Judgment 1. Though both the Courts below recorded finding of guilt under S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioners, sentence of two years awarded to them by the trial Court was, however, reduced to one and half year each by the appellate Court, which is impugned in this revision. 2. Before I appreciate the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioners, I wish to narrate with brevity, salient feature of the prosecution case centering round the incident in question. Happiness of Kiran Devi (P.W. 5), who was wedded to petitioner No. 2-Rakesh Kumar Singh in the year 1991, was quite short-lived, as it was alleged that shortly after when she went to matrimonial house, she found atmosphere hostile to her, as her in-laws had been abusing her for failure of her parents to make provision of a motorcycle in dowry to them. After about two weeks, she was brought to her parents house and after about a year, when there was a marriage ceremony in her matrimonial house, she had to go there again. The victim lady laments that even when her in-laws came to her fathers house to take her, they had been insisting on her father for provision of a motorcycle, else consequence would be worse. Be that as it may, she went to her in-laws house and again the in-laws had been reiterating their demand for provision of motorcycle and the torture continued to be meted on her, and all the time when she visited her in-laws house, she was mentally and physically tortured by them for failure of her parents to make provision of dowry. Even though Panchayati was convened for resolution of dispute but this too failed to bring any breakthrough in the matrimonial relationship of the spouse and the climax of the situation, reached on 19/04/1995, when in-laws made even abortive bid to set her ablaze. However, she could be rescued due to arrival of some persons of the locality. The prosecution with these accusations was launched by none else but the victim lady, pursuant to which a police case was registered and investigation followed, on conclusion of which, police laid charge-sheet before the Court and trial commenced. 3. However, she could be rescued due to arrival of some persons of the locality. The prosecution with these accusations was launched by none else but the victim lady, pursuant to which a police case was registered and investigation followed, on conclusion of which, police laid charge-sheet before the Court and trial commenced. 3. The defence of the petitioners both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and their false implication at the instance of the brother-in-law of the victim lady. At trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses and also the police officer, Court witness No. 1, who was Investigating Officer of the case. The trial Court, however, placing implicit reliance on the testimony of witnesses, who were father, brother of the victim lady and also the neighbours while rejecting plea of innocence of the petitioners, recorded finding of guilt under S. 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced the petitioners in the manner stated above. When the matter was carried in appeal, the appellate Court while endorsing the finding of guilt recorded by the Courts below, reduced the sentence to a term of 11/2 years each. 4. Contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the petitioners was that the finding of guilt recorded by Court below, which was also upheld by the appellate Court, was contrary to the weight of mass of evidence, and even appellate Court without appreciating probative value of the testimony of witnesses, rushed to erroneous conclusion and affirmed the finding recorded by Court below. Failure of the prosecution to examine witnesses whose name very much finds place in the petition of complaint were also taken to be a ground to assail the propriety of the findings recorded by the Court below. The other argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioners was that since the prosecution was launched in the year 1995 and also that they suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for a long period and remained in custody for about 11/2 months, in case the finding of guilt recorded by the both Courts below is endorsed by this Court, this mitigating circumstance deserves consideration in awarding sentence to the petitioners. About Darbari Singh (petitioner No. 4), it is stated at Bar that in the year 1999 when the judgment was delivered by the Court below, he was assessed to be 75 years and by this time, he must be about 80 years of age. About Chandra Kala Devi (petitioner No. 1), it is stated that she too was assessed to be 72 years of age and by now she must be about 75 years. 5. Learned counsel for the informant and also the State while resisting contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the testimony of witnesses have been correctly appreciated by both the Courts below and the finding of guilt recorded by the Courts below did not merit interference. 6. About sequence of evidence, narrations made by the witnesses manifestly suggest that even when marriage was being celebrated, the in-laws of the victim lady, placed demand for provision of motorcycle by the parents of Kiran Devi and for that there had been evidence of Virchandra Singh (P.W. 1), Jogendra Singh (P.W. 6), Munshi Singh (P.W. 4), Kiran Devi (P.W. 5) and Siayabar Singh (P.W. 6). As has been earlier stated, soon after she visited matrimonial house, the victim lady had to face hostile atmosphere, as the in-laws had been putting pressure on her to ask her parents to make provision of a motorcycle to them. The torture began to be meted out to her whenever she visited the matrimonial house and on 19/04/1995, the witnesses state in most coherent terms, that there was an attempt to set her ablaze. Among the witnesses examined by the State, while Virchandra Singh (P.W. 1) has been brother of the victim lady, Munshi Singh (P.W. 4) has been her father and the prosecution had also examined Yogendra Singh (P.W. 2) and Siyabar Singh (P.W. 6), who are shown to be neighbours of the petitioners who stated to have rushed to the house of the victim lady on hearing screamings, when they noticed the in-laws making abortive bid to set her ablaze. True it is that attention of some of the witnesses had been drawn to their earlier statements rendered before the police but there was nothing on the record to negate assertions made by witnesses. 7. True it is that attention of some of the witnesses had been drawn to their earlier statements rendered before the police but there was nothing on the record to negate assertions made by witnesses. 7. In view of narrations made by witnesses, some of whom happened to be independent, I am not impressed with argument that the findings recorded by both the Courts below can be said to be against the weight of mass of evidence and in that view of the matter, finding of guilt recorded by both the Courts below are accordingly confirmed. However, as has been urged, certain facts deserve consideration which have been highlighted in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. The prosecution was launched against them in the year 1991 and more than a decade had elapsed. Darbari Singh, petitioner No. 4, who is father-in-law of the victim lady, must be about 80 years of age and Chandra Kala Devi, petitioner No. 1, too who is mother-in-law, would be 75 years of age by now, Ram Pravesh Singh, petitioner No. 3 is shown to be son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 4, whose complicity had transpired in the testimony of witnesses. It is brought to my notice that these petitioners remained in custody for about 52 days during the period of trial and also during post-conviction period, and in view of this mitigating circumstances, which has been discussed earlier, while finding of guilt is confirmed, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. So far as petitioner No. 2-Rakesh Kumar Singh is concerned, he happens to be none else but the husband of the victim lady and regard being had to his status in the in-laws family, who is most concerned person in such tragic episode, I do not feel persuaded that any leniency can be shown to him and hence, the finding of guilt and also sentence as affirmed by the Court of appeal is upheld and with these modifications in sentence, this application is dismissed.Application dismissed.