JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant -accused has preferred the present appeal under 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.1.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.36 of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the appellant -accused was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.2000 /- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC; whereas for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the appellant -accused was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months was imposed. 2. The brief facts of the appeal is as under :- The daughter of the complainant namely Jayaben whose marriage has been solemnized with one Kanjibhai Dhanabhai Thakor. The present appellant happens to be the elder brother-in-law of Jayaben. It is the case of prosecution that the present appellant and his wife who used to give physical and mental torture to the daughter of the complainant. It is alleged that on account of this physical and mental torture daughter of the complainant -Jayaben committed suicide. As a result, the complaint was lodged with the police. 3. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 3.3 At the conclusion of the trial and after appreciating evidence on record, vide judgment and order dated 28.1.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhrangdhra, in Sessions Case No.36 of 1998, convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the appellant -original accused has preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr.Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Ms.M.H.Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent -State. 5. Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellant-original accused has submitted that the incident in question was happened in the year 1986 and evidence was recorded for about 15 years later on. Consequently, therefore, almost all the witnesses have improved their versions. Therefore, no credences be given to their evidence. He further pointed out that the present appellant is elder brother-in-law and eldersister-in-law died during the pendency of trial and husband is not an accused. They were residing separately as well as even if evidence may be believed to be true then also nothing is indicating any proximate cause of any instigation or inducement which led to drive her to commit suicide. Consequently, therefore, provision of 306 of Indian Penal Code would not apply. He further argued that the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC is concerned, the same allegations are made that the present appellant was throwing stone over the roof of Jayaben’s house and also not allowing Jayaben to visit her parental home and also taunting her having lower category of character. In that view of the matter, he urged that let the matter be put to an end since for about these proceedings has killed 32 years by reducing the sentence under section 498(A) of IPC while acquitting under Section 306 of IPC. 6. In that view of the matter, he urged that let the matter be put to an end since for about these proceedings has killed 32 years by reducing the sentence under section 498(A) of IPC while acquitting under Section 306 of IPC. 6. On the other hand, learned APP pointed out that trial Court raised the point of determination and elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant -original accused which calls for no interference. 7. Pw-1 Father of deceased Jayaben Javabhai Shankarbhai has deposed that the incident had happened for about 15 years back. In his deposition, he had made lot of improvements as in the complaint lodged by him, precisely he alleged that due to indifference, the present appellant was harassing her daughter persistently. In the cross-examination, he admitted that deceased Jayaben was not bearing child and due to which she was remaining upset. 8. Pw-2- Godavariben Javabhai mother of deceased Jayaben deposed that the present appellant was elder brother -in-law and used to throw stone on the roof of the house of deceased Jayaben and had not allowed Jayaben to visit her parental home. However, in the cross-examination, she admitted that police had not recorded her statement and she had not stated anything before the police. 9. Pw-3 Labhuben Laghuji and PW-4 Laghuji Nanuji Thakore who were cousin brother and sister-in-law of the deceased pointed out that for about 3 to 4 months prior to the incident, the deceased without seeking permission of the appellant, was attending the marriage ceremony and while she was returning from marriage ceremony, the appellant intercepted and abused her. 10. On overall analysis of evidence on record, the marriage span is not concurrently spelled out from the evidence on record as father of the deceased deposed that the marriage span is 6 to 7 years and some of the witnesses state that it was 4 years . Be that as it may. So far as extreme steps took by deceased Jayaben is concerned no proximate cause is revealing even it may be related to long time of 3 months. Prior to extreme steps for about 4 months, last incident the appellant abusing Jayaben for not attending the marriage ceremony at Dhorada where the marriage took place. Be that as it may. So far as extreme steps took by deceased Jayaben is concerned no proximate cause is revealing even it may be related to long time of 3 months. Prior to extreme steps for about 4 months, last incident the appellant abusing Jayaben for not attending the marriage ceremony at Dhorada where the marriage took place. In that view of the matter, provision of section 306 r/w. 107 of IPC would not be attracted Even otherwise also, record and proceedings clearly indicates that after conclusion of investigation, police had filed charge-sheet disclosing the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. Though, during the trial before learned Magistrate at the behest of learned APP, section 306 of IPC came to be added and therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC is concerned, this Court has gone through the record and proceeding and in light of aforesaid nature of evidence and the evidence of pelting stone over the house of deceased-Jayaben as well as abusing and not allowed deceased -Jayaben to visit her parental home and even depicting her of having lower character is clearly emerging out from almost all the witnesses. In that view of the matter, the offence is being constituted so as to attract the provision of Section 498(A) of IPC 12. On the aspect of sentence, since the matter remained pending for about 32 years and during the pendency, one of the accused died and case stands abated against her. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence under Section 498(A) of IPC to the extent of sentence already undergone for about 27 days during trial. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction recorded under Section 306 of IPC stands quashed and set aside and while maintaining the conviction under Section 498 (A) of IPC, the sentence is reduced to the extent of sentence already undergone by the appellant -accused. The appellant need not surrender for serving out any sentence. The appellant shall deposit fine if not paid, within a period of 3 months from today failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled. The appellant need not surrender for serving out any sentence. The appellant shall deposit fine if not paid, within a period of 3 months from today failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The bail and bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.