JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anurag Kashyap learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 2.9.2000 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 193/96. whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daltonganj, Palamau in Complaint Case No. 291/91 convicting all the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the. Indian Penal Code and the petitioner No.1 further convicted for the offences under Sections 494, 323, 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them accordingly has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made against the petitioners arising out of a complaint petition is to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 was married with the complainant according to Hindu Rites and Customs and on 11.5.1973 out of the said wedlock a child has been born. It has been alleged that after the birth of the child the accused persons started committing torture upon the complainant and at the instigation of her sister-in-law and her husband the petitioner No. 1 solemnized a second marriage. It has been alleged that after the marriage the degree of torture escalated and a demand of Rs. 50.000/- was made. It has also been alleged that the father of the complainant tried to settle the matter but the accused persons were adamant which resulted in the complainant residing in her parental house. It has also been alleged that the accused persons later on agreed to take back the complainant and a bidai ceremony was also performed but on the way to her matrimonial house the complainant was brutally assaulted by her husband and father-in-law and after snatching away her ornament they had fled away. It has been stated that the complainant did not have any option but to return back to her parental house: 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation complaint case No. 291/1991 was instituted. After conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken and after framing of charge trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Nageshwar Pd. has stated that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized in 1973 with the petitioner No. 1. Based on the aforesaid allegation complaint case No. 291/1991 was instituted. After conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken and after framing of charge trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Nageshwar Pd. has stated that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized in 1973 with the petitioner No. 1. It has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 had solemnized another marriage. It has been deposed that the complainant used to be tortured by the accused persons and three panchayatis have also been held. The complainant had also filed a case for maintenance. He has further stated that on 18.1.1991 when the complainant was being taken to her matrimonial house by the accused persons near Chhawmuhani bus stand her attache was snatched and after threatening the accused persons fled away. He has further stated that the complainant went back to her matrimonial house. PW 2 Ramawtar Sah had deposed that the complainant was taken Bidai on 18.1.1991 and was going to her matrimonial house when the accused persons assaulted her and by snatching her attache fled away. It has been stated that when the complainant gave birth to a daughter she was subjected to torture by the petitioner No. 1. PW 3-Dilip Kumar Gupta is the brother of the complainant who has stated that the complainant was married with the petitioner No. 1 on 11.6.1973. He has stated that she was regularly tortured by the accused and in 1987 the petitioner No. 1 had solemnized the second marriage. He has stated that a letter was written by the complainant addressed to her father stating therein that threat was being given by petitioner No. 1 that she and her child will be thrown in the well. He has further stated that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- made from the side of the accused persons and when his father went to the matrimonial house of the complainant he was abused and the complainant was sent back to her parent's house. He has deposed that a panchayati was also held with respect to the dispute between both the sides. 50,000/- made from the side of the accused persons and when his father went to the matrimonial house of the complainant he was abused and the complainant was sent back to her parent's house. He has deposed that a panchayati was also held with respect to the dispute between both the sides. He has also stated that the petitioner No. 1 and others had come to take bidai and after performing the bidai ceremony the complainant was being taken to her matrimonial house and she was accompanied by her husband, her father-in-law and this witness but near the bus stand the complainant was assaulted and the accused persons went away after snatching her attache. PW 4 Shivnath Prasad is the father of the complainant who has stated that on 11.6.1973 the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 and out of the said wedlock her daughter was born. He has stated that his daughter used to be subjected to torture in her matrimonial house and for which he had brought back his daughter to his own house. He has further stated that however the accused persons had come to his house to take bidai and while taking to her matrimonial, house she was assaulted near the bus stand and her attache was also taken. He has further stated that the petitioner No. 1 had solemnized second marriage in the year 1987. He had also deposed that his daughter had filed a case for maintenance. This witness has stated that the petitioner No. 1 was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a Hero Honda Motorcycle. PW 5 Mohan Sah had supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand and the torture and assault made upon the complainant by the accused persons. PW 5 (Their appears to be two PW 5 which had unintentionally seemed to have been Incorporated in the deposition) Kalinda Devi is the