JUDGMENT : Bellunke A.S., J. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No.126/2009, dated 01.12.2010 wherein the accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Complainant's sister Ratnavva married to the accused about 9 years back from the date of the complaint. At that time, she was a minor. Two years' prior to the incident, Ratnavva went to the husband's house to reside with him. Whenever she visited the house of her parents, she used to complain of harassing and demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and 5 tola gold to be brought from her parents house. Family members used to pacify her and used to send her back. In this regard, a panchayat was held in the presence of elders on this issue. Thereafter, 12 days prior to the incident, accused had been to the house of complainant on which day Seemantha ceremony was being performed as Ratnavva was pregnant. At that time, accused told the complainant's family that unless they meet his demand, he will not send his wife to their house. Thereafter, on 27.01.2009, complainant received a telephone call from one Shivappa Kelur stating that Ratnavva is dead. immediately, the complainant and his family members went there and on enquiry of the neibours, it came to know that they heard some voice on the previous night. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P-1 alleging that in the intervening night of 26.01.2009 and 27.01.2009, the accused has strangulated Ratnavva. On that basis, a crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. On that basis, a crime came to be registered. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The presence of the accused was secured. After hearing the prosecution and accused, learned Sessions Judge registered S.C.No.126/2009 and found that there are no sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, charge came to be framed only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge held trial of the case. After hearing both the sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC are proved against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and convicted only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC as stated above. Prosecution has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act or not framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. The said judgment has been questioned by the appellant on following grounds: (1) The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of PW-3 wherein he is not aware of the contents of the complaint at Ex.P- 1. (2) The trial court has believed only the interested and relative's witnesses of the deceased. (3) There is no iota of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record. (4) Trial Court has not perceived the imponderables found in the evidence. (5) Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, appellant has sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit him of all the charges leveled against him by allowing this appeal. 4. (4) Trial Court has not perceived the imponderables found in the evidence. (5) Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, appellant has sought for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit him of all the charges leveled against him by allowing this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Section 498A and 306 of IPC are not at all made out. Though six persons were named in the complaint, subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 6 were given up at the time of filing charge sheet. The prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act. The evidence of PWs-1 to 3 contradicts each other. They are closely related to each other. PWs-5 and 7 alleged independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt to convict the accused. Hence, learned counsel prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit the accused. 5. Learned H.C.G.P submitted that there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PWs- 1, 2 and 4 who are the independent witnesses. Since other witnesses are neibours, they were not supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, learned H.C.G.P. prayed to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court. 6. On the basis of the above said pleadings and rival contentions, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) "Whether the prosecution had proved before the trial Court beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had caused cruelty to the deceased and thereby caused abetment to the deceased to commit suicide and has committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC ? (2) Whether the appellant proves that the judgment of the trial Court is against to the facts and evidence on record and is perverse, capricious and therefore, liable to be set aside? (3) What order?" 7. (2) Whether the appellant proves that the judgment of the trial Court is against to the facts and evidence on record and is perverse, capricious and therefore, liable to be set aside? (3) What order?" 7. Before discussing about the evidence on record, I would like to emphasize the position of law settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbabu and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 17 SCC 526 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "unless there is direct evidence to show that the accused was aiding or instigating the deceased to commit suicide, or entered into conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC." 8. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case as made out in the charge sheet. The fact to be borne in mind is that the deceased was a minor when she married to the accused. Probably the accused was also quite a young boy. They have led married life nearly about 9 years. Some evidence has also come on record by way of suggestions that the girl was not intended to go to her matrimonial house. May be on account of her tender age because she was sent to matrimonial house immediately after attaining puberty. In addition to that, the marriage of accused as well as his brother's were performed together. It is also important to note that the accused and the deceased are closely related. It is also stated by PW-1 that though the family members of the deceased insisted the deceased to stay in her parents house some more years after attaining puberty, the accused and his family members took her to their house. 9. Ex.P-1 complaint runs into a detail narration of the incident leading to the commission of suicide by the deceased. The complainant is the elder brother of the deceased Ratnavva. According to him, whenever Ratnavva came to their house from her husband's house, she used to complain that accused was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and 5 tola of gold. Then they used to advice her and send her back. In that connection, a panchayat was also held with the help of elders. Meanwhile, deceased became pregnant and deceased had come to her mother's house for seemantha. Then they used to advice her and send her back. In that connection, a panchayat was also held with the help of elders. Meanwhile, deceased became pregnant and deceased had come to her mother's house for seemantha. Twelve days prior to filing of this complaint, accused took her back on the ground that they have not given any dowry or gold and he will not send to her mother's house. Then on 27.01.