ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 50/96 partly allowing the appeal of applicants and modifying the judgment passed by Trial Court. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 8-7-1992 Gomti Bai got married to applicant Sunil according to Hindu rites. After marriage when complainant came to her husband's house accused persons made demand of Rs. 15000/- and a scooter, they also often cause Marpeet to her. This fact was narrated by her to her parents when she did go to her parent's house. The parents of bride pacified accused persons by saying that their financial condition is poor but they did not agree and did not improve their behaviour towards complainant. According to the prosecution, complainant's husband Sunil happens come to the house after consuming liquor and thereafter he often cause Marpeet to his wife. He was insisting complainant that if his demand is not fulfilled, she would be killed. On 13-3-1993 applicants after causing Marpeet to complainant asked to leave their house and abandoned her. Thereafter complainant came to Hatta at the house of her parents and narrated the incident to them. On 22-3-1993 a report was lodged in police station Hatta. 3. On the basis of First Information Report, the investigating agency came in action and investigated the matter. After investigating the case, a charge sheet was submitted in the Trial Court. 4. The Trial Court framed charges punishable under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code against accused persons they were further charged under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the accused persons denied the charges and requested for trial. 5. The prosecution thereafter examined the witnesses. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence came to hold that accused persons committed the offence and the prosecution successfully proved the charges, as a result of which Trial Court convicted each applicant under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months each and fine Rs. 200/- each. The applicants were further convicted under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine Rs. 200/- each. The trial Court further directed that, in default of payment of fine, each accused shall further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 200/- each. The applicants were further convicted under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine Rs. 200/- each. The trial Court further directed that, in default of payment of fine, each accused shall further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Needless to emphasise trial Court rightly directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 6. The accused persons preferred an appeal and by impugned judgment the Appellate Court did not find charge under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to be proved and eventually acquitted applicants from the said charge. However, the Appellate Court concurred with the view of the Trial Court so far as the conviction of applicants under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is concerned and accordingly affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court. Hence this revision. 7. In this revision Shri S. C. Datt, learned senior counsel has submitted that prosecution failed to examine any independent witness and therefore learned two Courts below erred in convicting the applicants under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. His further contention is that there is no dependable evidence of the witnesses who have been examined. It has also been putforth by him that earlier cruelsome behaviour and harassment towards complainant could not be taken into consideration for the simple reason that the said act was condoned by complainant since she came back to her husband's house and as per Learned Counsel, the present incident has not at all been proved as, whatever the statement have been stated by the witnesses are general statement and no inference from those statements can be drawn in regard to the cruelty, in support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance on Nawal Kishore Jagannath Prasad vs. State of M.P., 1999 (1) MPLJ 167 , Ramesh Kumar Radheshyam Agrawal and others vs. State of M.P., 1999 (1) MPLJ 423 and, Annapurna Bai @ Bhoori vs. State of M.P., 1999 (2) MPLI 85. An alternative submission has also been putforth by Learned Counsel that, if this Court come to the conclusion that offence is proved, then lenient view in awarding punishment be adopted and in this regard Learned Counsel has placed reliance on State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder, 2004 (2) MPWN 114 and Balchand vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPU 6. An alternative submission has also been putforth by Learned Counsel that, if this Court come to the conclusion that offence is proved, then lenient view in awarding punishment be adopted and in this regard Learned Counsel has placed reliance on State of M.P. vs. Shyamsunder, 2004 (2) MPWN 114 and Balchand vs. State of M.P., 2000 (1) MPU 6. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs.. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (4) MPU 5. 8. On the other hand, it has been contended by Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court after considering and marshalling the evidence came to hold that offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is proved and therefore rightly convicted the present applicants. The findings are pure findings of fact and cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. 9. In FIR (Ex. P-3) which was lodged on 22-3-1993 by complainant Gomti Bai, it has been categorically contended therein by her that the behaviour of applicants is cruelsome as they happens to make demand of Rs. 15,000/- cash and a scooter. It has also been stated that her husband happens to come in late night in drunken-stage and thereafter he causes Marpeet to her. The husband also insists her to bring cash and a scooter, failing which she would not be spared. On 13-3-1993 they abandoned her. as a result of which she came to her parents house. The complainant Gomti Bai proved FIR (Ex. P-3) and when she appeared as witness she has specifically stated that soon after her marriage (marriage took place on 8-7-1992) within one month, her husband assaulted her by fist and kicks and insisted to bring Rs. 15,000/- cash and a scooter. When she requested her parents to fulfil the demand, they stated that on account of their poor financial condition, they are unable to fulfil the requirement. Complainant specifically stated the role assigned by each applicant and categorically stated that their behaviour was cruelsome. She has also stated that mother-in-law Chandrani happens to shower filthy abuses and also causes Marpeet to her. She was not allowed to eat even the food. Her father-in-law also insisted to bring cash and a scooter and her husband Sunil caused Marpeet to her. She has also stated that mother-in-law Chandrani happens to shower filthy abuses and also causes Marpeet to her. She was not allowed to eat even the food. Her father-in-law also insisted to bring cash and a scooter and her husband Sunil caused Marpeet to her. On 13-3-1993 these persons threw her out from their house, as a result of which-she came to her parents house. It be noted that prosecution has filed two letters written by complainant on inland letter card bearing the seal of the post office. The first letter is Ex. P-1 dated 1-3-1993 which was written by the wife from Damoh and was addressed to her father at Hatta district Damoh. In this letter, it has been specifically mentioned by her that applicants are repeatedly making demand of Rs. 15,000/- and a motor cycle, they also gave threat to kill her and the husband during night hours causes Marpeet in drunken stage. In the letter, she requested her father to carry her away. The other letter Ex. P-2 dated 4-3-1993 is also similar type, which is also written on inland letter card. In second letter she indicated that secretly she has written the letter. 