ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner Suresh Kumar under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.122/ 2017 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed against judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanod in Case No.139/2009 by which the accused Suresh was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence convicted under Section Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence 498-A IPC 3 years' SI Fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI 494 IPC 4 years SI Fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record and the judgment impugned. 3. Bereft of elaborate details the brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that an FIR (Ex.P/16) came to be lodged on 12.05.2009 at the instance of one Lakshmi Lal P.W. 16 alleging inter alia that marriage of his daughter Shewta @ Heera P.W. 1 was solemnized with the petitioner Suresh 10 years ago. It is alleged in the report that for six months after the marriage, everything was fine but subsequently his daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in laws in connection with demand of dowry. It was alleged that on 11.05.2009 his daughter was ousted from her matrimonial home that promoted him to lodge the FIR on 12.05.2009. It has been further alleged that one Sampat Paneri informed him that petitioner has solemnized second marriage with Ms. Rekha Salvi but he was not having knowledge regarding whereabouts of Ms. Rekha. 4. On the basis of the above information, police registered a case No.39/2009 and investigation was commenced. Thereafter, on the basis of collection of evidence, charge sheet for the offence under Section 498A, 406, 494 and 323 of the IPC was filed in the trial Court. The learned trial Judge framed the charges against the petitioner and inlaws Mangilal, Phulibai, Kishan Lal and Laxmi Lal. It is reflecting that the accused Mangilal, Phulibai, Kishan Lal and Laxmi Lal were exonerated by the Court below and only the accused Suresh was tried and convicted. 5. The learned trial Judge framed the charges against the petitioner and inlaws Mangilal, Phulibai, Kishan Lal and Laxmi Lal. It is reflecting that the accused Mangilal, Phulibai, Kishan Lal and Laxmi Lal were exonerated by the Court below and only the accused Suresh was tried and convicted. 5. Indisputably, the marriage of the petitioner got solemnized with Smt. Shewta @ Hira P.W.1, 10 years prior to lodging of the FIR; she states that after her marriage she stayed at matrimonial home for 2-4 years and spent marital life with full merth and merriment and where after her husband and inlaws used to rebuke her and she had been subjected to cruelty for want of dowry. She further stated that after 3-4 years of her marriage; a demand of Rs.25,000/- was raised by her inlaws. At one point of time her mother in law put hot cooker on her hands. She further stated that prior to few days of lodging of the FIR, she was ousted from her matrimonial home. She further alleged that her husband had re-married with another lady named Ms.Rekha and her husband refused to stay with him. It has been further alleged that on one occasion Rs.35000/- was further demanded as a dowry. She admitted that she was living along with her husband since the apportionment of the property was done between petitioner and his brothers. She only heard about solemnization of re-marriage of her husband from someone else; but had no personal knowledge regarding fact of second marriage. She also admitted that until she left her matrimonial home, all ornaments and valuable articles were under her possession. 6. Smt. Dhapu P.W.2. the mother of the Smt. Shewta P.W. 1 stated that her daughter usually used to tell her regarding maltreatment meted out to her at her matrimonial home. She stated that she heard about remarriage of the petitioner Suresh; she admitted that after the marriage, initially everything was cordial and spouses were living happily. 7. Mathura Lal P.W. 3 stated on oath that he is the brother of Shewta @ Hira P.W. 1. He is a witness of hear-say evidence. He did not verify the authenticity regarding the fact of remarriage of the petitioner with Ms. Rekha. 8. 7. Mathura Lal P.W. 3 stated on oath that he is the brother of Shewta @ Hira P.W. 1. He is a witness of hear-say evidence. He did not verify the authenticity regarding the fact of remarriage of the petitioner with Ms. Rekha. 8. P.W. 6 Bharat happens to be maternal uncle of the Smt.Shewta @ Heera, who stated that the marriage of his niece got solemnized with petitioner Suresh 20 years ago and admitted that she lived in her matrimonial home for 6-7 years only. He further stated that in the year 2019, he was told by P.W. 3 Mathura Lal regarding strife between the spouses and then he came to know that petitioner has married with another lady. This witness specifically admitted that he tried to meet the petitioner but that could not had happened. 9. Ratan Lal, P.W. 7 is one of the relative of the bride Smt.Shewta @ Heera, the gist of his evidence would be that he knew the parties and attended their marriage and the Shewta lived in her matrimonial home for about 5-7 years. 10. P.W. 12 Badri Lal is a near relative of Smt. Shewta. He did not support the story of the prosecution. 11. P.W. 16 Mathura Lal has turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. 12. The first informant Laxmi Lal has been examined as P.W. 17. It was deposed by him that marriage of his daughter got solemnized with petitioner Suresh around 16-17 years prior to lodging of the FIR and first six months of the marriage, everything was fine between the spouses but later on dispute arose between them with regard to demand of dowry. He further stated that his daughter spent a good and considerable time at her matrimonial home. It was further alleged by him that his daughter ousted from her matrimonial home thereafter, the petitioner got married again with someone. 13. A careful scrutiny of the evidence brought on record making it manifestly clear that no evidence even for the name sake has been brought on record in connection with solemnization of second marriage of the petitioner with Ms.Rekha. The allegations are based on hear-say evidence. Not a single witness has been produced who can say that he/she ever saw the petitioner with Ms. Rekha. The allegations are based on hear-say evidence. Not a single witness has been produced who can say that he/she ever saw the petitioner with Ms. Rekha. Even no time, date, venue of second marriage has been brought on record except a bald and hearsay evidence which is not admissible under the law. It seems that the learned trial Judge has convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 494 of the IPC on the terms that in another Criminal Misc. Case No.62/2017 pertaining to maintenance proceedings; somewhere in the order sheets of that Court it has been observed that in the year 2009, the petitioner had married again with a lady named Ms. Rekha. Neither proceedings of that Court has been tendered into evidence nor any witness has been produced to prove the aforesaid content. To the utter dismay, it is not comprehensible as to who was the lady Rekha, what was her father's name, what was her caste or from which place she belongs too, and at which place the marriage took place. It is the rule of criminal law that if a charge is framed against the accused then a duty is caste upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond every reasonable doubt. Here in this case, leave aside the question of doubt, even the initial burden has not been discharged. 