JUDGMENT : 1. Present criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2003 and 05.02.2003 respectively, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in S.T. No. 359/2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B/ 34 and 498A of IPC and sentenced simple imprisonment for a period of seven years for the charges under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC but no separate sentence for the charge under Sections 498A/ 34 IPC has been passed. The period undergone in the custody was ordered to be deducted from the sentence. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report of the informant, Lakhan Rabidas, PW-1 is that his daughter Kranti Devi was married to Tejo Das @ Arjun Das of village Dumaritand PS Dumari. At the time of marriage, he had given dowry according to his capacity and his daughter started living in her sasural. However, after two months, husband and mother-in-law of his daughter started demanding Rs.30,000/- cash from his daughter and they started torturing her. The informant went to meet his daughter then his daughter said all the facts and then her husband demanded cash and thereafter informant gave them Rs.20,000/- cash within 15 days. Thereafter again after three months, husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started torturing her and they further demanded Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, his daughter came to him and informed that her in-laws are demanding further money otherwise she will be done to death. Thereafter, local villagers interfered and persuaded the husband and then the informant sent her daughter in Bidai with her husband. Subsequently on 28.04.2000 the informant learnt about the death of his daughter and when he went there, he learnt that his son-in-law Tejo Rabidas, Mohan Rabidas, and Kabutari Devi used to torture his daughter due to non-fulfillment of dowry. They assaulted her due to which his daughter was compelled to commit suicide by jumping into the well. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Dumari P.S. Case No. 31/2000 was registered under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC against the accused persons. 4. Police after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. 4. Police after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498A, 304-B, 201 /34 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals. 6. Prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses in support of its case. PW-1, Lakhan Rabidas, who is informant of this case; PW-2, Suresh Ram and PW-3, Krishna Rabidas are the brothers of the deceased; PW-4 is Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad; PW-5, Munsi Ram, who is uncle of the deceased; PW-6, Khokha Manjhi, who is inquest report witness and has proved the signature on inquest report which was marked as Ext.3; PW-7, Narain Rabidas, who is also uncle of accused No.1, Tejo Rabidas; PW-8,Chandrika Das, who is own brother of the accused Tejo Rabidas; PW-9, Udho Singh, who is IO of this case, and has proved Ext.1/1, Ext.3/1 (inquest report) and Ext.4 (formal FIR) and Ext.4/1 signature of the then O/C on the formal FIR and he has also proved Est.A which was carbon copy of U.D. Case. 7. PW-1, Lakhan Rabidas, who is informant and father of the deceased of this case. He deposed that his daughter was married to Tejo Rabidas according to Hindu Rites two years ago. He further deposed that he had gone to his daughter’s matrimonial home after three months and there she had informed him that accused persons, namely, Tejo Rabidas, Mohan Rabidas and Kabutari Devi were demanding Rs.30,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of dowry amount, the accused persons used to torture her. He gave Rs.20,000/- to his son-in-law. He has further deposed that again after two months of giving the money, when he went to meet his daughter, he learnt that the accused persons were demanding balance of Rs. 10,000/- and they were torturing his daughter. Subsequently, he took his daughter to his house where she again narrated about the demand of Rs.10,000/- to him and torture given to her. He further deposed that husband- Tejo Rabidas took her in bidai to his house and thereafter he learnt after 15 days from the middleman that his daughter is serious and she had called him to meet. Subsequently, he took his daughter to his house where she again narrated about the demand of Rs.10,000/- to him and torture given to her. He further deposed that husband- Tejo Rabidas took her in bidai to his house and thereafter he learnt after 15 days from the middleman that his daughter is serious and she had called him to meet. On receipt of information, when informant went to village Dumaritand, he saw his daughter lying dead and her body was wrapped in plastic and dead body was smelling foul and he saw only Kabutari Devi (mother-in-law). When he enquired from his Samdhin, she did not say anything, but, Narain Rabidas, uncle of accused Tejo Rabidas informed him that his daughter was done to death by Tejo Rabidas, Mohan Rabidas and Kabutari Devi. This witness has proved his signature on the written report, which has been marked as Ext.1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had written in written report that when he went to sasural of