ORDER : Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharswan in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.04.2004 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had solemnized love marriage with the petitioner after which she became pregnant. It is alleged that the petitioner wanted the informant to abort the child but the informant refused. It has also been alleged that the informant wanted the petitioner to take her to his house but the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- as dowry as a condition to accept the informant. It has been stated that Panchayati was held but the accused did not obey the dictum of the Panchayat for which the petitioner was ostracized by the society. Allegation has also been levelled that the relatives of the petitioner by conspiring had solemnized the second marriage of the petitioner with one Kanko daughter of Purushottam Nayak. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Adityapur P. S. Case No. 30 of 2000 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet under Sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After cognizance was taken and on the file being transferred charge was framed under Section 498-A against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the petitioner was also charged for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was subsequently altered to one under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons except the petitioner. 5. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined by the complainant. 6. P.W. – 1, Tarini Nayak, is the brother of the informant who has stated that his sister had solemnized love marriage with the petitioner. He has stated that she used to reside in the house of her husband. 5. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined by the complainant. 6. P.W. – 1, Tarini Nayak, is the brother of the informant who has stated that his sister had solemnized love marriage with the petitioner. He has stated that she used to reside in the house of her husband. He has further stated that after she became pregnant she was assaulted by her husband and demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made. It has further been stated that when the demand could not be fulfilled she was ousted from her matrimonial house for which a meeting of the society was held but the accused did not accept the decision of the society. 7. P.W. – 2, Joyati Nayak, has merely stated about the disclosure made by the informant before the Panchayat regarding her marriage. 8. P.W. – 3, Sardar Shah Nayak, was the Secretary of Moryabanshi Kshetriya Samaj, Gamaharia Division, who had stated that three meetings were held by the Samaj and the petitioner and his family members had attended all the meetings but refused to accept the decision of the Samaj. He has further stated that the accused persons were boycotted by the members of the Samaj. 9. P.W. – 4, Jogeshwar Nayak, was the Chairman of Moryabanshi Kshetriya Samaj, Gamaharia Division, who had stated that a demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by the petitioner and in spite of the decision of the Samaj the petitioner refused to keep the informant. 10. P.W. – 5, Petka Nayak, has deposed that the petitioner had given him Rs. 1600/- for handing it over to the informant so that she gets the fetus aborted. 11. P.W. – 6, Kalawati Nayak, is the informant who had stated that after her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner she started to reside with him in her matrimonial house. She has stated that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- to keep her and since the demand was not fulfilled she was driven out from her matrimonial house. She has further deposed that at the time she conceived the petitioner had sent her Rs. 1600/- to abort her pregnancy. She has also stated that the accused persons had attended the meeting of the Samaj but did not obey the resolution. 12. She has further deposed that at the time she conceived the petitioner had sent her Rs. 1600/- to abort her pregnancy. She has also stated that the accused persons had attended the meeting of the Samaj but did not obey the resolution. 12. P.W. – 7, Ramayan Nayak, is the elder brother of the informant who had supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand of Rs. 50,000/-, the torture meted out to the informant and not accepting the verdict of the Samaj. 13. P.W. – 8, Hemraj Nayak, has stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the case. This witness also did not state about the alleged second marriage solemnized by the petitioner. 14. P.W. – 9, Dukhu Nayak, has stated about the disclosure made by the informant in the meeting of the Samaj with respect to her ouster from her matrimonial house. He has further stated that Petka Nayak had disclosed in the meeting about being given Rs. 1600/-to be handed over to the mother of the informant for terminating her pregnancy. This witness had also not supported the alleged second marriage of the petitioner with Kanko Devi. 15. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 16.04.2004 had acquitted all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code except the petitioner who was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 16. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are interested witnesses. It has been stated that Investigating Officer of the case had not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel further submits that no reliance can be placed on the witnesses as there are vital contradictions in their evidence apart from most of them being partisan witnesses. 17. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 18. It appears from a perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- had been clearly established. It has also been established by the prosecution that on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 50,000/- the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 18. It appears from a perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- had been clearly established. It has also been established by the prosecution that on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 50,000/- the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house. The evidence of P.W. – 3 and P.W. – 4 further substantiates the allegation made against the petitioner as thrice meeting of the Samaj was held and a decision was taken against the petitioner which was not accepted by the accused persons. Although the Investigating Officer was not examined but the facts alleged have been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the prosecution. The learned trial court, therefore, had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which was also affirmed in appeal and the same is sustained herein. 19. As regards the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner seems to have remained in custody for almost four months and is also facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000. On consideration of the aforesaid facts the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 20. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. Application dismissed.