ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. A. S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 24-9-1998 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cri. Appeal No. 81 of 1991 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridh in connection with G.R. Case No. 1117 of 1988, T.R. No. 317 of 1991 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to maximum period of two years R.I. under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married to the petitioner No. 1 nine to ten years prior to the institution of the First Information Report. It is alleged that after remaining peacefully for some time in her matrimonial house a demand of dowry was made and on account of non-fullfillment of the said demand she was subjected to torture. It is also alleged that a panchayati was held but the accused persons had stuck to their demand of Rs. 35,000/-. On intervention of the villagers the informant was kept at her matrimonial house wherein after three to four months the demand of Rs. 35,000/- once again started and on non-fulfilment of which she was mercilessly assaulted and outsted from her matrimonial house. 4. After investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cognizance was taken and after charge was framed trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Parmeshwar Singh has deposed about the torture and assault committed upon the informant. This witness has stated that he was present when the panchayati was held and the husband of the informant had refused to take her back and had stuck to his demand or Rs. 35,000/-. He has further stated that he had come to know about the demand and assault in the panchayat itself. However, no cross-examination was made by the defence on the point of cruelty. 35,000/-. He has further stated that he had come to know about the demand and assault in the panchayat itself. However, no cross-examination was made by the defence on the point of cruelty. P.W. 2 Lukman Mian had stated about the demand and assault as also the panchayati. This witness had proved the panchanama of the panchayati which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has further stated that he resides beside the parental house of the informant. He has further stated that the informant was sent to her matrimonial house thrice but every time she was sent back to her parental house. He has claimed that he knew about the incident prior to holding of panchayati. This witness had also not been examined on the point of cruelty and assault. P.W. 3 Rewa Thakur has also supported the prosecution case regarding demand of dowry, torture and ouster of the informant from her matrimonial house. P.W. 4 Basudeo Mishra is the brother of the informant who has stated about the demand made and the assault committed. He has further stated that the informant had jumped into the well but she was saved by the villagers. This witness had stated about the ouster of his sister about six years back which if calculated goes back to sometime in the year 1984. P.W. 5 Dukhan Mishra is the father of the information who had stated above the assault and ctruelty committed upon his daughter which compelled his daughter to jump into the well. He has further stated about the persistent demand of Rs. 35,000/- for which a panchayati was also held. P.W. 6 Bimla Devi is the informant who had stated that there was demand of Rs. 35,000/- from the accused persons who were pressurizing her to sell the land given to her by her father. She has further stated that on refusal she was subjected to cruelty and she was driven out as a result of which she tried to commit suicide by jumping into the well but the villagers had managed to save her. This witness has also stated that she has been compelled to execute the sale deed. However, the defence had not cross-examined her on the point of cruelty and assault. P.W. 7 Laxmi Kant Mishra is the brother of the informant who has also supported the prosecution case P.W. 8 Dr. This witness has also stated that she has been compelled to execute the sale deed. However, the defence had not cross-examined her on the point of cruelty and assault. P.W. 7 Laxmi Kant Mishra is the brother of the informant who has also supported the prosecution case P.W. 8 Dr. Kapildeo Rajak had proved one attested copy of the injury report. P.W. 9 Vijay Kumar Sinha is a formal witness. P.W. 10 Shankar Dayal Kesri is also a formal witness who had proved the sanction report. One Court witness was also examined namely Jharilal Mahto as C.W. 1 who has stated about the panchayat and also stated that the information had twice remained in her matrimonial house for about two to four years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could not have been convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act in view of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the informant was itself void as admittedly both were minors when the marriage itself had taken place. It has also been submitted that the incident of torture and assault allegedly meted out to the informant was prior to 1983 and no case under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to each other and being interested witnesses their evidence cannot be relied upon. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has referred to an order passed in Cri. Miscellaneous Case No. 17480 of 1995 that Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in view of the fact that the same was enacted after the alleged torture meted out to the informant. 7. It appears that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant and the other petitioners are the in-laws. The First Information Report was instituted on 15-7-1988 and the tentative year in which the marriage was solemnized was sometime between 1978-79. 7. It appears that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant and the other petitioners are the in-laws. The First Information Report was instituted on 15-7-1988 and the tentative year in which the marriage was solemnized was sometime between 1978-79. Although it has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners but as would seen Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code came into force on 25-12-1983 and part of the occurrence had taken place after 1983 as could be deciphered from the evidence of the witnesses. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that Section 498-A is not applicable is hereby negated. As regards the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the marriage itself but neither of the parties had moved the competent Court of law to declare the marriage as void and in such circumstances therefore the contention of the petitioners is fallacious. The evidence of the witnesses have categorically revealed that on several occasions the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house and after she was taken back she was kept for a few months in peace and once against a demand of Rs. 35,000/- was started. The panchayat also failed to strengthen the nuptial knot of the petitioners No. 1 and the informant in view of the persistent demand of Rs. 35,000/- made by the accused persons. The judgment which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as it has been held that after enactment of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code some part of the occurrence had taken place. The learned trial Court was therefore perfectly justified in convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and sentencing them accordingly. The learned appellate Court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the conviction of the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere in the same. 8. The learned appellate Court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the conviction of the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere in the same. 8. So far as the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners are concerned it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1988 and the petitioners have also for sometime remained in custody. The long pendency of the case entitles the petitioner for a consideration in reduction of the sentence imposed upon them. Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is hereby modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.