4.00 p.m. and she was told about the assault made by the accused to the deceased. Since it was evening, no panchayat was convened. The complainant informed the elders of the village and they all came near the house of accused and warned him not to harass his wife. That on 30.06.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. yet again there was a quarrel between the husband and the deceased. The accused assaulted the deceased and threatened to kill her. At that time, the complainant went out of the house to inform the matter to the villagers over phone. She returned to the house at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, the door was locked from inside. She shouted for the deceased. Nothing happened. Through the hole in the door, she saw that the deceased was hanging from the roof of the house. The neck was tied with a saree. On shouting, many villagers came therein. They broke open the door, went inside and cut the saree. By that time, the deceased had already expired. Based on these averments, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The accused was thereafter arrested. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was laid for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. By that time, the deceased had already expired. Based on these averments, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The accused was thereafter arrested. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was laid for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 12 Exhibits along with 8 Material Objects. By the impugned judgment, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material to indicate that the offence of Section 306 of IPC has been committed by the accused. That none of the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC is attracted to the case on hand. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the same is disputed by the learned State Public Prosecutor-II. He contends that there is a substantial material to show that the accused was constantly harassing and beating the deceased. It is out of the frustration, she has committed the suicide. Hence, he pleads that the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and material on record and no interference is called for. 6. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 7......(a) PW-1 is the complainant and has narrated the manner in which she found the deceased hanging and the same has been narrated as herein above. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve her evidence. (b) PW-2 is the witness to the inquest report as per Exhibit-P2. (c) PW-3 is the panchayatdhar who intervened in the dispute between the accused and the deceased. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve her evidence. (b) PW-2 is the witness to the inquest report as per Exhibit-P2. (c) PW-3 is the panchayatdhar who intervened in the dispute between the accused and the deceased. (d) PW-4 is the police constable who carried first information report to the Magistrate. (e) PW-5 is the police constable who took the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination. (f) PW-6 is the police constable who arrested the accused on 02.07.2009. (g) PW-7 is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. He submits the extract of the house of deceased. (h) PW-8 is the panchayatdar who turned hostile. (i) PW-9 is the son of the deceased. He was 11 years when the incident took place and was studying in 5th standard. He was studying 6th standard when his statement was recorded. The Court put various questions to him and after hearing his answers, found that the witness is capable of giving his evidence and therefore, his evidence was recorded. He has stated with regard to the previous assault being committed by the accused on the deceased. That due to frustration, his mother has committed suicide. He was cross examined to the extent that the accused was not consuming alcohol and was not assaulting his mother. The same has been denied. Rest of the questions put to him have no bearing to the case on hand. There is nothing worthwhile elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the evidence so far as consuming alcohol by his father or various assaults committed on the deceased. (j) PW-10 is the neighbour of the deceased. She has not supported the case of prosecution. (k) PW-11 and PW-12 are the brothers of deceased. They speak about the accused consuming alcohol and harassing the deceased. (l) PW-13 is the witness for the earlier panchayath that was held between the deceased and the accused. (m) PW-14 is yet another panchayatdhar who speaks about the dispute between the accused and the deceased. (n) PW-15 is the pancha for spot mahazar as per Exhibit-P6. (o) PW-16 is the pancha for inquest report as per Exhibit-P2. (p) PW-17 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. (n) PW-15 is the pancha for spot mahazar as per Exhibit-P6. (o) PW-16 is the pancha for inquest report as per Exhibit-P2. (p) PW-17 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. (q) PW-18 is the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 8. Based on these evidences, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The evidence of PW-9, the son of accused and deceased requires to be considered. He has very clearly narrated that his father who is a alcoholic regularly used to assault his mother. The evidence of PW-9 has not been shaken in the cross examination. Moreover, the fact of consuming alcohol and assault by the accused on the deceased and the various panchayat that were convened on several occasions has since come out in the evidence led in by the prosecution. The panchayatdars PW-3, PW-8 and PW-14 support the case of PW-9 with regard to the previous dispute. PW-1, the mother of deceased has also stated that the deceased was constantly informing her about consuming of alcohol by the accused and ill-treatment meted out to her. Therefore, unable to bear the illtreatment, the deceased has committed suicide. 9. On re-appreciating the entire material, I am of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is just and proper. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence led in by the prosecution. There is a substantial material to indicate that the accused was a chronic alcoholic and consequently, on regular basis used to assault the deceased. The assault was to such an extent that the deceased was unable to bear the pain anymore. Therefore, she committed suicide. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Under these circumstances, I do not find any perversity recorded by the trial Court. The appreciation of evidence is just and proper and does not call for interference. 10. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant’s Counsel contends that the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is excessive. However, I am unable to accept the same. The appreciation of evidence is just and proper and does not call for interference. 10. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant’s Counsel contends that the imposition of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is excessive. However, I am unable to accept the same. The punishment as prescribed for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is for a description of a period to the extent of 10 years and also fine. The punishment imposed on the accused is only for a period of 5 years and fine. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of one year and therefore, the sentence may be reduced for the period of custody undergone by him. 12. However, on hearing appellant’s Counsel, the contention cannot be accepted. It is a fact that he might have undergone the sentence for a period of one year, but it is also a fact that he has abetted the suicide of his own wife. Unable to bear the physical and mental torture meted by the accused on her, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. Notwithstanding the fact that she had two minor children who were aged 5 years and 11 years on the date of incident even though there was nobody to look after them, the pain and agony she was undergoing, because of the assault of husband was unbearable, which drove her to commit suicide. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence as imposed by the trial Court is a very minimal sentence. It does not call for any reduction. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 14. The conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2010 passed in S.C. No. 180 of 2009 by the Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Holenarasipura, is upheld.