JUDGMENT : Appellant/accused No.1 feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Haveri, in S.C.No.51/2009 dated 03.04.2012, preferred this appeal. 2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha, were working as police constables in Adur police station and she was a widow having female child. Accused No.1 and Sangeetha were residing in the police quarters at Adur and their marriage was registered on 01.08.2008. After 3 months of their marriage, accused No.1 started ill-treating and harassing his wife for demand of dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and 80 grams of gold. When she expressed her inability, she was forced to quit her job and convert to their community, further was also asking her to take care of his parents or to give divorce. In furtherance of such intention, accused No.1 started harassing Sangeetha both physically and mentally and extended cruelty in the presence of other staff. Accused No.1 gave Gardenal tablet asking Sangeetha to die along with her child, as he intended to marry another girl of his community. Accused Nos.2 to 8 joined accused No.1 in abetting her to commit suicide by taking Gardenal tablet. On account of unbearable ill-treatment, she gave Gardenal tablet in Rasna juice to her daughter who died in the house and herself consumed the tablet to commit suicide. She was shifted to hospital for treatment, but she died on 17.04.2009 in the hospital and her death was within 7 years of marriage. On these allegations, complaint was filed and the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet. 4. Accused Nos.2 to 8 were on bail and accused No.1 was in judicial custody. Their presence was secured before the trial Court. The trial Court after being prima facie satisfied, framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the D.P.Act’). 5. The prosecution was called upon to prove the charges leveled against accused. Prosecution in order to prove the allegations made against accused, relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 32, documents at Ex.P.1 to 34, so also got identified M.Os.1 to 5. 5. The prosecution was called upon to prove the charges leveled against accused. Prosecution in order to prove the allegations made against accused, relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 32, documents at Ex.P.1 to 34, so also got identified M.Os.1 to 5. Documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13 came to be marked on the defence side. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. came to be recorded and accused have denied the material evidence appearing against them and claimed that false case is filed. 6. The trial Court after appreciating evidence on record has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 8 from all the charges leveled against them. Accused No.1 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the D. P. Act. Accused No.1 was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 7. Appellant/accused No.1 challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by trial Court contending that on same material evidence, accused Nos.2 to 8 have been acquitted by trial Court, but erroneously convicted accused No.1. The evidence of PWs-3, 4 and 20 blood relatives of deceased is inconsistent and it is only hearsay evidence. The letter addressed to IGP, Belagavi, Ex.P.16 and the personal log book of deceased Sangeetha are not admissible in evidence and they have been concocted to create a false case against the accused. The deceased Sangeetha was a widow having a daughter. Since she married accused No.1 who belongs to Muslim community, the kith and kin of deceased started showing despicable attitude towards her and because of the same, she suffered mental humiliation and out of such frustration, she committed suicide on 16.04.2009. The deceased has filed divorce petition on the file of the Civil Judge, Hangal. Therefore, there is no question of accused No.1 causing physical and mental harassment to deceased Sangeetha. The trial Court has conveniently ignored the above referred facts and based on the letter, Ex.P.16 and personal log book of Sangeetha, Ex.P.17 with other evidence on record, has convicted accused No.1 on improper reasonings which cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment of trial Court. Consequently, to acquit the accused for which he was convicted. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides. 9. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment of trial Court. Consequently, to acquit the accused for which he was convicted. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides. 9. On meticulous evaluation of the evidence on record, it would go to show that deceased Sangeetha was working as woman police constable and got married to one Ramesh, who died due to brain tumor. Out of the said wedlock, she was having a daughter by name Ramya. Accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha were working in Adur police station. Further, accused No.1 knowing fully well that Sangeetha is a widow and having a daughter through her first husband, had an affair with her and they loved each other. Accused No.1 married Sangeetha and their marriage is also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hangal, on 01.08.2008. After marriage, both of them lived together and enjoyed marital life for some time. In the intervening night of 16/17.04.2009, deceased Sangeetha, consumed poisonous substance by giving the same to her daughter, Ramya in the police quarters at Adur wherein she was living. On such consumption of poisonous substance, Ramya died in the house itself and Sangeetha died on 17.04.2009 in KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, where she was shifted for treatment. The said facts are not in dispute and the same also can be borne out from the material evidence placed on record by prosecution. 