JUDGMENT : SUBHASH CHAND, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2008, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for three years under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo SI for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Jasbir Kaur had given the written information to the police station concerned with these allegations that she was married nine years ago with Sardar Harjinder Singh in the year 1998 according to rites and rituals. Two baby girls were born out of the wedlock. One was seven years old and another was five years old. After two years of marriage, she was started being tortured and also hurled abuse by her husband. The informant somehow tolerated all these in order to save her married life. It has been further alleged that her husband had made effort to set her ablaze after pouring kerosene over her. Her husband used to assault her with the weapon, which was available to him at that time. On 26.10.2007, she was ousted from the matrimonial house along with her two children. Now the informant was residing at her parental house and this FIR was lodged by the informant-victim, which was registered as Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No. 802 of 2007 under Sections 323, 498-A, 397 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Harjinder Singh under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was transferred by the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad. 4. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, which was transferred by the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad to the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad. 4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused Harjinder Singh for the offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 307of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial. 5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether five witnesses i.e. PW-1, Surender Kaur; PW-2, Jagprit Kaur; PW-3, Mukhtar Singh; PW-4, Jasbir Kaur and; PW-5, Baban Singh and in documentary evidence the prosecution has filed Exhibit-1, Signature of Jasbir Kaur on the written report; Exhibit-2, Forwarding of the case; Exhibit-2/1, Registration of the Case and Exhibit-2/2, Formal FIR. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011 holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 323, 498-A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.03.2011, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the convict on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is no evidence in regard to the demand of dowry or any illegal demand. There was no injury report in regard to assaulting the informant-victim. The conviction of the appellant is based on surmises and conjecture; while the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to allow this Criminal Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and acquit the appellant/ convict from the charges levelled against him. 9. The conviction of the appellant is based on surmises and conjecture; while the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to allow this Criminal Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and acquit the appellant/ convict from the charges levelled against him. 9. Heard the rival submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record. 10. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, I avert to the prosecution evidences, which are reproduced herein-below: 10.1 PW-1, Surender Kaur, who is the mother of the informant, in her examination-in-chief, says that her daughter Jasbir Kaur was married with Harjinder Singh ten years ago. There are two daughters out of the wedlock. For one and half years, her daughter and both the children have been residing at the parental house. Her husband used to beat her and he also poured kerosen over her in order to kill. He made demand of money, on not being given the same, he used to beat her daughter. On 26.10.2007 in the night, kerosene was poured over her daughter in order to cause death of her. In cross-examination, this witness says whatever the occurrence, she has told in her examination-in-chief same was told to her by her daughter. Her son-in-law also hurled abuse and beated her daughter in her presence also. She never made complaint in regard to the same to the any police station concerned. The panchayat in this regard was held in the Gurudwara but no documents was written on the same. Her maternal granddaughter (natini) also told that her father used to beat her mother and also strangulated her. 10.2 PW-2, Jagprit @ Jagjit Kaur, who is the minor daughter of the informant, in her examination-in-chief, says that she has been residing at the house of her maternal grandmother for last two years along with her mother and younger sister as well. Her father used to come in night after having drunk and used to beat her mother. He also beaten them and ousted from the house. He used to ask her mother to bring money from her house. Her father used to come in night after having drunk and used to beat her mother. He also beaten them and ousted from the house. He used to ask her mother to bring money from her house. Her father had poured kerosene in order to set her ablaze and was saying to bring money (paisa) from her house. In cross-examination, this witness says that she had given statement to the police in this regard that her father was demanded money and also poured kerosene in order to set her ablaze. 10.3 PW-3, Mukhtar Singh, who is the father of the informant-victim, in his examination-in-chief, says that his daughter Jasbir Kaur was married with Harjinder Singh ten years ago. For two years his daughter lived happily in the matrimonial house. Two daughters were born out of wedlock. Harjinder Singh used to hurl abuse and do marpit with his daughter and often hurled abuse in filthy language to her. All that was told by his daughter. He used to demand money from his daughter to bring the same from parental house. Once he had poured kerosene over his daughter, however, she had narrow escaped. This occurrence was of two years ago. On 26.10.2007, his daughter along with her two children were ousted from matrimonial house. In cross-examination, this witness says that he does not recollect whether he had told to the police in regard to demand of money. While he used to hurl abuse and beat his wife, in this regard, no one person of locality wanted to interfere in the family matters. 