14. After careful scrutiny of the evidence this Court is of the firm opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of petitioner under Section 494 IPC is per-se illegal and is based on conjectures. Even the learned appellate Court did not bother to go through the evidence in this regard and maintained the conviction under Section 494 of the IPC, despite that there is a dearth of evidence in this aspect. Thus, the finding of guilt and passing judgment of conviction under Section 494 of the IPC and affirmation by the appellate Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. 15. As far as the question of conviction under Section 498 of the IPC is concerned, some facts are not disputed viz., the marriage of the petitioner got solemnized with Smt. Shewta @ Heera around 10 years prior to lodging of the FIR. The accused-petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. 15. As far as the question of conviction under Section 498 of the IPC is concerned, some facts are not disputed viz., the marriage of the petitioner got solemnized with Smt. Shewta @ Heera around 10 years prior to lodging of the FIR. It is also not disputed that at the time of marriage, there was no pre-condition with regard to any dowry articles. There is major contradiction with regard to the fact that after how much time the dispute had arisen between the spouses. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that the spouses lived a happy married life for a considerable long time;, whereas some of them stated that the dispute between the spouses arose after 2-3 years of marriage and in the opinion of the viewed witnesses, everything was fine for 3-4 years and the rift begun thereafter. There is major incongruity with regard to this fact. Similarly, there are allegations with regard to demand of dowry but no specific date, time, place or occasion has been mentioned by any of the witnesses so as to prove the fact that actually when the demand was raised or infact what was demanded or if demanded then by whom. In this regard only omnibus allegations have been levelled. The discrepancy with regard to demand of dowry article can be observed easily and it seems that the prosecution witnesses were not firm on their allegations. 16. The word 'dowry' has not been defined in the Indian penal Code and the connotation of it has to be understood from section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which reads as under:- Definition of 'dowry'. -In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies 17. From the perusal of the above it is discernible that there are three occasions related to dowry:- (i) the first occasion would be before the marriage (ii) the next would be at the time of marriage and (iii) the third which is at any time after the marriage. It can be understood that the third occasion seems to be an unending period. However, for making enunciation of law, the Court of law is required to stuck to the use of words, which are used by the Legislature. This means that giving or agreeing to give anything or property on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There should be an inextricable nexus with the demand and the marriage. Hence, the word 'dowry' used under Section 498A or under Section 304B of the IPC would be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage and nonelse. Since this case pertains to Section 498A IPC only so I am confined to deal with the issue within the precincts of allegations levelled and what is provided under Section 498 of the IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as under:- Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code [498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] 18. A plain reading of aforementioned penal provision coupled with the facts of the case making it manifestly clear that the case of the prosecution with regard to Clause (b) of 498 IPC is not made out or proved, in view of the discrepancy or in light of firmness of the allegations and the contradiction between the prosecution witnesses. 19. Now coming to Clause (a) of Section 498A of the IPC. As discussed in the preceding paras of this judgment that the cruelty was not with regard to the second marriage since the charge under Section 494 IPC has not been made out and it has also been observed that no unlawful demand was made out. Yet the wilful conduct of the petitioner to cause danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the victim P.W. 1 can be traced from the evidence brought on record. Whatever the reason may be, but the fact remains that Ms. Shewta P.W. 1 was legally wedded wife of the petitioner or either she ousted or left the company of the petitioner at her own accord but it cannot be denied that she had to face mental agony on account of the conduct of the petitioner. Thus, after critical examination of the evidence it is observed that petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 498 of the IPC. Though, this Court has reservations over some observations made by the trial Court and the court of Appeal yet affirms the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction to the extent of Section 498A IPC. 20. As far as the question of order of sentence is concerned, it is manifest from the record that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent; he is working in a private hospital; his parents are dependent upon him; he is a low paid employee of a private hospital. The facts of the present case are that his matrimony broke in the year 2009 and for long 14 years he has to face the rigor of trial thereafter the Courts of appeal and revision. The facts of the present case are that his matrimony broke in the year 2009 and for long 14 years he has to face the rigor of trial thereafter the Courts of appeal and revision. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the appellant has already undergone till date. 21. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanod, District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.139/2009 as well as the judgment of appeal dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Case No.122/2017 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the ends of justice. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 22. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 23. Record be sent back.