JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present revision petitioner, namely, Sri Bidya Sagar Pashi was married to one Sabita Pashi, but subsequently alleging demand of money and physical assault, she lodged FIR dated 11.01.2025, resulting in the registration of Udharbond P.S Case No.08/05 under Section 498A IPC – which after investigation resulted in charge-sheet against the accused and registration of GR No.98/2025 3. The revision petitioner as accused underwent trial before the Court of learned SDJM(S), Silchar and he was convicted under Section 498A IPC vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of R.I for 6(Six) Months and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only in default S.I for 2(two) months. 4. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal against the same but even the same came to be dismissed in its entirety vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No.16/2012. 5. In this backdrop, the said convict appellant is before this Court as a revision petitioner seeking interference with his conviction and sentence. 6. Original TCR is available and relevant portions perused. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the ejahar has been lodged after 8(eight) months and though an attempt has been made to explain the same but contends that it is not adequate. 8. It is further submitted that in her police statement, she omitted to state about demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only as deposed in her evidence. It is submitted that there are no documents regarding the testimony of the victim’s side regarding miscarriage etc. 9. Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who submits that in her testimony, she has stated about having faced cruelty and also monetary demands. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that both PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses and PW-3, though independent witness is a hearsay witness. 11. Upon perusing the depositions and the discussion of the evidence by the learned Court’s below, I find that PW-3 is a neighbour and he has testified about being reported to by the informant about the assault. However, one important aspect of his testimony is that he has deposed about hearing hue and cry on the day of the incident. 12. Upon perusing the depositions and the discussion of the evidence by the learned Court’s below, I find that PW-3 is a neighbour and he has testified about being reported to by the informant about the assault. However, one important aspect of his testimony is that he has deposed about hearing hue and cry on the day of the incident. 12. Upon perusing the testimony of PW-1, I find that she has testified about being assaulted by her husband, as a result of which she had to leave the matrimonial house and start staying in the parental house. Her testimony about being beaten and assaulted has remained unshaken in cross-examination. She has testified in examination-in-chief about her husband demanding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and upon inability to pay the same, her facing assault in the hands of her husband. 13. However, the I.O as PW-4 has confirmed that in her statement before the Police, she has not stated about the demand of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand, though she has stated about demand of money. 14. In my considered opinion, the non mention of the amount while mentioning about the demand will not demolish her testimony completely about the accused making monetary demands upon her and harassing her for the same. 15. It is true as rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no documents regarding miscarriage etc. However, I find that the victim woman as PW-1 has cogently testified about being assaulted even during her pregnancy and her subsequent delivery of pre-matured baby, who died a few days later. PW-2, father of the victim girl has lent broad corroboration to the testimony of PW-1(his daughter). Section 498A may be reproduced herein below – 498A - 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. Section 498A may be reproduced herein below – 498A - 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 purposes 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.” 16. The second limb of Section pertains to harassment meted out by married woman by husband or his relatives over illegal demands including demand of dowry. The first limb is of committing such acts upon the woman which can drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her or danger to her life or health. The statutory provision itself has mentioned such danger to her health as including both mental and physical health. 17. It is well settled that in a revision against conviction, the threshold for interference with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court is rather high. Such a finding can be interfered with if the same is found to be perverse and based on no evidence. 18. In the context of the evidence on record in this case, especially the testimony of the victim, it cannot be said that the finding of the victim woman suffering physical and mental cruelty can be said to be perverse. The cogent testimony of the victim woman about being assaulted; harassment with regard to monetary demands; being assaulted even during her pregnancy leading to a birth, which did not survive – would definitely constitute both physical and mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC, falling within the scope of both the limbs thereof. 19. Therefore, finding no scope for interference with the conviction with the revision petitioner under Section 498A IPC, the same is upheld and confirmed. 20. 19. Therefore, finding no scope for interference with the conviction with the revision petitioner under Section 498A IPC, the same is upheld and confirmed. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that during the investigation and trial, the petitioner was in under trial detention for 24 days – being arrested on 12.01.2025 and released on 04.02.2025. 21. The incident having taken place in 2004 itself, and the revision coming up in August, 2025 means that the revision petitioner has faced criminal proceedings for as long as 21 years which undoubtedly constitutes some prejudice and agony. 22. Considering these aspects, interest of justice would be made in my considered view if in modification of the sentence; the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone during investigation and trial; while enhancing the fine amount to some extent. 23. Therefore, consequently, upholding conviction under Section 498A IPC, the revision petitioner is sentence to the period already undergone during investigation and trial and imposed with a fine amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only [in default S.I for 2(two) months]. 24. The fine amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) upon being realized shall be paid as compensation to the victim woman in terms of Section 395(1)(b) BNSS. 25. Since the aforesaid amount may not constitute adequate compensation, therefore in exercise of powers of Section 396 (3) BNSS, she should be awarded victim compensation. 26. Therefore, the Learned Secretary, DLSA, Silchar is requested to conduct a stipulated enquiry and award suitable victim compensation to the victim woman i.e. Sabita Pashi , resident of – Digar Kashipur, P.O – Udharbond, P.S – Udharbond, District- Cachar, Assam in keeping with the provision under Section 396 (3) BNSS. 27. A copy of this judgment and order shall be send to the Learned Secretary, DLSA, Silchar for needful along with relevant documents. 28. Return the TCR. 29. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed subject to the above modification of sentence and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.