JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of sentence dated 31.12.2002 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 300 of 1999, the appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The appellant No. 1 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month, whereas appellant No. 2 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. They are acquitted for the offence under Section 302, 201 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment and connected materials are that marriage of Geeta, daughter of Natvarbhai Sanabhai (P.W.-1)-original complainant was solemnized with acquitted accused No. 1-Vasantbhai i.e. son of Chatrasinh Salamsinh Chauhan, around one year before the incident. After the marriage, Geeta started residing with the appellants and acquitted accused persons who happened to be her husband, father-in-law, son of acquitted accused No. 1 Chatrasinh Salamsinh Chauhan and acquitted accused No. 4 - Rupaben Chatrasinh Jalamsinh Chauhan. As per the allegations, Geeta was subjected to physical ill treatment by them for bringing less dowry at the time of marriage. At around 04:00 p.m. P.W.-2, Geeta came to her natal home around 10 days before the festival of Holi. Thereafter, on 25.04.1999 at around 04:00 p.m. Ganpanbhai Chatrasinh (original accused No. 2), his wife Tejuben Ganpatbhai (appellant No. 1) and other two persons came and took away Geeta to her matrimonial home. On 01.05.1999, P.W.-2 got a message through Ratansinh Raisinh and Jasvantsinh that Geeta has committed suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, P.W.-1, his wife Amratben and others went to the house of her daughter and found her death body lying in the front courtyard. They noticed a deep womb on right side of the neck and cloths on the death body of the Geeta were blood stained. Therefore, P.W.-1, his wife Amratben and others went to the house of her daughter and found her death body lying in the front courtyard. They noticed a deep womb on right side of the neck and cloths on the death body of the Geeta were blood stained. P.W.-1 and others who accompany him realized that Geeta was murdered by the appellants and other acquitted accused persons for bringing insufficient dowry. P.W.-1 therefore, a lodged complaint with Umreth Police Station. On basis of which FIR vide I-C.R. No. 64 of 1999 for offence punishable under Section 302, 498(A), 201 read with Section 34 and Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. 3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against them in Kheda District Court. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Camp-Anand, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the code to the Court of Sessions. 4. The charge was framed at Exh. 10 and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried and so to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidences and after evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 5. The prosecution, adduced following documentary and ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Oral and Documentary Evidence PW-1 Deposition of Dr. 5. The prosecution, adduced following documentary and ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Oral and Documentary Evidence PW-1 Deposition of Dr. Ashok Babulal Sharma Exh.27 PW-2 Deposition of Natvarbhai Sanabhai Exh.44 PW-3 Deposition of Pravinsinh Mohansinh Chauhan Exh.46 PW-4 Deposition of Rangatsinh Vaghsinh Chauhan Exh.48 PW-5 Deposition of Savitriben Harivadanbhai Exh.49 PW-6 Deposition of Seetaben Budhabhai Exh.57 PW-7 Deposition of Devendrakumar Santilal Exh.60 PW-8 Deposition of Govindbhai Mangalbhai Patel Exh.61 PW-9 Deposition of Manibhai Bhikhabhai Patel Exh.63 PW-10 Deposition of Kanaiyalal Dalabhai Exh.68 PW-11 Deposition of Investigating Officer Jitendrasinh Bachubhai Gohil Exh.70 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Yadi of Postmortem Exh.28 Copy of Blood sample sent to FSL Exh.29 Postmortem report Exh.30 Letter for analysis Exh.31 Original Complaint Exh.45 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.47 Panchnama as per the Section 27 Exh.50 Inquest Panchnama Esh.51 Panchnama of cloths of the deceased Exh.52 Copy of Yadi for P.M. Exh.53 Yadi sent to Talati Exh.54 After Death Form Exh.55 Copy of House Aakarni Patrak Exh.56 Body position of Vasantkumar – panchnama of the accused Exh.62 Copy of the Station Diary Exh.69 Dispatch note of Muddamal Exh.71 Receipt of muddamal received at FSL Exh.72 Forwarding letter of FSL Exh.73 FSL Report Exh.74 Serological Report Exh.75 True Copy of Aakarni Exh.76 Receipt of Tax Bill of House Exh.77 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellants came to be recorded. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, convicted the appellants accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 7. I have heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. I have also perused the record of Sessions Case No. 300 of 1999. 8. Mr. Tirmizi, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants do not propose to challenge their conviction on merits. However, the appellants are convicted under Section 498 of the IPC only and as the incident had happened around 22 years ago, the substantive sentence may be reduced to already undergone and the amount of fine may be enhanced. 9. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. However, the appellants are convicted under Section 498 of the IPC only and as the incident had happened around 22 years ago, the substantive sentence may be reduced to already undergone and the amount of fine may be enhanced. 9. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had subjected deceased cruelty for bringing less dowry and also for house hold articles as dowry. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 10. It appears from the evidence that the appellants happens to be the sister-in-law of the deceased. It emerges from the evidence of witnesses that the appellants along with other convicted co-accused persons subjected deceased Geeta to physical and mental cruelty for not having been given certain house-hold articles in dowry by her father. It further appears from the evidence that the allegation of physical cruelty attributed to the appellants are not specific and no particular overt Act is attributed to the appellants. However, it does emerge from the evidence of witnesses that the appellants along with other convicted co-accused persons used to mentally and physically torture and harass the deceased Geeta for not bringing certain house hold articles in dowry. 11. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellants are rightly convicted by the learned Trial Judge. However, the incident had happened around 22 years ago and the appellants being ladies, I am of the view that the end of justice would be served, if the substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone and fine is enhanced. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part, while maintaining conviction under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone and amount of fine is raised to Rs. 4000/- from Rs. 2000/- for each of the appellants. The appellants are directed to deposit the balance amount of fine i.e. Rs. 2000/- each in the trial Court on or before 16th December, 2019. 13. The appellants are on bail and hence, their bail bonds stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 14. Record and proceedings is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.