JUDGMENT & ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Matter comes up on the application for suspension of sentence but as major part of the sentence awarded to accused-appellant has already been suffered by him and only a little period remains to be completed, the main appeal itself is heard and decided. 2. Accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 23.03.2018, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has acquitted appellant of the offence under Section 304-B IPC by giving him benefit of doubt, however, indicted him for offence under Section 498-A IPC and handed down sentence of three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2015 complainant Hakra S/o Dhulia submitted a written report at Police Station Ambapura, alleging therein that his daughter Bablee was married with Suraj at village Bari Siyatlai three years back according to social rituals but after about two years due to fractions between spouses, she returned to the parental home and afterwards was sent in Nata with appellant-Mani Lal Maida. 4. According to the report out of that Nata marriage, she bore a girl child. The report alleged that the appellant used to beat his daughter and demanded money. Earlier also, on 15.03.2015 Bablee was beaten but due to intervention of family members and relatives, a settlement is arrived at between them. It was further alleged in the report that on 03.06.2015, around 2.00-3.00 PM, when he was at home, one Shankar came and informed him that husband of Bablee gave beatings to Bablee and she consumed insecticide as such was carried to MG Hospital Banswara where she is declared died. Whereupon, villagers Kalia, Meta, Vishal, Ramesh, Kanti Lal etc. went to MG Hospital at Banswara and found that Bablee had expired. On the basis of above report, police registered FIR No.111/2015 under Section 304B IPC and started investigation. The police, after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charge against him for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. and, on denial, put him on trial. 5. In order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and exhibited documents. The police, after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charge against him for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC. and, on denial, put him on trial. 5. In order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and exhibited documents. Subsequently, statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence he examined D.W.1 Deepa and D.W.2 Khatu. 6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties and the evidence led, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 304-B IPC but convicted him for offence under Sections 498-A IPC vide judgment as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset does not challenge the conviction of appellant under Section 498-A IPC but prays that keeping in view the fact that appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence, i.e. two years and nine months out of the sentence of three years awarded to him, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that, in totality of circumstances, punishment awarded to the appellant be altered by reducing the sentence to the extent he has already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy evidence on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge levelled him beyond reasonable doubt, as such, no mercy can be shown towards him even by reducing the sentence imposed. According to him, the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the entire record. After examining the record, I have not been able to discover any infirmity in the order of conviction passed by the trial Court so as to warrant interference in the present appeal. However, taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the appellant, I feel persuaded to accede to the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant, more particularly in view of the fact that appellant has already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to him. However, taking into account the entire fact scenario and the concession made by learned counsel for the appellant, I feel persuaded to accede to the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant, more particularly in view of the fact that appellant has already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to him. Therefore taking into account proven delinquency of the appellant, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served if sentence awarded is reduced to the extent of sentence already undergone by him while maintaining the fine. 9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and while upholding the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 498-A IPC as recorded by learned trial court, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant, who is under incarceration, may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case subject to his depositing the amount of fine Rs.3,000/-with the learned trial Court.