10.4 PW-4, Jasbir Kaur, who is the informant-victim herself. This witness, in her examination-in-chief, says that she was married with Harjinder Singh in the year 1998. For two years, she remained happily in her matrimonial house. Two daughters were born, thereafter, her husband hurled abuse and began to beat her. He used to make demand of money to bring the same from her father and used to beat her with the very reason. The occurrence is of 26.10.2007, she gave the written information, which is in her handwriting and signed by her and marked as Exhibit-1. Her husband poured kerosene upon her in order to set her ablaze. On 26.10.2007, her husband did marpit, hurled filthy abuse to her and asked to bring money from her parental house, otherwise, he would set her ablaze after pouring kerosene. Her husband poured kerosene upon her in order to set her ablaze. On 26.10.2007, her husband did marpit, hurled filthy abuse to her and asked to bring money from her parental house, otherwise, he would set her ablaze after pouring kerosene. He had made effort to kill her by pouring kerosene over her body. This witness, in her cross-examination, did not recollect whether the clothes wet in the kerosene were given to the police or not. She came back to her parental house and changed her clothes. Police had recorded her statement. No medical examination of her was done. 10.5 PW-5, Baban Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, in his examination-in-chief, says that on 04.11.2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at the outpost Bhuli. This case was forwarded by Bhuli outpost officer-in-charge Sub Inspector Shyamanand Mandal. He identified the writing and signature to him, which is marked as Exhibit-2. The registration is in handwriting of Sub Inspector, B. Ram, Dhanbad. Formal FIR is in handwriting of Sub-Inspector B. Ram, which is signed by him marked as Exhibit-2/1 and 2/2. The Investigation of this case was handed over to him on 04.11.2007. He recorded the restatement of informant Jasbir Kaur, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. He also recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses, who supported the statement of informant and filed charge-sheet against the accused Harjinder Singh under Section 323, 307, 504 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In cross-examination, this witness says that he recorded the restatement of victim but there were no mark of any marpit over her body. In regard to demand of money, no written paper was received by him, only oral demand was made. 11. Before analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it would be appropriate herein to give certain statutory provisions of law, which are reproduced herein-below: 11.1 Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: “Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “cruelty means” (a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 11.2 Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: “Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 11.3 Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under: “Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 12. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant in oral evidence examined altogether five witnesses. 13. PW-4, Jasbir Kaur, who is the informant-victim in this case. This witness has stated that she was married with Harjinder Singh in the year 1998 and two children were born out of the wedlock. After two years of marriage, her husband began to hurl abuse and beat her for demand of money. He used to ask her to bring money from her father. On the very issue, he used to hurl abuse in filthy language and beat her. After two years of marriage, her husband began to hurl abuse and beat her for demand of money. He used to ask her to bring money from her father. On the very issue, he used to hurl abuse in filthy language and beat her. She also corroborated the contents of the written information marked as Exhibit-1 in her statement. She stated that her husband had also made effort to cause her death by pouring kerosene over her body but no report of the same was made to any police station concerned of that incident nor the clothes wet in kerosene were kept by her in custody so as to handover the police. 14. PW-1, Surender Kaur, who is the mother of the informant and PW-3, Mukhtar Singh, who is the father of the informant. Both have stated that after two years of marriage, their son-in-law used to hurl abuse and beat her daughter for demand of money and on 26.10.2007, she was ousted along with both children from the matrimonial house. It is stated by both the witnesses that they have come to know in regard to the torture being made to their daughter from their daughter herself. PW-1, Surender Kaur also stated that her son-in-law hurled abuse and beat her daughter in her presence also. So far as the effort being made to cause her death by pouring kerosene is concerned, the same is corroborated by these two witnesses; but nothing was recovered in regard to that incident. Admittedly there is no injury report in regard to the marpit. 15. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-2, Jagprit @ Jagjit Kaur, who is the daughter of informant-victim was examined. This witness was nine years old at the time of examination before the learned trial Court. From the testimony of this witness, it is found that the learned trial Court before recording the statement of this witness did not testify the competency of this witness whether this witness was competent to give evidence before the Court or not and the court below straight way recorded the statement of this witness. Though, this witness also corroborated the prosecution story and also the statement given by her mother. 16. Though, this witness also corroborated the prosecution story and also the statement given by her mother. 16. Nonetheless whether the testimony of this witness without being testifying her in regard to her competency is admissible or not is to be considered in the light of the following statutory provisions and settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16.1 From perusal of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is found that if the witness is of tender years it is necessary before recording the statement of a witness of tender age to testify his competency in regard to his understanding the questions put to him and and giving rational answers to them. Herein, in this case, PW-2 is nine years old obviously she is of tender age; but the trial Court before recording the statement of this witness did not testify her understanding by putting the question to this witness and her rationality to answer those question. Without testifying the competency of this witness, the testimony of this witness cannot be admissible in the evidence. 16.2 Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: “Section 118 - Who may testify: All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Explanation - A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.” 16.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129 held that a child of tender age be allowed to testify if he has intelectual capacity to understand the question and to give a rational answer thereto. Court should consider such evidence with close scrutiny. 