10. On going through the evidence of PW-18, Dr. P. S. Itagi and the Post Mortem report Ex.P.13, it would go to show that no external injuries were seen on the body. The stomach, loop of small intestine with their contents, pieces of liver and kidney, blood were preserved and sent for chemical analysis. The opinion regarding the cause of death was reserved. On receipt of the FSL report, Ex.P.14, wherein opinion was recorded that thin-layer chromatographic and high performance thin-layer chromatographic (HPTLC) methods of analysis have responded for the presence of phenobarbitone (sedative/hypnotic) in Ex.Nos.1, 2 and 3 sent for examination. On the basis of this FSL report, PW-18 has recorded final opinion regarding the cause of death as “death is due to respiratory failure consequent upon consumption of substances containing phenobarbitone”. PW-18 has also deposed to the effect that on examining the strips of gardinal tablet (30 tablets) packet, if all the tablets are taken at a time, then death may cause and accordingly, given report, Ex.P.16. PW-18 has also deposed to the effect that on examining the strips of gardinal tablet (30 tablets) packet, if all the tablets are taken at a time, then death may cause and accordingly, given report, Ex.P.16. Therefore, from the said material evidence on record, prosecution has proved that death of Sangeetha is due to respiratory failure consequent upon consumption of substance containing phenobarbitone and the death of Sangeetha is a suicidal death. 11. The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 caused both physical and mental cruelty to deceased Sangeetha by assaulting her in the presence of her colleagues, wherein both accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha were working as police constables and humiliating her by abusing in filthy language. The prosecution further alleges that accused No.1 was harassing deceased Sangeetha to bring dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and 4 tholas of gold. In case, if she fails to meet the demand, was threatening her that he would marry another girl of his own community. Accused No.1 has physically assaulted deceased Sangeetha in the police station itself and abused in filthy language where both of them were working in front of their colleagues. The prosecution to prove the said fact relies on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-20 who are mother, brother and sister of deceased Sangeetha. The prosecution also relies on the evidence of police officials, PWs-2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 who were working in Adur police station. 12. On going through the evidence of PW-3, it would go to show that accused No.1 married deceased Sangeetha knowing fully well that she has a daughter from her first marriage and assured of giving a life to Sangeetha. However, after sometime of marriage, accused No.1 started demanding dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and 8 tholas of gold. PW-3, the brother and PW-20, sister of deceased Sangeetha during the course of their evidence, have spoken about accused No.1 ill-treating and harassing deceased Sangeetha on demand of dowry to get gold. It is true that their evidence regarding the amount demanded by accused No.1 and weight of gold varies from each other’s version, but that alone does not take away the case of prosecution, since their evidence is consistent regarding accused No.1 ill-treating and harassing Sangeetha on demand of dowry. 13. It is true that their evidence regarding the amount demanded by accused No.1 and weight of gold varies from each other’s version, but that alone does not take away the case of prosecution, since their evidence is consistent regarding accused No.1 ill-treating and harassing Sangeetha on demand of dowry. 13. The oral evidence of PWs-2, 9 and 11, police staff working in Adur police station at the relevant point of time, would go to show that while they were in police station on 30.11.2008, they heard galata in the staff room. When they went to the spot, saw accused No.1 assaulting Sangeetha by holding her tuft and abusing her in filthy language, further questioning her for attending to duty inspite of his objection. The said incident was reported to the higher officials. 14. The above said oral evidence of police staff with regard to the incident of 30.11.2008 is further strengthened by the evidence of PW-12 Dr.Muralidhar N. On perusal of evidence of PW-12, it would go to show that on 30.11.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., he examined Sangeetha, WPC- 534 and found the injuries as noted in the wound certificate at Ex.P.5. All the injuries are opined to be simple in nature. The evidence of PW-12, Dr. Muralidhar and wound certificate Ex.P.5, substantiates the incident that took place on 30.11.2008 as deposed by PWs-2, 9 and 11. 15. The evidence of PWs-6 to 8 who were also the police staff working in Adur police station would go to show that they have spoken about the incident that took place on 01.11.2008. Accused No.1 on the said date inspite of completing his duty hours remained in the police station and thereafter, they heard quarrel between accused No.1 and Sangeetha. Further, accused No.1 slapped on the cheek of deceased Sangeetha stating that she has to leave the job and take care of his parents. They pacified the quarrel and the incident has been recorded in the station house diary of police station. The extract of the Station House Diary is produced at Ex.P.1 and report of PW-6 with regard to the said incident is at Ex.P.2. 16. Suo moto complaint is filed by PW-31, Shri T. H. Rajappa, CPI, Hangal Circle, on the basis of express report and the FIR as per, Ex.P.12. The extract of the Station House Diary is produced at Ex.P.1 and report of PW-6 with regard to the said incident is at Ex.P.2. 