JUDGMENT IA Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21-07-2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2003, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order, dated 12-06-2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarupathar, in GR Case No. 153 of 2002, whereby the accused-petitioners stand convicted, under Sections 498A read with Section 34 IPC and, in consequence thereof, while the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Sri Hem Saikia, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for two months, the accused-petitioner No. 2, namely, Smti Keteki Saikia, has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. KA Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. Appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr. Kataki, learned counsel, submits that as far as the accused-petitioner No. 2, who was, upon her conviction, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one day, is concerned, she is no longer alive, her revision stands abated inasmuch as no one is willing to pursue this revision on her behalf. This apart, according to Mr. Kataki, the evidence on record was adequate to bring home the charge framed against the accused-petitioners under Section 498A /34 IPC and, while the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, who is still alive, does not dispute the finding of guilt reached against him under Section 498A IPC and the conviction awarded to him accordingly, he seeks that his sentence of two months of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- may be reduced inasmuch as he is a poor cultivator, he has lost his mother and his wife, who had set the law in motion against the present accused-petitioner No. 1, has re-started living with the accused-petitioner No. 1 as her husband and they, presently, have a child too. To the submissions, so made, no substantial objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent. 3. To the submissions, so made, no substantial objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent. 3. Considering the nature of allegations, which were made against the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, and the evidence adduced in support of the charge, this Court is of the view that while the finding of guilt, reached against the accused-petitioner No. 2 by the learned trial Court, under Section 498A IPC, does not deserve interference, his sentence, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, needs to be reasonably reduced. 4. Situated thus, when the record is examined, it is found that the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, was arrested, on 29-08-2002, in connection with the present case and though he was ordered to be released on bail on 25-09-2002, he was actually released, on bail, on 27-09-2002. It is, thus, clear that the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, has suffered imprisonment for a period of almost one month. 5. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this revision is partly allowed. While the conviction of the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, is not interfered with, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment, which he has, as indicated above, already undergone with further direction that he shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default thereof, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, which was passed against the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Hem Saikia, by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court, this revision petition stands disposed of. Send back the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order.