16.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 held that the child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in the world of make believe. Court should consider such evidence with close scrutiny. 16.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 held that the child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in the world of make believe. The child witness are liable to be influenced easily shaken and moulded; but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence, the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it same can be accepted. Paragraph No. 7 of this judgment reads as under: “7. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 685, it was held as follows: (SCC p. 343, Para 5) “A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.” The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath........” 16.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court also followed the same view in the case of Pradeep vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC Online (SC) 777 as has been taken in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak (supra). 17. 17. In view of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and keeping in view the above settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since this witness PW-2, Jagprit Kaur, who is nine years old i.e. of tender age was not testified by the learned Court below in regard to the rationality to reply the questions put to her, as such, the testimony of this witness cannot be admissible in evidence. 18. From the testimony of PW-4, Jasbir Kaur, who is the informant-victim and eyewitness of the occurrence, which is also corroborated with the statements of PW-1, Surender Kaur, who is the mother of victim and; PW-3, Mukhtar Singh, who is the father of the victim. The testimony of PW-1, Surender Kaur and PW-3, Mukhtar Singh becomes admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as res gestae evidence because they came to know in regard to the evidence from their own daughter and their daughter Jasbir Kaur has been examined as PW-4, therefore, the testimony of these two witnesses also becomes admissible in evidence in view of the testimony of victim-informant. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh, (2011) 2 SCC (Cr) 493 held that the res gestae evidence is an exception to the general rule where the heresay evidence also becomes admissible. PW-1 eyewitness immediately after the occurrence went to PW-2 and informed him in regard to the occurrence. Thus the statement of PW-2 indicating that PW-1 had come to him and had told that her father was beaten by R with the help of her mother is admissible. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 3 SCC (Cr) 62 held that the purpose of res gestae evidence in Section 6 is to complete the missing link in chain of evidence of a solitary witness. It is an exception to the general rule whereunder evidence of hearsay witness becomes admissible. 21. Herein, PW-4, Jasbir Kaur has stated that her husband hurled abuse and beat her for non-fulfillment of demand of money, which he used to ask to bring the same from her father. It is an exception to the general rule whereunder evidence of hearsay witness becomes admissible. 21. Herein, PW-4, Jasbir Kaur has stated that her husband hurled abuse and beat her for non-fulfillment of demand of money, which he used to ask to bring the same from her father. She stated in regard to the hurling abuse and being marpit by her husband for non-fulfillment of demand of money, she had made complaint to her mother PW-1, Surender Kaur and her father PW-3, Mukhtar Singh. Simultaneously, whenever her husband had made demand of money, abused her and beaten her. Therefore, the solitary testimony of PW-4, Jasbir Kaur is also linked with the testimony of PW-1, Surender Kaur and PW-3, Mukhtar Singh. 22. From bare perusal of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 it is found that if whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 23. Herein from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the informant-victim was harassed by hurling abuse and beaten her for non-fulfillment of unlawful demand of money being made by her husband and asking her wife i.e. the victim Jasbir Kaur to bring the same from her father, therefore, the cruelty under sub Clause-(b) of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is proved against the informant-victim caused by her husband. 23.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 held that cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code means causing harassment to the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand or is on account of failure to meet such unlawful demand for money, property or valuable security. 23.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 held that where the evidence about physical or mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother or her close relative, it would not be discarded simply on the score of absence of corroboration by the independent evidence, accused would be liable to be convicted under Section498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 24. In instant case, the victim, her mother and her father all have stated not an isolated instance of cruelty rather several instances in regard to the hurling abuse and beating the informant-victim for non-fulfillment of demand of money being made by her husband to be fulfilled by her father. 25. So far as the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, though the victim has stated that she was hurled abuse in filthy language and beaten by her father, but in specific words the abuse is not explained by PW-1, Jasbir Kaur (victim); PW-1, Surender Kaur and; PW-4, Mukhtar Singh, which are mandatory to attract the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence to this effect that hurling abuse by her husband was with intent to provoke the breach of peace or the husband was knowing that the victim was likely to provoke the breach of public peace or to commit any offence. Therefore, the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 25.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44 held at paragraph No. 13 as under: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. 25.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44 held at paragraph No. 13 as under: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.” 25.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Meena vs. Mangal Das Chiman Lal Barot and Another, 1987 Supp. SCC 597 has held that mere utterance of abusive words by itself does not constitute the offence. 