Judgment: B.D. Rathi, J. 1. The present judgment shall govern the disposal of both the cases (Cr. R. No. 165/1999 and Cr. A. No. 169/1999). Criminal Revision No. 165/1999 under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"), has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 30-3-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 154/1996 whereby respondent No. 2-Ram Manohar Singh Sengar has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). Criminal Appeal No. 169/1999 under Section 374 of the Code has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30-3-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 154/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case in brief, is that the marriage of Ram Manohar Singh and Rekha had taken place on 16-2-1987 at Gwalior. After marriage, Rekha started living with the accused persons. At the time of marriage, Ram Manohar Singh (husband of Rekha) was posted in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Agrawal Mandi, Meerut , but in the year 1990, he was transferred to Gwalior. The accusation of prosecution is that the accused persons used to demand a plot and a gas connection in dowry and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused persons started harassing Rekha mentally and physically. In the month of September, 1991 Rekha had written a letter to her father complaining that she has not been provided proper clothes and mal-treated by the accused persons and requested for taking away from her matrimonial house. On 18-9-1991, father Chandrabhan had brought her daughter to Gwalior and on 20-9-1991, Chandrabhan wrote a letter to the accused persons with regard to not harassing her daughter (Rekha). Showing annoyance to that letter, husband of Rekha, Ram Monohar (accused herein) had lodged the proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act at Gwalior, which was compromised by both the parties on the assurance that the accused persons shall provide adequate treatment to Rekha. On that assurance, the accused persons had taken Rekha with them, but since then, Rekha did not turn up in the Court proceedings. 2. On that assurance, the accused persons had taken Rekha with them, but since then, Rekha did not turn up in the Court proceedings. 2. When the request of production of Rekha before the Court was made by Chandrabhan, on 8-12-1992, accused persons have informed that Rekha had gone to her paternal house on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and since then her whereabouts is not known. On receiving the said information, FIR (Exh. P-17) was lodged and registered as Crime No. 457/1993 at Police Station, Indarganj, Vidisha for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the said offence but later on, on the prayer of prosecution, the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of IPC were also framed by the Trial Court against the accused persons. 3. During trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of IPC and contended that they had been falsely implicated. It is imperative to note that FIR has been registered against three persons, namely, Ram Manohar Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Ram Kishore Singh, out of them, Ram Kishore Singh had absconded, therefore, challan was filed only against Ram Manohar Singh and Jagmohan Singh. During pendency of this appeal, Jagmohan Singh has died, hence his name has been deleted from the array of accused by the order of this Court dated 8-1-2007. 4. By preferring criminal revision, it has been submitted on behalf of complainant that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent and reliable evidence. Prayer was also made that the petition be allowed and accused persons be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 5. On the contrary, Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused submitted that the judgment of acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of IPC is well merited. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in that acquittal, no interference is called for. But learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 3 years' RI as no case is made out against the accused persons. 6. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in that acquittal, no interference is called for. But learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 3 years' RI as no case is made out against the accused persons. 6. To bring home the charges, prosecution has produced as many as 6 witnesses, namely, Chandrabhan Singh (P.W. 1), Harkanta Singh (P.W. 2), Rajendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 3), Harnarayan (P.W. 4), Dr. K.C. Saxena (P.W. 5), Sub-Inspector, Jaiveer Singh Yadav (P.W. 6). Accused persons have also examined as defence witness, namely, Roop Singh (D.W. 1). 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and material available on record, as well as the impugned judgment of Trial Court. 8. It is well-settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. 9. After taking into consideration, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, in Paragraphs 12 to 14, it was held by the Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove that Rekha has died and evidence in regard to death of Rekha has not been produced by the prosecution. Further, learned Trial Court has held that in absence of evidence, presumption cannot be drawn under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and on these grounds, the accused persons were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of IPC. 10. From Paragraphs 20 to 30, the evidence was discussed and it was held by the Trial Court that Rekha Bai was subjected to cruelty by her husband Ram Manohar Singh, who has accordingly been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Taking into consideration, the reasons assigned on the basis of evidence available on record, establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court was apparently a possible view. Taking into consideration, the reasons assigned on the basis of evidence available on record, establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court was apparently a possible view. On perusal of entire evidence and material available on record, we are of the considered view that the conviction awarded by the Trial Court is well-merited, warranting no interference, but so far as sentence part is concerned, it is important that appellant-Ram Manohar Singh has already undergone about 2 years' rigorous imprisonment, hence considering the period of ordeal of trial and appeal, the sentence already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 169/1999 filed by accused is partly allowed, maintaining the conviction and sentencing him to already undergone. Appellant-Ram Manohar Singh is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Consequently, the Criminal Revision No. 165/1999 filed by complainant is hereby dismissed being bereft of merits. Copy of this order along record be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.