Section 498A conviction upheld, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Mastara Bibi alleged that her husband, Badre Alam, and his relatives subjected her to cruelty over the absence of cash gifts, including assault and inadequate food, and that her husband threatened to kill her.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ₹200.

The appellate court upheld his conviction but acquitted the other accused.

The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in revision; he had served one month and five days in custody.

Whether the concurrent findings sustaining the petitioner’s conviction under Section 498A IPC warranted interference in revision

Whether the sentence should be reduced in light of the time already served and the circumstances since the offence

Section 498A IPC was the statutory basis for the conviction; the judgment did not cite any other statute or precedent.

On revision, the court considered whether the concurrent findings of the courts below required interference and assessed whether the sentence should be modified in the circumstances of the case.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent factual findings on conviction.

It relied on the complainant’s evidence that the petitioner threatened to kill her with a hansua, which it considered corroborated by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.

As to sentence, the court noted that the petitioner had served one month and five days, more than two decades had elapsed since the alleged occurrence, and the petitioner had endured the trial; it considered the period already served sufficient punishment.

The revision was dismissed on the merits with that modification, and the petitioner and his sureties were discharged from their bail-bond obligations.