16. Suo moto complaint is filed by PW-31, Shri T. H. Rajappa, CPI, Hangal Circle, on the basis of express report and the FIR as per, Ex.P.12. If the said complaint allegations are looked into and appreciated with the evidence of family members of deceased Sangeetha, PWs-1, 3 and 20 and that of police officials who were colleagues of accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha, PWs-2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, then it would go to show that accused No.1 after sometime of marriage was ill-treating and harassing deceased Sangeetha to get dowry by way of cash and gold. 17. The deceased Sangeetha had written letter, Ex.P.16 addressed to IGP, Belgaum, which was received in the said office on 17.04.2009 narrating the ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused No.1 on demand of dowry, humiliation and insult before colleagues as a result subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. Ex.P.17 is the personal log book of Sangeetha. The writings in Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 were subjected to FSL examination. The scientific expert who has examined the writings of deceased Sangeetha found in Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 is examined as PW-26 and given report as per Ex.P.29. On perusal of Ex.P.29, questioned writings in Ex.P.16, Q1 to Q7 and admitted his signatures S1 to S10 marked by the Investigating Officer and S1 to S17 marked by the FSL examiner. The reasons for final opinion is recorded in Ex.P.30 and opinion is given in Ex.P.29 holding that the person who wrote the red enclosed standard writings, signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S17 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings, signature similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q7. The evidence of PW-26 is in consistent with the report as per Ex.P.29 followed with the reasonings recorded in Ex.P.30 and though he has been subjected to cross-examination, nothing worthwhile material has been brought on record so as to discredit his evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved that the writings of Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are that of deceased Sangeetha. The evidence of PW-26 is in consistent with the report as per Ex.P.29 followed with the reasonings recorded in Ex.P.30 and though he has been subjected to cross-examination, nothing worthwhile material has been brought on record so as to discredit his evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved that the writings of Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are that of deceased Sangeetha. If the contents of Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are looked into and appreciated with the oral evidence of family members, PWs-1, 3 and 20 and the evidence of police officials, PWs-2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, then it would go to show that their evidence is consistent regarding ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused No.1 to deceased Sangeetha. The prosecution by said evidence has proved that deceased Sangeetha was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on demand of dowry. 18. The trial Court after meticulous appreciation of material evidence on record in paragraphs 26 and 27 of its judgment has recorded findings that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D. P. Act and Section 304-B of IPC. The prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of accused No.1 for the said offence by trial Court and the same has attained finality. 19. In view of the reasonings recorded above, it has been held that prosecution has established the link between Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 with the oral evidence of the above referred witnesses to prove that deceased Sangeetha was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. The incidents of cruelty narrated by above referred witnesses is between the short duration of 8 months from 01.08.2008, the date on which accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha got married, till 07.04.2009, when she addressed letter to IGP, Belagavi, Ex.P.16. The contention of the defence is that there is a long gap between the date of Ex.P.16 and the date of death of deceased Sangeetha has been rightly rejected by the trial Court in view of the material evidence on record. The contention of the defence is that there is a long gap between the date of Ex.P.16 and the date of death of deceased Sangeetha has been rightly rejected by the trial Court in view of the material evidence on record. The proximate cause for the death of Sangeetha due to ill-treatment and harassment of accused No.1 on demand of dowry, humiliating her before colleagues, further going to an extent of physically assaulting in the incident that took place on 30.11.2008 and the evidence of PW-12, the doctor so also the wound certificate Ex.P.5 is established by the prosecution out of the evidence of above referred witnesses. There is no scope or reason for concocting the writings, Ex.P.16 by deceased Sangeetha. The evidence placed on record would also go to show that accused intended to marry a girl of his own community and to prosecute such an intention, has extended all sorts of cruelty both physical and mental, thereby abetting her to commit suicide. The death of deceased Sangeetha is due to respiratory failure consequent upon the consumption of substances containing phenobarbitone which is based on the FSL report, Ex.P.14. 20. The evidence of PW-11, colleague of both accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha would go to show that while returning from bandobast duty at Karadagi village, Sangeetha was found weeping. On enquiry, she informed that accused No.1 is demanding money from her or else he will have second marriage to get money and asking both Sangeetha and her daughter to die. 21. PW-27, another colleague of both accused No.1 and deceased Sangeetha has also spoken about while returning from bandobast duty of Karadagi village, Sangeetha was found weeping in bus and when he enquired, she revealed that accused is quarrelling with her demanding dowry otherwise he will have second marriage, so that he can get money and further asked Sangeetha and her daughter to take poison and die. It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 went along with his wife Sangeetha to Karadagi village on his motorcycle, but while returning it was only deceased Sangeetha who came in bus, in distress. 