Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the appellant. On the request of the Court, Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey argued the case on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curie. Heard learned Counsel for the State. 2 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2001 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2001 passed by Shri Vikramaditya Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 1994, by which judgment, he found the sole appellant, Nand Kishore Ram, the husband of the deceased, Lila Devi guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no specific allegation of torture and assault against the accused. The only allegation is that the appellant used to complain that after marriage his wife Lila Devi used to sleep for the whole day and never participated in the work of the household. There is no evidence that at his instigation, she committed suicide by jumping in a. well. In that view of the matter, the judgment and conviction in the case is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that right from the date of marriage, the appellant used to torture and assault her for not working in the house and used to neglect her, for which, a panchayati was held, and subsequently, the neglect by the appellant forced her to commit suicide, and as such, the appellant has rightly been convicted. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by one Dashrath Ram, the brother of the deceased, stating therein that his sister Lila Devi was married about five years ago with the accused Nand Kishore Ram and after marriage, Nand Kishore Ram always used to complain that his wife always sleeps and does not work in the house and he used to torture her, for which, panchayatis were also held. After the panchayati on 04.05.1993, the informant learnt that on the date of occurrence, Nand Kishore Ram making false allegation assaulted his sister and left for Ranchi and told his sister that he was not bothered whether she alive or dies. Thereafter, she jumped in a well and committed suicide. 6. On the basis of written report, police, registered a case for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet for the same. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, subsequently tried the same and found him guilty as aforesaid. 8. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1, Chaudhary Ram was turned hostile. P.W.2, Matlu Ram is the uncle of the deceased. P.W.3, Bechu Ram is the hearsay witness P.W.4, Shyam Kishore Prasad Kuswaha is also hearsay witness. P.W.5, Jagan Ram is also hearsay witness. P.W.6, Saroj Kumar has examined the victim girl and proved the postmortem report. P.W.7, Hiralal Prasad Kusaha was declared hostile. P.W.8, Suresh Ram is a tender witness P.W.9, Dashrath Ram is the brother of the deceased and informant of the case. 9. Thus, after going through the evidences, it appears that P.W.1 and P.W.7 are hostile witnesses and they have said nothing, while P.W.8 is a tender witness and he has also said nothing. The other witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are hearsay witnesses. They have only stated that they heard that Lila Devi, the daughter of Hari Ram died by drowning in the well and when they went there, they saw the dead body of the deceased and except that they said nothing. 10. Thus, we are. left with only two witnesses i.e. evidence of P.W.2, Matlu Ram and P.W.9, Dashrath Ram. P.W.2, Matlu Ram stated that his niece Lila Devi was married with the accused Nand Kishore Ram and after the marriage, she used to be badly treated by her husband and since, it was alleged by the accused that she is not working in the house, for which panchayati was held in 1990 and thereafter in 1991. but he never mended in way On 04 05 1993, he learnt from Jagdish Rain that Lila Devi has died by drowning in the well. When, he went in a village Simariya, then the villagers told him that Nand Kishore Ram was going to Ranchi and she also wanted to go, but he refused her and assaulted her and then she ran to the well and jumped. The doctor P.W.6, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim girl stated that she died due to asphyxia due to drowning. 11. P.W.9, Dashrath Ram, the brother of the victim girl has also stated that just after the marriage, the appellant used to neglect the wife as she was not working properly in the house, for which, panchayati also held, but even after panchayati he did not change his attitude and on the date of occurrence i.e. on 04.05.1993, when the deceased wanted to go back to Ranchi, he refused her to go and wanted to go alone, then she ran to the well and jumped into it. 12. Thus, I find that there is no allegation that the appellant used to assault her or torture her. The only tiling is that whether the act of the appellant in neglecting the wife in spite of panchayati comes to cruelty or not under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court has rightly found that the behavior of the husband, in not respecting his wife and always rebuking her and not caring her for her life or death, led the woman to commit suicide. In that view of the matter, his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is well founded and requires no interference by this Court. 13. However, the sentence of seven years seems to be too harsh, since, there is no allegation of assault and torture and the only allegation is that his behavior was not good, which cause this accident. It also appears from the record that the appellant has remained in custody for three months in the beginning, when he was taken into custody on 11.07.2001. He remained in custody after the bail granted by this Court by its order dated 08.02.2002, since it appears from the record that the application for provisional bail was filed by the appellant on 30.01.2002, which was rejected by this Court on 26.02.2009, being infructuous. 14. In the result, in my opinion, the sentence already undergone by the appellant during trial and appeal is sufficient sentence. If the appellant is in jail custody, he is directed to be released forthwith and as per the earlier order by this Court, he was released, then he will be released from the bondage of the bail bond. 15. Thus, this criminal appeal is allowed in part.;