his daughter after three months of marriage, his daughter had informed him regarding the demand for Rs.30,000/- and assault meted to her by her father-in-law, Mohan Rabidas; husband, Tejo Rabidas; and Kabutari Devi, mother-in-law. Even after giving Rs.20,000/- when he went to meet her daughter after two months then his daughter informed him that accused persons are assaulting her for balance Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed that he had given Rs.20,000/- cash to the accused persons after selling land to one Sanjay Kumar by registered deed. 8. PW-2 Suresh Ram is brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister Kranti Devi was married to Tejo Rabidas of village Dumaritand. Three months after the marriage, when his brother-in-law along with his sister came to his house, her sister informed that the accused persons are demanding Rs.20,000/-. They sold land for Rs.20,000/- and gave the same to Tejo Rabidas and then Tejo took his sister to her sasural. He further deposed that all the accused persons used to torture his sister and threaten her of dire consequences. He further deposed that he along with his father, brother, uncle and mother had gone to the sasural of his sister and he saw the body of his sister wrapped in cloth laying in the courtyard. He saw only Kabutari Devi was present there. 9. PW-3, Krishna Rabidas is another brother of the deceased. He further deposed that he along with his father, brother, uncle and mother had gone to the sasural of his sister and he saw the body of his sister wrapped in cloth laying in the courtyard. He saw only Kabutari Devi was present there. 9. PW-3, Krishna Rabidas is another brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister was married to Tejo Rabidas in the year 1999. After marriage his sister had gone to her Sasural. When she returned after three months from there, she informed them that all the accused persons used to demand Rs.30,000/- for business and for non-fulfillment of the same, they used to torture her. He further deposed that they sold land to one Sanjay Chandravanshi for Rs.20,000/- and gave the same to accused Tejo Rabidas. Thereafter she went along with her husband to her sasural. Again he learnt from the middleman of the marriage that accused persons are demanding Rs.10,000/- otherwise the life of his sister will be in danger. Thereafter, after 10-15 days he learnt that his sister was serious. Then he along with his father, mother, brother, uncle and aunt went to the sasural at village Dumaritand where he saw the dead body of his sister lying in the courtyard. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that they had sold land to one Sanjay Chandravanshi for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and they paid Rs.20,000/- to Tejo Rabidas. Again after 1-1½ months, he learnt from Rameshwar Rabidas about further demand of Rs.10,000/- otherwise life of his sister will be in danger. 10. PW-4, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased. He proved the post mortem report, which was marked as Ext.2 and found the following injuries on her person: “On dissection of skull intact, brain Not Abnormal Detracted (NAD), sub coetaneous tissues in neck-NAD, Larynx and trachea-NAD, Hyoid bone intaced. Chest wall intacted. Lunge oedematous and congested cut section of the lunge on squiring yield course blood bubbling. Heavy contained blood in the right side and left side empty. Liver, spleen, kidney congested. Stomach contained about 450 ml of fluid. Mucous membrance-NAD. No foul smell. Urinary bladder empty. Uterous-non- gravid. No any external injury was found on her person in the ante mortem or post mortem in nature.” As per the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was due to asphyxia due to drowning. Liver, spleen, kidney congested. Stomach contained about 450 ml of fluid. Mucous membrance-NAD. No foul smell. Urinary bladder empty. Uterous-non- gravid. No any external injury was found on her person in the ante mortem or post mortem in nature.” As per the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was due to asphyxia due to drowning. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had not mentioned regarding blood around or not around in nostril and he had also deposed to have seen the inquest report prior to conducting the P.M. Examination. 11. PW-5 is Munsi Ram. He is uncle of the deceased. He deposed that all the accused persons demanded Rs.30,000/- and after selling land money was given to the son-in-law. 12. PW-6 is Khokha Manjhi. He is inquest report witness. He deposed that dead body of the deceased was recovered from his well. Police had prepared inquest report, in which, he had put his signature, which was marked as Ext.3. In cross-examination, he said on 28.04.2000 when he was in his hotel, he saw deceased fleeing away angrily and jumped into the well. 13. PW-7 is Narain Rabidas and PW-8 Chandrika Das were declared hostile by the prosecution. 14. PW-9, Udho Singh is IO of the case. He proved the writing and signature of the then officer-in-charge on the written report, which is marked as Ext.1/1. He also deposed that he had also instituted U.D. Case No. 2/2000 on 28.04.2000, which also relates to his case. He proved inquest report which is marked as Ext.3/1. He had proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.4. He visited the place of occurrence which he deposed at para-5. