Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 21st June, 1993 passed by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 51/1991, whereby the learned court below while acquitting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC, convicted the appellant under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 month's RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan of Sadhna Singh, which was recorded on 17.10.1984, FIR No. 497/1984 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Bharatpur and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Thereafter the trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21.6.1993 acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC, but conviction and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1984 i.e. about 31 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 31 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is the old aged person; the accused appellant has remained in custody for about 4 months and 24 days; he is married person and having the children of marriageable age; material witnesses have been declared hostile; and he is not previously convicted person, hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in above. 5. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed; (ii) His conviction is maintained; (iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Judgments at Page No.2082 to Page No.2114 are in chronological order deciding the matters related with corrections in question papers in Examination for Selection/Admission in various Competitive Examinations.