JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 9th July 1991 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1990 convicting and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :--- Indubai daughter of Annarao Rajmane, resident of Takali, Taluka Madha (P.W. 6) was given in marriage to appellant Prakash Todkar on 26-12-1996. Appellants Satish Todkar and Krishanabai Todkar are the brother and mother respectively of Prakash Todkar. It is alleged that after the marriage, the appellants started ill-treating Indubai and pressurizing her to bring an anklet and a gold ring from her parents. She told the parents that the appellants were harassing her. Her father Annarao (P.W. 6) purchased these articles and sent her back. But the demand of the appellants and harassment of Indubai continued unabated. On 20-11-1987 a message was received by Indubai's parents that she was missing. At that time her brother Shivaji had gone to Alandi. After coming back from there, he rushed to the house of the appellants who told him that Indubai was missing. On 25-11-1987 Indubai's corpse was found in a well situated in the field of the accused persons. 3. Initially missing report had been lodged, but on 26-11-1987 Shivaji lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which offences under sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were registered against the accused persons. After the usual investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted for the said offences and came to be tried. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The defence of the appellants was of denial. The learned trial Judge acquitted them for the offences under sections 304-B and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted and sentenced them for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. I Have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the material on record. In my view, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 6. Hence this appeal. 5. I Have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the material on record. In my view, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 6. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in my view, is based on the good testimony of Indubai's brother Shivaji (P.W. 2); father Annarao (P.W. 6); another brother Ishwara (P.W. 7); cousin brother Motiram (P.W. 1) and Dashrath Patil (P.W. 8). I have gone through the evidence of the said witnesses and find that it inspires confidence and squarely proves the said offence against the appellants. Although these witnesses were subjected to extensive cross examination, but nothing could be extracted there from which could discredit their evidence. In my view, the learned trial Judge has acted correctly in convicting the appellants for the offence under section 498 A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. However, I feel that in as much as the incident took place more than 12 years ago and the appellants must have settled down in the main stream of life, it would not be just to uphold their substantive sentence of six months R.I. I feel that the said sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone, though, sentence of fine warrants to be maintained. 8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Although I uphold the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine that in its default thereunder, but I reduce this substantive sentence of six months R.I. to the period already undergone by them. In case, the appellants have not paid the fine, they shall pay the same within three months from today in the trial Court. In case, they have paid, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Appeal partly allowed. -----