JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Code") is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.4/2002 sustaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498A IPC and sentence of simple imprisonment for one and half years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 14.12.1998, Hemlata w/o Suresh did file a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh under sections 498A and 406 IPC against the petitioner and four others viz; Smt. Ghisi Bai, Guddi, Bal Mukand and Prem Bai. The complaint was forwarded to the jurisdictional Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code following which charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner, Ghisi Bai and Guddi Bai only. The charge was framed against the charge-sheeted persons to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix Hemlata and others. Eventually, on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner only under Section 498A IPC, while releasing his co-accused on probation for a period of one year. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner, has argued that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not prove the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner. Without prejudice to this, the learned counsel has also submitted that meanwhile, the complainant/prosecutrix has re-married and that the couple have a child and that in this view of the matter, if this court is inclined to sustain the conviction, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has not offered his comment in this regard. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has not offered his comment in this regard. 6. Upon hearing the arguments advanced and on a consideration of the materials on record inter alia to the effect that the alleged incident is of the year 1998, I am inclined to close this revision petition by sustaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The documents produced in the course of the arguments reveal that prosecutrix Hemlata has since married one Rajesh and that they have a child through the said wedlock. This, amongst others, is demonstrated by a letter dated 12.9.2012 of the Child Development Project Officer, Kushalgarh, Distt. Banswara. The relevant extract of the concerned voter list as well testifies that the prosecutrix has meanwhile married Rajesh. The records further reveal that the petitioner has meanwhile undergone detention for a period of ten days.On a cumulative consideration of all above, to reiterate, this revision petition is closed by sustaining the conviction against the petitioner under Section 498A IPC. The period of imprisonment is hereby reduced to the duration of detention, undergone by him meanwhile. However, he would be required to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- within a period of six weeks here from, failing which he would be taken back to custody to suffer simple imprisonment for another seventy two hours. The revision petition is disposed of in these terms. *******