Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 7-4-2004, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in Sessions Trial No. 131/03, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC and sentenced to RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 200/- and RI for 5 " years and fine of Rs. 800/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for six months on each count, respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story is that the appellant was married to complainant Kantibai on 25-4-2003. When she went to her in-laws house for the first time, appellant beat her on the ground that she had not brought T. V. She went back to her mothers house. Thereafter, when she returned back, appellant refused to keep her. She lodged the report against the appellant. There was a Panchayat and the dispute was resolved. It is said that on the night of 29-6-2003, at about 9-10 Oclock, when appellant came home, he abused the complainant saying that she had not brought money of Bhatony, she should go out of the house else he will not leave her alive and also assaulted her. In the early morning of 30-6-2003, appellant sprinkled kerosene from the chimni on her and set her ablaze. She raised hue and cry and ran out of the house and extinguished fire by water kept in a pot. People from the neighbourhood also assembled there. Mother of the appellant took her to hospital, i. e. , PHC Lamta, where complainant lodged her report by way of Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P-l. Police registered the case under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC. Complainant was then referred to District Hospital, Balaghat, where Dr. P. K. Parashar (P. W. 6) treated her. The injuries of complainant were examined by Dr. V. K. Balbhadra (P. W. 5) at PHC, Lamta. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. ( 3. ) LEARNED Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC against the appellant which he abjured. During trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to bring home the charges against the appellant and the appellant also examined D. W. 1 Lalchand and D. W. 2 Tikendra Panjre in his defence. ( 4. ( 3. ) LEARNED Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC against the appellant which he abjured. During trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to bring home the charges against the appellant and the appellant also examined D. W. 1 Lalchand and D. W. 2 Tikendra Panjre in his defence. ( 4. ) LEARNED Trial Court on appreciating the evidence held the appellant guilty on both the counts and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted, that prima facie the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable. There is no reliable evidence to bring home the charges under Section 498-A as well as under Section 307, IPC. He submitted that from the defence evidence adduced by the appellant, it is apparent that the complainant used to go to her mothers house without even informing the appellant or appellants mother and because of this dispute a Panchayat of the Mali community was convened, where complainant admitted her mistake and in writing assured that she will not leave the house of her husband and will not make false allegation against him. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there is enough material to prove that the appellant had subjected the com-plainant to cruelty for meeting the demand of dowry and on 30-6-2003 set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene on her. ( 7. ) KANTIBAI (P. W. 1), the complainant, has deposed that when she had come for the first time to her husbands house, her husband had beaten her on the ground that she had not brought T. V. and ring, therefore, she had gone back to her mothers house and she had also lodged the report to that effect. Just before the present incident, the appellant had quarreled with her and beat her as she had not brought money of Bhatony, fan and T. V. and then early in the morning when she was sleeping, he had sprinkled kerosene from Chimni and set fire to her by matchstick. After the incident, she was taken to hospital by her mother-in-law and her husband had also accompanied her. In cross-examination, she was confronted by the report lodged by her on 10-6-2003, Ex. After the incident, she was taken to hospital by her mother-in-law and her husband had also accompanied her. In cross-examination, she was confronted by the report lodged by her on 10-6-2003, Ex. P-13, wherein she had mentioned that when she had received message about the ailment of her mother, she had gone to her mothers house without informing her husband, therefore, when she had come back to her in-laws house, her husband had beaten her and refused to keep her. On perusal of Ex. D-3, the resolution dated 10-6-2003 of the Panchayat of Mali community, it is seen that the meeting was convened to resolve the dispute between the complainant and her husband, wherein complainant had admitted that she had committed mistake. The aforesaid document of meeting finds support from the evidence of D. W. 1 Lalchand and D. W. 2 Tikendra Panjre, who happened to be Secretary and President of Panchayat of the Mali community. Though the statement of complainant about the demand of T. V. , ring and fan is corroborated by the statement of Nasarbai (P. W. 3), mother of the complainant, yet in view of the aforesaid report, Ex. P-13 lodged by the complainant and documents adduced by the appellant in defence, it appears that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty were not genuine. On critical appreciation, the evidence with respect to demand of dowry and causing harassment on that count does not appear to be reliable, therefore, the conviction awarded to appellant under Section 498-A, IPC deserves to be set aside. ( 8. ) AS far as the question of offence under Section 307, IPC is concerned, the evidence of Kantibai (P. W. 1) is unambiguous and reliable. Her evidence finds support by the evidence of P. W. 2 Geetabai, the neighbour, who deposed that she had seen Kantibai coming out of her husbands house burning and Kantibai had informed her that her husband had set fire to her. ( 9. ) DR. V. K. Balbhadra, who examined the injuries of Kantibai, found multiple burn injuries present on her chest, abdomen, both upper and lower limbs (over thigh region only ). The burns were 45% and were caused by hot fire flame. P. W. 6 Dr. P. K. Parashar, who treated Kantibai, deposed that Kantibai had remained admitted in hospital from 30-6-2003 to 22-7-2003. The burns were 45% and were caused by hot fire flame. P. W. 6 Dr. P. K. Parashar, who treated Kantibai, deposed that Kantibai had remained admitted in hospital from 30-6-2003 to 22-7-2003. Though, none of the doctors has opined about the nature of injuries, yet it is proved that she suffered multiple burn injuries. The statement of Kantibai that appellant had caused burning injuries to her is reliable, hence, the finding of conviction arrived at by the Trial Court does not appear to be erroneous calling for any interference. ( 10. ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in custody since 14-7-2003, i. e. , he has suffered custody for about 2 and 1/2 years. He submitted that the fact that injured used to go to her mothers house without even informing the appellant, could have provoked the appellant for indulging in commission of the offence. In such circumstances, sentence deserves to be reduced. He submitted that appellant is a young man of about 26 years of age and is a cultivator having no bad antecedent. He deserves leniency in the matter of award of sentence. ( 11. ) ON due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC has already been set aside. I deem it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to RI for 3 years. ( 12. ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 498-A, IPC is set aside. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307, IPC is affirmed. However, his sentence is reduced to RI for 3 years.