26. So far as the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no medical evidence in regard to the injury caused to the victim while doing marpit with her. Therefore, due to lack of injury report, the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 27. So far as the offence under Section under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the harassment need not be physical it may be mental as well. Even if it is physical, it is not necessary that there should be extraneous injury on the body of the victim. As such, from the testimony of the victim Jasbir Kaur, which is also corroborated with the testimony of PW-1 Surender Kaur and PW-3, Mukhtar Singh, the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Even if it is physical, it is not necessary that there should be extraneous injury on the body of the victim. As such, from the testimony of the victim Jasbir Kaur, which is also corroborated with the testimony of PW-1 Surender Kaur and PW-3, Mukhtar Singh, the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Therefore, the prosecution has been successful to prove the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 28. So far as the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same being not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant/ victim is liable to be acquitted from the same. 29. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has contended that the learned Court below without recording the reasons, awarded maximum sentence to the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 30. In reply, the learned APP has contended that the reasons have been recorded by the learned Court below while sentencing the maximum sentence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 31. From perusal of the impugned judgment on the point of quantum, it is found that on the extraneous ground that cruelty against woman is on increase the appellant/convict was sentenced with maximum imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, but no cogent reasons are given by the learned Court below while awarding maximum sentence for the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 31.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santoshi and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC 753 held at paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 as under: “2. So far as the remaining appellants are concerned, they were also convicted under Section 498-A IPC. But in case of two of them i.e. Brahma and Maniram, the sentence awarded was three years' rigorous imprisonment and with a fine of Rs. 2000 each and in case of the remaining two the sentence awarded was for a period of one-and-half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 by each one of them. The High Court, however, altered the sentence of Appellants 2 to 5 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each. 2000 by each one of them. The High Court, however, altered the sentence of Appellants 2 to 5 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each. 3. In the appeal, notice was issued. So far as Appellants 2 to 5 are concerned, they were released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal is now listed for hearing before us. When we heard Mr S.K. Gambhir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, he fairly stated before us that so far as Appellant 1 Santoshi is concerned, he has already undergone the entire period of sentence i.e. three years and he has also paid the fine imposed upon him. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by Santoshi has been rendered infructuous. 4. So far as the other appellants, namely, Brahma S/o Maniram Rathore, Maniram S/o Gopal Rathore, Kalawati W/o Maniram Rathore and Dakshri W/o Bramha Rathore, are concerned, they have also undergone imprisonment for a term of about 5 to 6 months. We are also informed that they have also paid the fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that at least two of them are ladies, we alter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them to the period already undergone by them.” 31.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 at paragraph No. 84 has held as under: “84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” 31.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 550 at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 has held as under: “5. Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.” 32. From the circumstances of this case and the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is found that the victim was harassed by the appellant/convict for non-fulfillment of demand of money being made by him. Therefore, in view of the circumstances and the evidence on record, the maximum sentence awarded by the learned Court below for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not found proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence being committed by the appellant against the victim. 33. Therefore, in view of the circumstances and the evidence on record, the maximum sentence awarded by the learned Court below for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not found proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence being committed by the appellant against the victim. 33. It is transpired from the record that the appellant had been facing trial since 1998 and convicted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.03.2011 and since 2011, the appellant has been facing this Criminal Appeal before this Hon’ble High Court, therefore, keeping in view such a long period in litigating the trial as well as sentence undergone by the appellant, the ends of justice may be meted out as the appellant had already undergone two months and seventeen days in custody and on payment of fine, which the learned Court below had imposed upon him. I am of the considered view to modify the imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. two months seventeen days. 34. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment of conviction so far as the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. But so far as the charge under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same being not proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant is acquitted from the same. 35. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed for charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Court below is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant and on payment of fine imposed by the learned trial Court concerned. 36. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure the compliance of this judgment in regard to the payment of fine. On payment of fine, the bail bonds of the appellant shall be deemed to be cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. 37. In consequence thereof, this Criminal Appeal is hereby stood partly allowed. 38. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment. 39. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi to give remuneration to Mr. Kumar Saurav, learned Amicus Curiae, as per Rules.