The court modified the sentence to the time already served, considering the long duration since the alleged offences and the circumstances of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2003 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in G.R. Case No. 249 of 1999, T.R. No. 184 of 2003 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. case No. 09 of 1999 dated 11.02.1999 whereby, the learned trial court had held the petitioners guilty for the offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years to Md. Moin (petitioner no. 1), while R.I. of two years to Md. Nooruddin (petitioner no. 2), Kulsum Khatton (petitioner no. 3) and Md. Ainul and six months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the four accused persons and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the marriage of informant Jakimun Nisha was solemnized with Md. Moin on 03.05.1994, according to Mohammadan Rites and Customs. After her marriage, the present petitioners started demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-along with motorcycle, but due to non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to torture and she was ousted from her in-law’s house on 07.10.1997. The villagers intervened and the informant was again sent to Sasural after agreement, but her mother-in-law mixed poison in her food and due to that, she became senseless and after getting her consciousness, she found herself at Maike. A Panchayati was called and convened in the Village, but the Panchayati was not helpful and husband of the informant Md. Moin went to Delhi and leave the informant in her Maike. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint petition before the court of C.J.M., which has been sent to police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. Thereafter, the present First Information Report was lodged.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted and held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as aforesaid.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner has preferred Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2003 and the same was dismissed on 05.02.2016, which has been assailed in this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with the informant in the year 1994 and now 30 years has been elapsed, but unfortunately, the marriage between the parties has miserably failed. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the informant and at present he is aged about 46 years, petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the informant and at present, he is aged about 71 years and petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the informant and at present, she is aged about 66 years. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that there was demand of dowry including cash of Rs. 20,000/-and motorcycle and also of administering her poison, but the informant has not disclosed the first date of demand of dowry and the date on which she was administered poison. She has not taken the name of the person who has administered poison in her food. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the alleged poisoning. The petitioner no. 1 was sentenced to