ORDER 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgement and order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.286-SB of 1996, whereby the High Court modified the Judgement of the trial Court. The trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and had sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with fine. The High Court, by the impugned Judgement converted the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 304-B IPC to 306 IPC and reduced the sentence to four years and also reduced the amount of fine. 3. On 13.2.1992, as per the prosecution case, the victim Anju Rani, wife of the appellant, died an unnatural death due to severe burn injuries. The incident had occurred after 3 1 /2 years of marriage. On the completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Sections 498A and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was filed against three accused persons including the appellant herein. 4. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant herein but the other two accused persons were acquitted of the charge. The High Court, however, on an analysis of the evidence of record, was of the view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B was not sustainable and taking into account the materials on record held that the allegation of cruelty has been proved, which ought to have led the victim to commit suicide. 5. On this premise, the High Court after invoking Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, but reduced the amount of fine, as imposed by the trial Court. The plea now urged before us is on the quantum of sentence only. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1992 and that more than two and half decades have passed and also that the appellant has suffered adequate imprisonment in between, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1992 and that more than two and half decades have passed and also that the appellant has suffered adequate imprisonment in between, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the offence proved against the appellant does not call for any reduction in the sentence awarded. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after close analysis of the evidence on record it appears that the appellant has already undergone about 15 months of imprisonment without remission. Having regard to the offence said to have been proved and the time lag in between and the period already undergone, coupled with the submission at the bar that the children of the appellant are of marriageable age, we consider that the ends of justice would be met if we reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant, to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction. Ordered accordingly. 9. We, however, modify the sentence of fine to be of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. 10. In view of the above, this appeal stands partly allowed. 11. The appellant is on bail. The bail bonds stand discharged.