complainant who has stated that she was married to the petitioner No.1 and after her marriage she was being regularly tortured by her in-laws. She has stated that the daughter was born in the year 1987 and after the birth of her daughter torture intensified and there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- with an ultimatum that if such demand is not fulfilled she will be thrown in the well. She has stated that the daughter was born in the year 1987 and after the birth of her daughter torture intensified and there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- with an ultimatum that if such demand is not fulfilled she will be thrown in the well. She has stated that she wrote a letter to her father stating about the said fact which was proved and marked as Exhibit-1. It has also been stated that when her father had come to take her she and her daughter were ousted for which a panchayati was also held. It has further been stated that the bidai was taken and in the bus stand the accused persons went away leaving her by taking away her attache as also by assaulting her. She has• further stated that the petitioner No. 1 had solemnized second marriage after the birth of her daughter and she had also filed a case for maintenance. PW 6, Nisar Ahmad Khan had stated that he had done X-rayon the wrist and hand of the complainant. This witness had proved the X-ray and had also stated that the wrist of the complainant was fractured. PW 7 Krishna Nand Pandey is a formal witness. One Court witness had been examined being CW 1, Ram Janam Choubey who has stated that he had performed the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with Meena Devi in the year 1980. 6. The Defence had examined 2 witnesses. DW 1 Musafir Ram has stated that the petitioner had not solemnized the second marriage. DW 2 Mahendra Prasad is the brother of the petitioner No. 1 who had deposed that petitioner No. 1 was married in February, 1980 and this witness had proved the marriage cards. 7. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant was never solemnized for which reliance has been placed on the evidence of CW 1. It has also been stated that most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related to the complainant and they being interested and partisan witnesses their version is untrustworthy. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the learned Trial Court not the appellate Court had appreciated the evidence of the defence witnesses. It has also been stated that most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant are related to the complainant and they being interested and partisan witnesses their version is untrustworthy. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the learned Trial Court not the appellate Court had appreciated the evidence of the defence witnesses. It has been stated that the evidence of the defence witness has also to be given the same weightage as of the prosecution witnesses but the learned Court below seems to have approached the version of the defence witnesses with a closed mind set on the presumption that the defence witnesses are not to be considered with all seriousness as is generally done in case of the prosecution witnesses. 9. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 10. The evidence of the witnesses namely PW 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 sufficiently corroborates each others statements with respect to the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the complainant and the subsequent torture which had been meted out to the complainant. The incident which had taken place in the bus stand had also been witnessed by PW 3 the brother of the complainant with respect to the assault made upon the complainant and snatching away her attache which contained some valuables. The letter which had been written by the complainant to her father has been brought on record and marked as Exhibit-1 and the contents of the said letter do point to a demand of Rs. 50,000/- with a threat to end the life of the complainant if such demand is not fulfilled. 11. Although a Court witness had been examined who has stated that he had performed the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with Meena Devi in the year 1980 but neither Meena Devi has been examined nor any substantial proof has been brought on record by the prosecution save and except some marriage cards which not at all inspire confidence. 12. In the backdrop of the overwhelming evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the evidence led by the defence pales into insignificance and it seems that instead of contradicting the allegations made by the prosecution the defence had tried to create a new story altogether which is not at all convincing. 12. In the backdrop of the overwhelming evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the evidence led by the defence pales into insignificance and it seems that instead of contradicting the allegations made by the prosecution the defence had tried to create a new story altogether which is not at all convincing. The factum of assault as has been stated by the complainant and supported by PW 3 as also been corroborated by the X-ray report which suggest that the complaint had suffered a fracture injury on her wrist. Thus, the oral as well as documentary evidence clearly reveals the factum of torture and demand of Rs. 50,000/- as also physical assault committed upon the complainant which having been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court led to conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Appellate Court has also on proper appreciation of the materials available, on record had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 13. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby sustained. 14. However with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1991 and has also for some time remained in custody. 15. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 17. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.