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants: 15. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC is totally unsustainable. He argued that as per the impugned order, no separate sentence was imposed for the charge under Sections 498A/ 34 IPC and therefore, he is arguing on the main conviction under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC for which sentence of seven years simple imprisonment has been imposed on all the appellants, which is not justified because offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out in the case at all. 16. 16. Learned counsel has argued that right from the inception of the case, from the stage of filing of the written report till the charge sheet and framing of charge and conviction, the offence was dealt with under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC. In the FIR itself, it has been indicated that it was a case of suicide and therefore, the entire investigation and trial as proceeded on misconstrued and wrong basis. Therefore, no conviction should lie whatsoever. 17. Learned counsel argued that from the evidence of PW-6 Khokha Manjhi, PW-7 Narain Rabidas and PW-8 Chandrika, it is apparent that the accused cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased. It has come in the evidence of PW-6 that she fled away from the house and then jumped into the well. Therefore, she is fully responsible for her action, for which, appellants cannot be made responsible. PW-8 has also corroborated the evidence of PW-6 that she had died jumping into the well. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that levelling the same charge on all the appellants, including mother-in-law and father-in-law, is uncalled for. Learned counsel has submitted that it is clear cut from the evidence of the witnesses that Rs.20,000/- was actually taken by Tejo Rabidas and therefore, if at all money was taken then it was taken by the son, Tejo Rabidas and for the deeds of the son, parents should not be brought into the same ambit and punished in the same manner at all. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Sushil Gope versus State of Jharkhand, reported in 2011(4) JLJR 52 and argued though not admitting that if at all offence is made out, the offence cannot be made out under Section 306 IPC. Tejo Rabidas or appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 488 of 2003 had already spent considerable time in custody i.e. almost three years. The period already undergone should be considered as sentence sufficiently undergone. Learned counsel had also set the distinction that has been made regarding the case of Tejo Rabidas, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 488 of 2003. Other appellants, namely, Kabutari Devi and Mohan Rabidas in Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2003, who are mother and father of Tejo Rabidas should not be inflicted any sentence at all. Learned counsel had also set the distinction that has been made regarding the case of Tejo Rabidas, appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 488 of 2003. Other appellants, namely, Kabutari Devi and Mohan Rabidas in Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2003, who are mother and father of Tejo Rabidas should not be inflicted any sentence at all. In any way, they have already spent about little more than five months in custody. Therefore, they have undergone sufficient punishment, if at all they had any hand in the crime. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State: 20. Learned counsel for the State has, on the other hand, argued that it is a clear cut case of offence being made out. He has submitted, first of all, the evidence of PW-1, Lakhan Rabidas (informant), who has fully supported his case as given in the written report. According to which, the offence took place within seven years of marriage and even at the time of marriage, he had given sufficient articles and after three months of marriage, when he had gone to Sasural of his daughter, he was informed that accused persons or the appellants demanded Rs.30,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of the same, accused persons used to torture her. Subsequently, he had given Rs.20,000/- to his son-in-law after managing the same. Again after two months, when he went to meet his daughter, he learnt that the accused persons were again started demanding balance of Rs.10,000/- and torturing her. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the evidence of PW-1, Lakhan Rabidas (informant) is fully supported by PW-2, Suresh Ram and PW-3, Krishna Rabidas and learned counsel for the State has said that merely because they are related witnesses, the evidences cannot be ignored, particularly, when the death has taken place within seven years of marriage. Moreover, learned counsel for the State has submitted that evidences of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are basically consistent and corroborated with each other. 