22. A perusal of contents of Ex.P.16 would go to show that accused No.1 on 09.04.2009 during lunch hours called deceased Sangeetha by the side and gave Gardenal tablets and asked Sangeetha and her daughter to die by consuming the tablet. 22. A perusal of contents of Ex.P.16 would go to show that accused No.1 on 09.04.2009 during lunch hours called deceased Sangeetha by the side and gave Gardenal tablets and asked Sangeetha and her daughter to die by consuming the tablet. In the given set of facts and circumstances as referred above, in the ordinary course it would be sufficient to provoke anybody to commit suicide. The deceased came to know that accused No.1 has scheduled for marriage with another girl Fathima on 16.04.2009 and the accused has abetted Sangeetha to commit suicide which would be easy for him to marry another girl with whom the marriage was already scheduled. Accused No.1 by giving Gardenal tablets has abetted Sangeetha to commit suicide and it is on account of such abetment, Sangeetha committed suicide by consuming Gardenal tablets. The Gardenal tablet strips has been seized by the Investigating Officer and PW-18 having examined the strips sent for opinion, given opinion as per Ex.P.26, based on FSL report Ex.P.14, PW-18 has recorded final opinion that death is due to respiratory failure consequent upon consumption of substances containing phenobarbitone. Therefore, it is evident that the death of Sangeetha is due to consumption of excess Gardenal tablet. The trial Court has rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence placed on record and was justified in holding that prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt has proved the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The said finding recorded by trial Court is based on material evidence on record and there are no any valid reason to deviate from the findings recorded by trial Court. 23. The question now remains about imposition of sentence. The trial Court after hearing accused No.1 and learned counsel, so also the learned Public Prosecutor has convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and imposed sentence of 2 years 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accused No.1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of 6 months. It was also ordered that both the sentences to run concurrently and was entitled to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period already undergone in judicial custody. 24. Learned counsel for accused has argued that imposition of sentence of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is too harsh and on the higher side, so also disproportionate to the guilt of accused No.1. The mitigating circumstances pointed out by learned counsel for accused seeking modification of sentence on the ground that accused being at the age of 45 years as of now and dismissed from the service, accused No.1 was in judicial custody right from the date of his arrest on 17.04.2009 till he was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 24.05.2012 and he was in judicial custody for substantial period of sentence imposed by trial Court for more than 3½ years precisely 3 years 1 month 7 days. Accused No.1 has no job and eking out his livelihood by driving tractor in the village and he has to look after his age old mother. If at this point of time, accused No.1 is again sent to jail for serving remaining sentence will ruin the future life of accused. Accused with great difficulty out of his meager earning is maintaining his age old mother. Accused after being released on bail is slowly recovering from the trauma of the period spent in judicial custody and adjusting to the social life. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for appellant/accused seeks for modification of sentence. 25. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.1173/2010 in the case of Mallaiah @ Vanikere Mallaiah Vs. The State, wherein under similar circumstances, this Court has reduced the sentence. In the said case, maximum imprisonment for a period of 10 years was imposed by the trial Court. 25. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.1173/2010 in the case of Mallaiah @ Vanikere Mallaiah Vs. The State, wherein under similar circumstances, this Court has reduced the sentence. In the said case, maximum imprisonment for a period of 10 years was imposed by the trial Court. This Court looking to the facts and circumstances of the said case held that sentence to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is on the higher side. Section 306 IPC clearly states that the sentence of imprisonment may extend to 10 years that does not mean that 10 years imprisonment should always be imposed. Imprisonment for a lesser period can also be imposed in the background and circumstances of the case. The sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was reduced from 10 years to 3 years. 26. In the present case also, looking to the above referred facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC are ordered to run concurrently. The imposition of sentence of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC needs to be interfered with by ordering to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years 1 month 7 days i.e., the period for which accused has already undergone imprisonment in judicial custody is ordered will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal filed by appellant/accused No.1 is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haveri, in S.C.No.51/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified, retaining the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is reduced to 3 years 1 month 7 days i.e., the period of imprisonment which accused No.1 has already undergone in judicial custody. The fine imposed by trial Court for both the offences remains unaltered. Sentence for both the offences shall run concurrently.