ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the conviction under Section 498-A I.P.C., appellant-husband of the deceased-Radha has preferred this appeal. 2. Marriage of the appellant and the deceased-Radha was performed on 16th May, 1991. Radha died on 27th December, 1992 on account of consumption of over-doze of the tablet. On the complaint lodged by PW-1, father of the deceased, a case was registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The trial court acquitted the appellant-husband and also parents-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. In the appeal preferred by the State, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of the appellant under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and other accused under the above sections including Section 498-A I.P.C. However, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 4. We have heard Mr. Subashchandra Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and considered the impugned judgment and materials on record. 5. So far as the demand of dowry and the continuous illtreatment meted out to the deceased-Radha are concerned both, C. Hanumanthappa (PW-1), father of the deceased and Latha (PW- 11), sister of the deceased, have clearly and consistently spoken the same. In addition to that, PW-11, Latha, in her evidence, stated that when her father sold the house at Yelahanka for Rs. 60,000/-, the appellant started making illegal demand to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her father and her father had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the deceased-Radha. To the same effect is the evidence of the father of the deceased. To prove the demand of dowry and ill-treatment, the prosecution has also examined PW-4, Vijayakumar, co-brother of PW-1; PW-7, Ranganna, relation of PW-1; and PW-10-Nagaraj, brother-in-law of PW-1, who have consistently spoken about the demand of dowry and the cruelty meted out to the deceased-Radha. One of the cruelty alleged by the prosecution is the termination of pregnancy of the deceased-Radha against her will. One of the cruelty alleged by the prosecution is the termination of pregnancy of the deceased-Radha against her will. Based on the evidence of PW-1, PW-11 and also PW-4, PW-7 and PW-10, the High Court, in our view, has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C. and we do not see any good ground warranting our interference with the conviction of the appellant. 6. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C, the High Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The occurrence of the incident took place in the year 1992, way back 26 years ago. Having regard to the passage of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C. is confirmed, however, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year. 7. We make it clear that the reduction of sentence is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same may not be treated as precedent. 8. The appeal is partly allowed. 9. The appellant to surrender to custody within four weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence failing which he shall be taken to custody.