21. From the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, it appears that the death was not a natural one and therefore, it would come within the purview of Section 304-B IPC. 22. Moreover, learned counsel for the State has submitted that evidences of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are basically consistent and corroborated with each other. 21. From the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, it appears that the death was not a natural one and therefore, it would come within the purview of Section 304-B IPC. 22. Pointing out the evidence of PW-6, Khokha Manjhi, learned counsel for the State has said that this witness has deposed that death was caused due to jump into the well and it is made clear that she was fleeing away angrily and had jumped into the well and therefore, her death was result of torture, harassment and demand made on her. 23. Pointing out the evidence of PW-9, Udho Singh, who is IO, learned counsel for the State has said that from his evidence, it is clear cut that death was due to jumping into the well. Her death was result of demand of money, torture and due to which, U.D. Case was also lodged. 24. Counsel for the State has further argued that even case under Section 306 IPC can be brought within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence is fully justified. F I N D I N G S 25. Having heard both the counsels, having gone through the records of the case and the evidences and the facts and circumstances, it is noted that from the arguments of the counsel for the appellants he has tried to make out that it is not an offence that comes under Section 304- B IPC but rather falls under Section 306 IPC and therefore, no offence is made out or it is mitigated considerably. That PW-6 Khokha Manjhi has categorically stated that she had jumped into the well. Further, PW-7 Narain Rabidas, PW-8 Chandrika have deposed in a manner that does not indicate that the appellants are responsible for the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried out make out a case that it is only the husband of the deceased or the son of Kabutari Devi and Mohan Rabidas who should be held responsible and convicted if at all there is any conviction to be done and no conviction can be brought against the mother and father. Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried out make out a case that it is only the husband of the deceased or the son of Kabutari Devi and Mohan Rabidas who should be held responsible and convicted if at all there is any conviction to be done and no conviction can be brought against the mother and father. To buttress his argument that the case is being made out under Section 306 IPC, he has cited the case “Sushil Gope versus State of Jharkhand”, reported in 2011(4) JLJR 52 . In the written report of the informant, Lakhan Rabidas, PW-1, he has graphically stated how after his daughter Kranti Devi was married to Tejo Rabidas and at the time of marriage, he had given dowry, according to his capacity, however, only after two months, husband and mother-in-law of his daughter started demanding Rs. 30,000/- in cash from his daughter and for which they also started torturing her. The informant had gone to meet his daughter and she had narrated the state of affairs to him and in fact, as per the written report, he had thereafter given Rs.20,000/- to them within 15 days. So the informant or the father is well aware of what is going on in the matrimonial home of his daughter and she has narrated to him her ordeals. Further, it is pointed out in the written report that thereafter three months the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law again demanded Rs.10,000/-, for which, she was again tortured and assaulted. This too was also informed by his daughter and that otherwise she will also be done to death. Therefore, it is noted that in the written report, it is fully indicated that the father was fully aware of the demand for the money that was repeatedly being made and the harassment and torture, she was undergoing for the same and that the in-laws including the husband was simply not satisfied. Thereafter, she is done to death and when the family members of the deceased went to the matrimonial house of the deceased, they came to know about the death and they are informed that Tejo Rabidas, Mohan Rabidas, Kabutari Devi and Kaila Rabidas used to torture his daughter due to non-fulfillment of dowry and to assault her and she was compelled to commit suicide by jumping into the well. 26. 26. PW-1, Lakhan Rabidas has in his evidence essentially corroborated all that he has indicated in his written report and it cannot be said that there is any significant contradiction or inconsistency with the written report. One piece of information however has been added by PW-1 i.e. that to give Rs.20,000/- to the accused persons he had sold land to one Sanjay Kumar by registered deed. From the evidences available, this selling of land by deed has not been challenged or controverted by the defence. 27. PW-2, Suresh Ram, who is a brother of the deceased, had also deposed that sufficient gifts were given at the time of marriage, however, three months after the marriage, when her brother-in-law came with his sister to her own house then she had informed her parents that all the accused persons are demanding Rs.20,000/-. PW-2 had deposed that they had sold land for Rs.20,000/- and had given the same to Tejo Rabidas and then Tejo Rabidas took his sister to the sasural. So from the evidence of PW-2, the aspect of land being sold and Rs.20,000/- being given to fulfill the monetary demand is corroborated. It is to be noted that here the money is given directly to the husband of the deceased. 