Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.

1. Heard Sri P.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against an order passed by Shri R.K. Mishra, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge FTC, Court No. 8, Gautam Buddha Nagar dated 17.11.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2000 partly allowing the revisionists' appeal from a judgment and order of Shri Surendra Pal Singh, the then III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar dated 12.01.2000 in Criminal Case No. 556 of 1999 arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 1989 under Section 498A and Section ¾ D.P. Act P.S. Dunkaur District Gautam Buddha Nagar (then falling in the District Bulandshahar) and by the said appellate judgment upholding the conviction of the revisionists under Section 498A IPC while acquitting them of the offence punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Provision Act and sentencing each of the revisionist to suffer one year and six months simple imprisonment for the said offence as ordered by the trial Court. Pending this revision, revisionist No. 2 Hira died. Accordingly, this revision stands abated so far as the revisionist No. 2 is concerned. This revision has been heard now at the instance of revisionist No. 1 Ganga Ram @ Ganga Saran and revisionist No. 3 Phoolwati wife of Hira.

3. The facts giving rise to the present revision are these that the prosecutrix Smt. Kamlesh wife of Ganga Ram @ Ganga Saran revisionist No. 1, and daughter of Bolati Prasad, a native of village Jagupura falling under local limit of P.S. Dankaur, District Bulandshahar, handed over a written application/information on 22.07.1989 to the S.P. Bulandshahar to the effect that the marriage of the prosecutrix and revisionist No. 1 was solemnized about a year ago antedating the said application, the first revisionist being a native of village Achheja Bujurg falling under the local limits of P.S. Dankaur District Bulandshahar, then part of District Bulandshahar, and, at present a part of Gautam Buddha Nagar.

4. It was said by the prosecutrix that her father had lavished the couple with all that he could give away in gift to his daughter and his son-in-law within his means. Soon after the marriage, the revisionist No. 1, her husband Ganga Ram, her father-in-law Hira (since deceased), her mother-in-law, phoolwati, her brother-in-law, Pyarelal (Jeth), and, her sister-in-law (Jethani) appeared to be ungratified by her father's contribution to the newlyweds' marriage. It was said in the information by the prosecutrix that all of them last mentioned resorted to taunting remarks about a poor dowry and put forward a demand of Rs.10,000/- in cash, attended with a threat that in case the same was not made good, they would do her to death and find another bride for her husband, the first revisionist. The information also said that the prosecutrix refused the demand of Rs.10,000/- on account of which, within 14 days of marriage, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. It was also alleged in the FIR that her father and grandfather attempted a reconciliation in connection whereof they visited her in-laws place to fulfill the demand of Rs.10,000/- by way of dowry. It was mentioned in the information that thereupon a legal notice was sent by the prosecutrix to her husband (It is not clear what was the notice about but appears to be one for restitution of conjugal right) but the in-laws of the prosecutrix did not change mind to have her back in the company of her husband. Thereafter, on 17.9.1989, it is mentioned in the first information report that her father, her uncle Ram Bhool Singh, brother Chandra Bhan Singh and Bhawani Singh, Chandi Swaroop, Raja Ram and Shukhdev along with the prosecutrix, went over to the house of the revisionist, summoning a Panchayat of members of the community from which the parties hail. The members of the Panchayat asked her in-laws to let the couple stay together, and,