10. The statement of this witness is corroborated by the statement of her father PW-2, Jamuna. The two Courts below after appreciating the evidence came to hold that applicants committed the offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Though I was not required to re-appreciate the evidence, however, since it was submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicants that there is no dependable evidence in order to hold that offence is proved, for this reason, I gave my anxious and bestowed consideration to the evidence placed on record and I find it to be quite reliable. Indeed, the two Courts below rightly held that the guilt is proved under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Looking to the evidence which is placed on record, no other inference could be drawn. There is no substance in the argument of Learned Counsel that there is no dependable evidence and since no independent witness has been examined, the offence is not proved. The complainant was married to applicant Sunil and being his wife and daughter-in-law of two other applicants, naturally the demand would have been made inside the house, therefore, it is very difficult to corroborate the statement of complainant and her father by any independent witness. The complainant was married to applicant Sunil and being his wife and daughter-in-law of two other applicants, naturally the demand would have been made inside the house, therefore, it is very difficult to corroborate the statement of complainant and her father by any independent witness. Apart from this, there is no reason to disbelieve their unimpeachable evidence. 11. In the case of Nawal Kishore (supra), there was vague and general statement and in that context in appeal it was held by this Court that offences under section 306 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code were not made out. However, in the present case, there is specific evidence of complainant and her father in order to prove the offence. Apart from oral testimony, there are two letters Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 written by complainant on inland letter card which proves the entire story of the prosecution and therefore the case of Nawal Kishore (supra) is not at all applicable in the present case. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Radheshyam (supra), the accused persons of that case were tried under section 304-B and 498-A, Indian Penal Code and in appeal this Court held that letter written by deceased did not remotely hint of discontent in matrimonial home and did not suggest any complaint against in-laws. However, in the present case there is specific evidence which has been discussed by two Courts below that the behaviour of applicants was cruelsome towards the complainant. In the case of Annapurnabai @ Bhoori (supra), the appellant of that case was not held guilty for the simple reason that the accused persons simply reminded for ornaments of traditional nature and accordingly it was held that it does not amount to a demand of dowry but in the present case there is specific evidence not only oral but in the letter of complainant it has been stated by her that on account of not satisfying the demand of Rs. 15,000/- cash and a scooter, present applicants caused Marpeet to complainant. In the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawde (supra), it was held by Apex Court that harassment of woman would not constitute cruelty in absence of evidence that such harassment was with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for dowry, but, in the present case the evidence is otherwise. 12. In the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawde (supra), it was held by Apex Court that harassment of woman would not constitute cruelty in absence of evidence that such harassment was with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for dowry, but, in the present case the evidence is otherwise. 12. To constitute an offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, it should be proved by prosecution : (i) the woman is a married woman; (ii) she must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (iii) such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by Husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. In the present case all above said three ingredients were found to be proved by the two Courts below after appreciating the evidence. 13. I have given my anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasonings assigned by two Courts below holding present applicants to be guilty under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. The reasonings assigned by them are based on oral and documentary evidence placed on record and I do not find any perversity in the judgment. 14. Now I shall deal with the alternative submission raised by Learned Counsel for applicants. Shri Datt, learned senior advocate has placed reliance on two decisions Shyamsunder (supra) and Balchand (supra). The decisions of Shyamsunder (Supra) was passed in appeal filed by State against acquittal and in that situation, it was held by this Court that after 19 years it would not be proper to send accused persons behind the bars and therefore while allowing the appeal they were sentenced till rising of the Court and Fine. In the case of Balchand (supra), it was held by this Court that cruelty was mental cruelty and in that situation the accused persons were sentenced for the period they had already undergone. However, in the present case the facts are entirely different. Looking to the evidence which is placed on record particularly those two letters Ex. P-1 and P-2 which are written by complainant on inland letter card mentioning the details of cruel behaviour of applicants it would be very difficult to enlarge the applicants for the period they had already undergone. However, Looking to the facts and surrounding circumstances, the applicants are directed to suffer 3 months R.I. and fine Rs. P-1 and P-2 which are written by complainant on inland letter card mentioning the details of cruel behaviour of applicants it would be very difficult to enlarge the applicants for the period they had already undergone. However, Looking to the facts and surrounding circumstances, the applicants are directed to suffer 3 months R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- each, if the applicants fails to deposit the fine amount, they shall further undergo one month R.I. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence this revision petition is hereby dismissed. The present applicants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are hereby directed to surrender to serve the remaining part of their sentence.