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. complainant received a message that his sister is dead. Then himself and his family members went to the house of the accused and they found the dead body of his sister Ratnavva lying in the pooja room and there was rope in her neck. On enquiry with the neibours, they told that they heard some voice in the night. Therefore, suspecting that the deceased has been killed by the accused, filed a complaint stating that on the intervening night of 26.01.2009 and 27.01.2009, his sister has been murdered. 10. On perusal of the complaint, the ground made out for causing cruelty to the deceased by the accused is on the ground of demanding Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and gold from the parents of the deceased. Subsequently, the case turned to a case of suicide by hanging. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC apart from other offences. This would indicate that the family members of the deceased were very much upset on account of untimely death of Ratnavva. Therefore, in the beginning, the complainant might have stated that his sister has been murdered by the accused and his family members. On 17.03.2009, he gave further statement. Even though after panchayat held by elders, she was once beaten in front of him only in Bagalkot. The elders have advised him but he continued the very same acts. Then while doing seematha, again he had demanded money and gold. In the cross-examination, except suggestions, nothing is elicited. No reasons are assigned or elicited in the cross-examination as to what would be the possible cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Regarding consumption of alcohol and beating the deceased Ratnavva PW-1 has also stated the same. 11. The evidence of PW-4 corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. In the cross-examination, except suggestions, nothing is elicited. No reasons are assigned or elicited in the cross-examination as to what would be the possible cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Regarding consumption of alcohol and beating the deceased Ratnavva PW-1 has also stated the same. 11. The evidence of PW-4 corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the accused was in the habit of drinking alcohol and sometime he used to beat his wife. Except suggestion, no other material has been elicited in the cross-examination. 12. Pw-10 is the elder who had conducted panchayat along with others and had advised the accused. In spite of their advice, accused used to beat her. She was taken back when she had come to her parents house before 15 days from the date of death of the deceased. Earlier also for want of gold and money, he had beaten the deceased. In the cross-examination, again except suggestions nothing is elicited regarding the harassment and cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased. 13. Pw-13 is the scribe of the complaint. 14. Pws-15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers. 15. The death of the deceased by hanging is not disputed. Nothing more is elicited in the evidence so as to hold that there was no fair investigation. Merely because the neibours of the accused have not supported the case of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there was no other reason other than to commit suicide because of the harassment caused by the accused. There is no explanation by the accused with regard to the reason for the death of his wife. The wife having died in the house of the accused, the fact of explaining the cause as well as the reason under Section 106 of Evidence Act would also burdened on the accused. Demanding gold and money at the time of seemantha is not a common thing in this area. Normally some presents will also be given by the mother's side that is why the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Demanding gold and money at the time of seemantha is not a common thing in this area. Normally some presents will also be given by the mother's side that is why the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 though they are members of the family cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are the brothers and mother of the deceased. 16. Pws-1 and 3 have also given evidence regarding cruelty caused by the accused like spitting in the lunch plate while taking meals and asking her to eat it. These are the things which happen in the four corners of the house. The said things can only told by the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of mother and brother of the deceased that the deceased Ratnavva was telling them about the cruelty caused to her by her husband cannot be disbelieved. Even the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 can be substantially corroborated by evidence of PWs-4 and 10. The death on account of suicide by hanging is also proved by medical evidence on record. The act of the accused definitely has caused abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. Taking back the pregnant lady who had come for delivery would amounts to cruelty. Learned sessions Judge assigned sufficient reasons as to why the evidence is believable. No reasons are elicited in the cross-examination and also any explanation in 313 statement of the accused with regard to the reason that may be probable for the deceased to commit suicide. 17. A husband of a pregnant wife should have looked after her with utmost care and affection. But the accused had made the life of the deceased miserable and therefore, she had no option except to commit suicide. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I find that the cruelty caused by the accused amounts to an intentional abetment. Looking from any angle, I find that the finding of the trial Court that the accused is found guilty of the offences alleged does not call for any interference. 18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the deceased was married the accused at an early age and therefore there might not have been compatibility between them. 18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the deceased was married the accused at an early age and therefore there might not have been compatibility between them. That fact is to be borne in mind. That may form a ground for reduction of the sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find that the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six years imposed by the trial Court is on higher side. Therefore, the same is liable to be reduced to five years. With that observation, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. 19. Hence, I pass the following ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in S.C. No.126/2009, dated 01.12.2010, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is affirmed but sentence is modified to the extent of imposing the sentence for a period of six years to five years. (iii) The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is affirmed. (iv) The period of detention spent by the accused during trial shall be given set off. (v) Accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court on his surrender. Trial Court shall pass necessary orders. Bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. Send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court along with records.