JUDGMENT : 1. This application is directed against the Judgment dated 16.08.2000 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.09.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 676 of 1987 (Trial No. 18 of 1996) convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323 and 380 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for 1 year 6 months and 1 year respectively has been dismissed. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the informant whereas petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law and petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are the parents in law of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the institution of the First Information Report talak was already given by the petitioner no. 1 to the informant and Dain-Mehar was also returned during the said period. It has been submitted that the ornaments was also returned to the informant and as a retaliation to the talak given by the petitioner no.1 the criminal case was instituted making bald allegations against the petitioners. It has been submitted that although there are allegations of assault upon the informant by the accused persons but neither any injury report was exhibited nor any Doctor has been examined in support of the prosecution case. It has been submitted that the witnesses who have been examined in course of the trial are mostly related with the informant Zohra Khatoon (P.W.2) and the said witnesses being interested witnesses, their testimony deserves to be discarded. In an alternative an argument has been put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court does not feel inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence may be sufficiently modified in view of the fact that the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1987 and have also remained in custody for some time. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 4. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 4. It appears that the informant who was examined as P.W.2 had instituted the First Information Report on the allegation that she was married with the petitioner no. 1 in the year 1984. It is said that in course of her marital life she was tortured by the accused persons and no food and clothes were provided to her. It has also been alleged that the petitioner no. 1 continuously used to say that he shall desert her and thereafter married for the second time with the daughter of one Tajmul Mian. Allegation has also been levelled that on 29.05.1987 all the accused persons have ousted her from her matrimonial house and when the father and uncle of the informant had protested they were assaulted by the petitioners by various means. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet u/s 324, 323, 380, 498A of the I.P.C. Upon taking of cognizance charge was framed against the accused persons and trial proceeded. After conclusion of the trial the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj had passed a judgment and order of conviction dated 04.09.1996 in which the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323 and 380 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1996 was also dismissed on 16.08.2000. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as six witnesses. P.W.1 Akshay Lal Rajak is a formal witness whereas P.W.3 Ramjan Ali @ Ramjan Mian had not stated about witnessing the occurrence. The main witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.2 who is the informant. P.W.4 is the uncle of the informant. P.W.5 is the father of the informant and P.W.6 is Samsuddin Mian. The informant in her evidence as P.W.2 has stated about the entire occurrence and the manner of torture committed upon her by the accused persons including making specific allegation against all the petitioners by assaulting through various means to the uncle and the father of the informant. P.W.5 Makbool Alam who is the father of the informant has specifically stated about the torture committed upon her daughter and also the assault made by the accused persons upon him as well as P.W.4. He has also stated in his evidence that petitioner no. P.W.5 Makbool Alam who is the father of the informant has specifically stated about the torture committed upon her daughter and also the assault made by the accused persons upon him as well as P.W.4. He has also stated in his evidence that petitioner no. 1 has subsequently solemnized marriage with the daughter of Tajmul Mian. P.W.4 Fakir Mohammad is the uncle of the informant who had also stated about the torture meted out to the informant and the assault made upon him as well as his brother by the accused persons. P.W.6 Samsuddin Mian had also supported the incident and has stated that he had intervened when the informant was ousted from her matrimonial house. The witnesses more specifically P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are very consistent with respect to the manner of assault and subsequent development in which the informant as well as P.Ws. 4 and 5 were assaulted by the accused persons. A plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the fact that the First Information Report is the counter blast to the talak given by the petitioner no. 1. Merely because the First Information Report had been instituted after the alleged talak the same by itself could not dilute the prosecution case in view of the consistent oral evidence on record supporting the occurrence which had been alleged in the First Information Report. The learned courts below on proper appreciation of the evidence on record have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners were involved in committing an offence u/s 498A, 323 and 380 of the I.P.C., and have sentenced them accordingly. The judgment passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court does not necessitate any interference with respect to the conviction so recorded against the petitioners. The plea of the petitioners therefore with respect to the conviction of the petitioners is negated. 6. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners is concerned, the case was instituted in the year 1987 and for three decades the petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case. In view of the long pendency of the case and considering the sentence awarded to the petitioners and the period which has already been undergone by the petitioners, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby modified to the period already undergone. In view of the long pendency of the case and considering the sentence awarded to the petitioners and the period which has already been undergone by the petitioners, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby modified to the period already undergone. 7. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.