28. PW-3, Krishna Rabidas, is another brother of the deceased, who has also corroborated the aspects about demands of money accompanying torture and harassment that is meted out to his sister. He has deposed about the demand for Rs.30,000/- for business purpose, however, for the non-fulfilment of which his sister was tortured. He has also corroborated that Rs.20,000/- was given to Tejo Rabidas after they had sold one land to Sanjay Chandravanshi and thereafter, his sister was taken to her sasural. So once again, this Court see the another witness, the brother, Krishna Rabidas has also deposed that the money was taken by the husband and thereafter only he had taken her to her matrimonial home. Further, it is noticed still that even thereafter money was still demanded to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. It was in such state of affairs that soon after he comes to know about the death of his sister. Therefore, this Court see once again that PW-3 has also corroborated the prosecution story and the money is demanded by the family though the amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of land was taken by the husband. 29. It was in such state of affairs that soon after he comes to know about the death of his sister. Therefore, this Court see once again that PW-3 has also corroborated the prosecution story and the money is demanded by the family though the amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of land was taken by the husband. 29. PW-5 Munsi Ram is an uncle of the deceased. He has also supported the prosecution case and basically in chief particulars corroborated the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3. He had also seen the dead body of the deceased wrapped in plastic when he had gone to the place of occurrence and he had also along with others seen that except for Kabutari Devi no other person was present at the matrimonial house. This would also suggest that the male members knowing their guilt and expecting certain repercussions had fled from the scene of occurrence and only the female member, Kabutari Devi was left behind in the matrimonial house. 30. Particular evidence is the evidence of PW-6 Khokha Manjhi who is resident of the area and he has deposed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from his well. He has further deposed that on the day of occurrence, he was in his hotel and he had heard alarm and he had seen the younger daughter-in-law of Mohan Rabidas fleeing away angrily and had then jumped into the well however when she was taken out, she had died. 31. PW-7 Narain Rabidas and PW-8 Chandrika are the uncle and the own brother of Tejo Rabidas. From the evidence of PW-7, this Court see that he has admitted that she had died in village Dumaria Tand itself but he did not know how she had died. Evidence of PW-7 is not of much in use, however, PW-8 has deposed that Kranti Devi had died by jumping into the well. The evidence of PW-8, even though he has been declared hostile is useful to the extent that he is the own brother of the appellant Tejo Rabidas. He has admitted that the deceased has died by jumping into the well. This would indicate that the death of the deceased was not a natural one but was otherwise than under normal circumstances. 32. From the evidence of PW-4, Dr. He has admitted that the deceased has died by jumping into the well. This would indicate that the death of the deceased was not a natural one but was otherwise than under normal circumstances. 32. From the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, it appears that that death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Therefore, he has further proved the nature of death. 33. From the evidence of PW-9, Udho Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the case, it appears that he had visited the place of occurrence, initially, he had instituted U.D. Case No. 2/2000, however, deposed also that it also relates to the case on hand. He has also proved the inquest report, which is marked as Ext.3/1. He had taken the statements of informant and other witnesses and he has deposed that the dead body was found from the well of Khoka Manjhi, PW-6. He has deposed that PW-6 had informed him that he had seen the deceased in running condition and jumped into the well. From evidence of the IO, this Court see nothing, which makes this Court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 34. From the aforesaid evidences, that have been indicated, it is clearly made out that after marriage of the deceased though gifts and other items had already been given to the husband and the family of the husband of the deceased, soon after marriage, only after a few months, demands were still being made of monetary type. The initial demand was for Rs. 30,000/- and part of it was fulfilled to the extent of Rs.20,000/- but only at the cost of selling some land. From this, it can be made out that the husband and the in-laws were so persistent in their demands that they had