Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1. This criminal revision is by a husband, who has been convicted for an offence, punishable under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. on a prosecution instituted by the State, where the wife is the first informant.

2. Before setting out facts leading to the conviction and sentence now under challenge, it is imperative to point out that a first information was laid against the revisionist, Umakant Dubey (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') by his wife, Smt. Lalita Devi through a written information dated 10.8.1996 along with four other family members, to wit, Shivkant Dubey (husband's brother), Smt. Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), Smt. Rooprani (sister-in-law, nanad) and Kumari Rekha (sister-in-law, nanad), reporting all of them for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, who tried each of the five accused arraigned convicted them all for offence punishable under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. but acquitting them of the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. by her judgment and order dated 9.5.2005.

3. Each of the convicts, including the revisionist, were sentenced to suffer for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC simple imprisonment to a term of six months and for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, they were awarded simple imprisonment for a term of one year. In addition, on the second count the Magistrate imposed on each of the convicts a fine of Rs. 500/- with a direction that in case of default they would suffer, an additional period of one month incarceration. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. On the aforesaid judgment being appealed to the Sessions Judge by each of the five convicts through Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2005, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Kanpur Dehat, before whom, the appeal came up for determination, proceeded to acquit four of the five convicted persons but upheld the conviction and sentence vis-a-vis the husband by his judgment and order dated 17.3.2007. Thus the revisionist stands convicted by both the courts below and has now come up in revision to this Court, challenging his conviction and sentence.

5. I have heard Shri Mayank Bhushan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Azhar Ahmad, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record summoned from the courts below, where the impugned conviction was made.

6. The prosecution case in brief as set forth in the first information is to the effect that the first informant, Lalita Devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') handed over a written information dated 10.8.1996 to the S.H.O., P.S. Shivli, Kanpur Dehat, scribed by one Sanjay Kumar Shukla R/o Village-Shivli Azad Nagar, Ward No. 6, Shivli, Kanpur Dehat, at her instance. As per information aforesaid, the marriage was solemnized between the husband and the wife on 7.5.1993 according to Hindu rites; that her father had given away necessary valuables at the time of marriage to her.

7. Soon after marriage, the husband (Umakant Dubey), brother-in-law (Shivkant), younger sister-in-law (Rekha), mother-in-law (Vidya Devi) and the elder sister-in-law (Smt. Rooprani), who is now married and on the date of the information was allegedly staying with her parental family for the one year past, have been constantly indulging in beating up the wife for the sake of demand of dowry including an LML Scooter with a threat that in case, the demand was not met, the wife could be done to death; that on 4.8.1996, which was a Sunday, all the accused summoned her father and pressed their demand for a scooter to be given to her husband, whereupon her father declined to do so as he did not have the requisite wherewithal; that thereupon they confined her father in the house and tortured him threatening him with death but her father somehow made good his escape; that soon thereafter all the accused beat up the wife telling her that she would have to make her father pay