ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Mokhtar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1997 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh on 06.09.1997 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with G. R. Case no. 561 of 1996 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the learned trial court nor the learned appellate court had properly appreciated the materials available on record before convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Leaned counsel submits that the torture has not been proved. It has been stated that the evidence of the defence witnesses have not been considered by the learned courts below as it could clearly be deciphered that no allegation of torture had been levelled by the informant in the presence of eminent persons of the community. An alternative argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modified considering the long pendency of the prosecution against the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married with one Md. Gauhar. It is alleged that at the initial period of three months she had a peaceful existence but after the said period the in-laws started making demand of Rs. 5000/-, one colour T.V. and one Suzuki Motorcycle. It is alleged that for non-fulfillment of the said demand the informant was subjected to torture. Gauhar. It is alleged that at the initial period of three months she had a peaceful existence but after the said period the in-laws started making demand of Rs. 5000/-, one colour T.V. and one Suzuki Motorcycle. It is alleged that for non-fulfillment of the said demand the informant was subjected to torture. It is also alleged that the father of the informant tried to pacify her in-laws but they refused to keep her until their demands were fulfilled. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation a complaint case was filed by the informant which on being referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. lead to institution of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 86(4) of 1996. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Section 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pursuant to which cognizance was taken and after framing of charge trial proceeded. 7. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. -1, Md. Aziz, is the father of the informant who has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with one Md. Gauhar. It has been disclosed that she lived peacefully in her matrimonial house for a period of two and half months and thereafter the demands started. This witness has also stated that his daughter had informed him about the demand and since it was not met she was physically assaulted. This witness had gone to the daughter's matrimonial house and tried to reconcile the matter which however failed. P.W. -2, Sahadat Hussain, has stated that the incident was disclosed to him by the informant and her mother. P.W. - 3, Sarfuddin Khan, is also a hearsay witness. P.W. -4, Md. Ismail, is the uncle of the informant who has stated about the attempts made at reconciliation between the parties when he along with P.W. -1 and P.W. -5 had gone to the matrimonial house of the informant. He has further stated that the accused persons had told them not to send the informant till the demands are fulfilled. P.W. -5, Md. Karim is the grand father of the informant who had also gone to the matrimonial house of the informant along with P.W. - 1 and P.W. -5 to reconcile the dispute but the accused persons did not accept the attempts made. P.W. -5, Md. Karim is the grand father of the informant who had also gone to the matrimonial house of the informant along with P.W. - 1 and P.W. -5 to reconcile the dispute but the accused persons did not accept the attempts made. He has further stated that the mother-in-law of the informant had used abusive language and had threatened them with dire consequences. P.W. -6, Shakeela Bano, is the mother of the informant who had stated about the demand made by the accused persons and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demands the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house after being tortured. P.W. -7, Sahnaz Parveen, is the informant who has stated about the solemnization of the marriage with Md. Gauhar and after remaining peacefully for a few months demand was made from the accused persons but since the same was not fulfilled she was subjected to torture. P.W. -8, Narayan Tiwary, is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that after investigation he found the allegation to be true and, therefore, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. 8. The defence has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. Some of the defence witnesses have stated about the fact that the informant was never tortured by the accused persons. D.W-7 Md. Abul Kalam was the mufti of Muslim Society who had given advice on the matrimonial dispute existing between informant and Md. Gauhar. D. W. -1 to D.W. -7 have also stated about the Panchayat having been held and inspite of Md. Gauhar having complied with the order of Anjuman Committee but the informant did not comply and went away from the Panchayat. 9. The defence witnesses have mainly stated about the Panchayat having been held and the advice given to both the parties for settling for a divorce. The prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, have categorically stated about the demand of various articles by the accused persons and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand she was ousted from her matrimonial house and even attempts at reconciliation made by P.W. -1, P.W. -4 and P.W. - 5 failed which led to institution of the case. 10. The prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, have categorically stated about the demand of various articles by the accused persons and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand she was ousted from her matrimonial house and even attempts at reconciliation made by P.W. -1, P.W. -4 and P.W. - 5 failed which led to institution of the case. 10. The oral evidence which has surfaced on behalf of the prosecution categorically and beyond doubt proves the allegation of assault, ouster of the informant and demand of several articles including cash. Although P.W. -1, P.W. -4, P.W. -5 and P.W. -6 are related with the informant P.W. -7 but the same by itself would not dilute the prosecution case as their version is clearly unambiguous and is natural on the point of demand as well as on the point of torture and failed attempts at reconciliation. 11. In such circumstance, therefore, the learned court below had rightly convicted the petitioner who happens to be the brother-in-law of the informant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction. 12. I find no reason to conclude otherwise and accordingly the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. So far as the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner seems to be facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996. The petitioner has also remained for sometime in custody. Sending back the petitioner to jail to serve out the rest part of his sentence would not fulfill any fruitful purpose. In such view of the matter, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already been undergone. 13. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.