to sell out some land to meet the demands of the demanding husband and in-laws. However, the demands kept on being made because they were not satisfied. From the written report and from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, by combined reading, it is made out that she was harassed, tortured and also assaulted so that the demands of money could be met by the family of the deceased. However, the demands kept on being made because they were not satisfied. From the written report and from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, by combined reading, it is made out that she was harassed, tortured and also assaulted so that the demands of money could be met by the family of the deceased. She is then led to jump into the well, when she was running away from her home but this has to be seen in the background of the constant harassment, torture and assault, she was undergoing, so she was put to tremendous physical and mental assault and in fear she was running all in desperation and she jumped into the well. So her death to be seen in that background. Learned counsel for the appellants had sought to make out a case under Section 306 IPC. Even if it is accepted that the death is a case of abetment of suicide, it has to be seen as to who had abetted the same. From the evidences on hand, it is absolutely clear that her death was not done in isolation and that the reasons cannot be isolated from it. It is clear that the deceased’s family life was not a happy one and she was perpetually harassed, tortured and even assaulted for demands of money. She was even threatened to the extent of death and her family members were aware of it and even other persons who were aware of it. The family members were informed by the daughter herself and also from neighbours of the matrimonial family members. The précise action of the deceased running and jumping into the well has been witnessed by PW-6 and therefore, bearing in mind the background of demand, torture and harassment, it cannot be accepted that she jumped into the well for no reason but that she was compelled by the torturous circumstances in the matrimonial home to take this fatal step, and for which, the family of the husband including the husband of the deceased are fully responsible. As per evidence of PW-6 she was seen running angrily. As per evidence of PW-6 she was seen running angrily. So if this Court accepts that the offence under Section 306 IPC is made out, it is a case of abetment of suicide for which they themselves or the appellants themselves are fully responsible and this Court views that they cannot escape the conviction or the sentence for the same. It is even otherwise held by the Apex Court that in such circumstances of suicide, it will still come under the purview of Section 304-B IPC. In Smt. Shanti and Another versus State of Haryana, reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 371, the Court has held that suicide is one of the modes that fall within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC. 35. However, noting the records of the case, facts and circumstances, evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the appellants also, it is noted that from the prosecution case and the evidences there is persistent demands for money, even after part of the demands is paid, family land is also sold to meet the demands. For all this the victim is also tortured and harassed, which must have considerably disturbed, harassed and fatigued her. Top of it, it has also come in the evidence of PW-2, that she will face dire consequences. In the prosecution case, threat of death is referred. All this terribly weighed on her mind. At the time of death, she is seen angrily running away and then she takes the fatal suicidal plunge. I note that earlier conviction was also under Section 498A IPC. 36. Therefore, this Court is inclined to convict all the appellants, namely, Kabutari Devi, Mohan Rabidas, Tejo Das for the offence under Sections 306/34 IPC. Noting the role of the husband Tejo Das that he has been the direct recipient of the money for the demand, and though there is modified conviction his sentence of seven years SI is upheld and any custody he has already so far spent will be subtracted from the same. Noting the role of the husband Tejo Das that he has been the direct recipient of the money for the demand, and though there is modified conviction his sentence of seven years SI is upheld and any custody he has already so far spent will be subtracted from the same. Bearing in mind that Mohan Rabidas and Kabutari Devi, the parents of Tejo Rabidas, were at the time of judgment 54 and 50 years old and considerable time has now passed and they are now much more aged and they seem to have a lesser role, and though they cannot be totally exonerated, their sentence is restricted to a period of one and half years SI, any period already spent by them in custody to be subtracted from the same. Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled. Lower concerned or successor court-below is directed to take steps for the arrest of the appellants to serve out the modified or remaining sentence. 37. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed, with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence.