JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki , J.- TheFirst Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed theimpugned judgment dated 25.01.2005 in S.T. No. 640/02 by which theappellant/accused has been convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. andsentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs . 3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, furtherRigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. 2.Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section374(2) of Cr.P.C . 3.The prosecution case in short is that marriage of deceased Sarita and appellant was solemnized just before 3 years of the incident. It is alsoalleged that deceased Sarita was ill treated byappellant and other co- accused ( acquitted). Deceased Sarita narrated the fact of demand of dowry to her father Motiram ( P.W.l ), mother Kaushalya bai (P.W.4) and niece Julie( P.W.9). 4.It is also alleged that appellant directly made demand of refrigerator, bed,scooter and colour TV from Motiram ( P.W.l ). It is also alleged that due to the cruelty Sarita attempted suicide on 12.4.2002. She was admitted inhospital and treated by Dr. Vinod Kumar Tamrakar (P. W.5) but she succumbed to burn injuries on2.5.2002. 5.A marg was registered in the Police Station Garha . Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. Arun Sen performed the autopsy onthe body of deceased Sarita who opined that death wasdue to the burn infection. 6.After usual investigation appellant along with other co- accused wascharge-sheeted. 7.Learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant/accused underSections 498-A ,304 -B of I.P.C. 308 Mahendra Kumar Sondhiya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh[A.N.J. 8.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 9.After appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judgeacquitted the co-accused however appellant was convicted under 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Hence,this appeal. 10.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the evidence on record, he is not challenging the conviction recorded by thetrial Court. He further submitted that a dying declaration( Ex.D-4)was recorded by Dr. Aalok Somani immediately after the admission of deceased Sarita inhospital which reveals that deceased Sarita burntaccidentally and her husband (appellant) tried to save her. In thesecircumstances, end of justice would be met out if appellant be convicted forthe jail sentence already undergone and fine be enhanced. 11.Learned counsel for the State also has no objection to the contention raised bythe learned counsel for the appellant. In thesecircumstances, end of justice would be met out if appellant be convicted forthe jail sentence already undergone and fine be enhanced. 11.Learned counsel for the State also has no objection to the contention raised bythe learned counsel for the appellant. 12.It is true that this appellant tried to save his wife at the time of burning.This can be considered as mitigating circumstances. On considering this fact, Iam also of the view that if appellant be convicted for jail sentence alreadyundergone 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4 and half months) and fine of Rs . 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further SimpleImprisonment for 3 months, end of 4 justice would be met out 13.In these circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction recorded by trialCourt against the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is hereby affirmedand the sentence is altered in the following way : - "appellantis sentenced, for jail sentence (from 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4and half months) of already undergone and fine of Rs .10,000/-. In default of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months." 14.Record of the trial Court be sent back along with thecopy of judgment for compliance and necessary action. 15.The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. If any fine amountis deposited, set off be given.