Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. After Ras Muna Devi alias Meena Devi (P.W. 3) was wedded to the petitioner, her happiness was shortlived, as it is alleged that shortly after her marriage, her in-laws were insisting on her to fetch luxurious goods from her parents and as they failed to oblige, she bore torture in silence for these years, when she was in the company of her husband. The accusation attributed to the in-laws were that they withheld her ornaments, subjected her to cruelty, kept her bereft of good and eventually dropped her near village Harigaon where she could get company of Jagarnath Singh P.W. 1 who took her to her parents house, and with all these accusations, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner and also other in-laws who were six in number. 2. The defence of the petitioner before the trial court and also this court had been, inter alia, that the accusation attributed to them were that the instant case has been fall out of Complaint Case No. 527 of 1993, instituted by the petitioner against the brother of Ras Muna Devi alias Meena Devi. 3. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses and material of them were Jagarnath Singh P.W. 1, Lallan Singh P.W. 2, Ras Muna Devi alias Meena Devi P.W. 3, Jamuna Prasad Singh P.W. 4 and Singhasan Chaudhary (Singh) P.W. 5. Prosecution also examined P.W. 8 who brought on record the material Exts. 2 and 2/1 ostensibly to suggest that the doctor had found her ailment, which she suffered. The defence too examined two witnesses. The witnesses examined by the prosecution had been making coherent statements before the trial court about torture meted out to Meena Devi by her in-laws, obviously for failure of her parents to make provision of sufficient dowry to the in-laws. The witnesses would state also about withholding of ornaments and leaving Ras Muna Devi at Arrah at the instances of the in-laws. They had been stating that due to torture meted out to her, she was too weak to walk. 4. The trial court on appreciation of evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, negativing contentions raised at bar on behalf of the petitioner, while acquitted others of the charges levelled against them, rendered verdict of guilt against the petitioner finding him guilty under Sections 323, 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The trial court on appreciation of evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, negativing contentions raised at bar on behalf of the petitioner, while acquitted others of the charges levelled against them, rendered verdict of guilt against the petitioner finding him guilty under Sections 323, 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner also suffered conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As for sentence imposed on him, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The imprisonment of one year was imposed for conviction under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and as for conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and for conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more on each count for which he was sentenced to pay fine. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. When the notice was carried in appeal before 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah the finding recorded under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on these counts, upholding the finding recorded by the trial court recorded under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The finding recorded by the trial court was sought to be assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on premises that though victim is alleged to have suffered injury at the hands of in-laws for which she was also examined by Dr. Jeet Sharma, neither there has been good evidence about injury on the person of the victim lady, nor there has been evidence of the doctor who is said to have examined the injured. It is sought to be urged that Exts. Jeet Sharma, neither there has been good evidence about injury on the person of the victim lady, nor there has been evidence of the doctor who is said to have examined the injured. It is sought to be urged that Exts. 2 and 2/1 brought on the record on behalf of the prosecution were some prescriptions issued by the doctor, but that did not conclusively prove any injury on the person of the victim lady and in quick succession it is urged that even allegation about abortion of the victim lady was not corroborated from Exts. 2 and 2/1. In coherent statement of the witnesses was also taken to be a ground to assail the finding recorded by the trial court and also appellate court, and last argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was that the prosecution was launched against him in the year 1993 about nine years back for which he suffered ordeal of protracted trial for such a long period. It is alleged that the petitioner had been in custody for one month. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant was also heard. Though there had been attempt for reconciliation between the parties as is urged at bar, that failed to bring any solitary (sicsalutary?) result, as the parties had not come to a term to remain under a common roof, may be due to rigidity in attitude, or may be some other reason. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, urged that she was ready to condone the matrimonial cruelty to the extent that the petitioner instead of being sentenced to substantive imprisonment be sentenced to pay fine, which on realisation be paid to her. 7. In that view of the matter, while upholding the guilt recorded under sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence imposed on him on two counts is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 4000/- (four thousand) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of which he would suffer simple imprisonment for four months on the first count and six months on the second count and with this modification in sentence, this revision is dismissed. 1000/- (one thousand) under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 4000/- (four thousand) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of which he would suffer simple imprisonment for four months on the first count and six months on the second count and with this modification in sentence, this revision is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to make payment of fine within the months from the date of receipt of the order, which shall be payable to the victim lady.