Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6-2-1993 passed by Sri. R.N. Pd. Singh, IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Giridih, in Cri. Appeal No. 34/90 thereby and there under the judgment dated 24-4-1990 passed by Sri Binod Kumar Lal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. Giridih, in Complaint Case No. 39/87 was confirmed and maintained, and all these petitioners were found guilty under Sec. 498 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant Basanti Devi was married to accused Krishna Pd. Patwa according to Hindu custom on 11-4-1985 and at the time of marriage cash amount and some articles were given to the accused persons by the father of the complainant. After the marriage the complainant had gone to her Susural but, after 7-8 months Sasural people began to demand Rs.1000/ - in cash, golden ring and other articles by way of dowry and due to non - fulfilment of the same, she was abused and also being assaulted. On 22-5-1986 the father of the complainant had gone to the residence of accused persons where he was also abused and asked to fulfil the demand and further on 24-2-1987, the accused persons, came to the residence of the complainants father where they were also abused and threatened for non - fulfilment of the dowry. Ultimately on 11-3-1987 this complaint case was filed as against these petitioners. 3. In the trial Court all the petitioners claimed themselves innocent and it is admitted Case that the complainant was married to the petitioner Krishna Pd. Patwa in the year 1985 and other two petitioners are father and mother of Krishna Pd. Patwa, but it is their defence that actually no demand of dowry was made and the complainant was not subjected to any cruelty; rather she herself deserted her husband and this false complaint case was filed. The trial Court, however, found the appellant guilty under Sec. 498, IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. But they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against this order of conviction, the petitioner preferred Cri. Appeal No. 34/90 and the IInd Addl. Sessions, Judge Giridih also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court. But they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against this order of conviction, the petitioner preferred Cri. Appeal No. 34/90 and the IInd Addl. Sessions, Judge Giridih also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court. Against this order of conviction, this revision has been preferred. 4. It is admitted position that the complainant was married to the accused Krishna Pd. Patwa according to Hindu custom on 11-4-1985 and other two petitioners are father and mother of Krishna Pd. Patwa. In the trial Court several witnesses were examined and from the evidence of the complainant, her father, uncle and other witnesses, this fact is well proved that the complainant was subjected to cruelty for non - fulfilment of some dowry demand and two specific instances have been cited that is, on 22-5-1986 when the complainants father had gone to the house of the accused persons, then he was abused for non - fulfilment of the dowry and similarly there is evidence to show that on 24-2-1987, the accused Prabhu Pd. Patwa, the father of the main accused Krishna Pd. Patwa came to the residence of the complainants father and also abused and threatened them. So the alleged cruelty as against the complainant is well proved, sofar the husband Krishna Pd. Patwa and his father Prabhu Pd. Patwa is concerned. 5. Sofar petitioner No.3 Mangri Devi is concerned, she is mother-in-law of the complainant and it appears that the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence on the record as against this lady. There is no specific allegation regarding the demand of dowry or she had subject the complainant to cruelty; rather the main allegation is against the petitioner, Krishna Pd. Patwa, his father Prabhu Pd. Patwa and Prabhu Pd. Patwa was alone with some villagers had gone to the complainants house on 24-2-1987 and also demanded dowry through a letter which is Ext. 1. So the trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner Mangri Devi and that was upheld by the appellate Court. But the trial Court and the appellate Court are fully justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner Krishna. Pd. Patwa and his father Prabhu Pd. Patna. 6. 1. So the trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner Mangri Devi and that was upheld by the appellate Court. But the trial Court and the appellate Court are fully justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner Krishna. Pd. Patwa and his father Prabhu Pd. Patna. 6. In the result, this revision is allowed sofar petitioner No.3 Mangri Devi is concerned and her conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court, that is, Sri Binod Kumar Lal. Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, in Complaint Case No. 39/87 is hereby set aside and she is acquitted of the charges levelled against her and she is discharged from the liability of the bail bond. The petitioner Krishna Pd. Patwa and Prabhu Pd. Patwa are definitely guilty under Sec. 498, IPC but their sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment appears to be excessive and as such modified to one year rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 498, IPC and as such this revision is dismissed with modification in sentence only sofar petitioners Krishna Pd. Patwa and Prabhu Pd. Patwa are concerned and their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court without any further delay for undergoing the remaining part of the imprisonment.