JUDGMENT : Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 2135 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition of the appellant holding that there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. 3. The appellant herein was prosecuted in the case instituted by his wife for the charges under Sections 323, 506, 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(4) (sic) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After leading evidence, the CJM, Mahoba convicted him under Section 498A of IPC as well as Section 3(4) (sic) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced under both the Sections mentioned above to suffer concurrently eight months, imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer three months, further imprisonment. 4. The appellant's appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba came to be dismissed so also the Revision Petition before the High Court. Assailing the order of the High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal. 5. On 14th July, 2014 this Court exempted the appellant from surrendering and on 19th August, 2014 notice was issued limited to the quantum of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case was instituted by the complainant-wife only with a view to get rid of him, as the complainant was not interested to live with him. The parties had undergone considerable length of matrimonial life out of which two daughters were born long back, but unfortunately none was survived. Therefore, she was not interested to live with the appellant and falsely fabricated the case. The appellant belonging to economically weaker section and there never arises the dowry demand in their community. There was in fact no authentic evidence of dowry demand, cruelty or atrocity on the wife at the hands of appellant. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the material and evidence on record. The accused-appellant works as a sweeper who belongs to poor and downtrodden community who suffers and struggles for basic amenities in life. The appellant is a daily wage labourer and has already suffered a month's imprisonment. He is about 58 years old, not keeping good health due to old age related ailments. 7. The accused-appellant works as a sweeper who belongs to poor and downtrodden community who suffers and struggles for basic amenities in life. The appellant is a daily wage labourer and has already suffered a month's imprisonment. He is about 58 years old, not keeping good health due to old age related ailments. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgments of the Courts below. 8. Having heard learned counsel on either side and upon going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if we modify the sentence imposed on the appellant by reducing it to the period already undergone by him, without interfering with the condition of fine. Ordered accordingly. 9. The appeal stands disposed of. Order accordingly.