ORDER : Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in P.C.R. Case No.161 of 1992 by T.R. No.789 of 1996 on 13.08.1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment has been affirmed. 2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already divorced his wife who is the daughter of the opposite party no.2. It has further been stated that in fact the case being Raneshwar P.S. Case No.45 of 1991 was instituted against Md. Hasim and Md. Majid on the allegation of kidnapping and committing rape upon her. Learned counsel submits that witnesses who have been examined in course of trial are related with the opposite party no.2 and all are being interested witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative has forwarded an argument that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner be modified in view of the fact that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1992 and had remained in custody for a considerable length of time. 3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the complainant being the mother-in-law of the petitioner to the effect that the daughter Lalbanu Bibi was married with the petitioner according to the Muslim Custom. It was alleged that there was a demand of cow and Rs.500/- as dowry and since the complainant was a widow, the demand of dowry could not be fulfilled as a result of which she was subjected to torture several times. It is also alleged that panchayati was held and the matter was settled on the assurance of proper behaviour. On 02.10.1990, when the complainant went to meet her daughter, she did not found her missing daughter. It is also alleged that panchayati was held and the matter was settled on the assurance of proper behaviour. On 02.10.1990, when the complainant went to meet her daughter, she did not found her missing daughter. The victim was nearly searched for three months but since the complainant was unable to trace her, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Dumka but no action was taken by the police. Upon institution of the complaint case, an inquiry was conducted under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the witnesses, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 366 of the IPC. However, charge was framed only in 498A of the IPC. Since the complainant has proved her case beyond all reasonable doubts, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka vide judgment dated 13.08.1996 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. 5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Cr. Appeal No.61 of 1996 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka on 19.04.2001. In course of trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. C.W-2 is the complainant herself who has given a vivid description with respect to torture meted out to her daughter. C.W-3 being the victim herself has also categorically stated about the role played by the petitioner being the husband and the demand which was made and on non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to torture. It also appears that with respect to her abduction -3- and committing rape upon her, Raneshwar P.S. Case No.45 of 1991 was instituted by the victim of the present case against one Md. Hasim and Md. Majid. It further appears that Raneshwar P.S. Case No.26 of 1991 was instituted against the accused persons which, however, ended in the submission of the final form. Although, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 366 of the IPC but charge was framed under section 498A of the IPC only. Consistent evidence on record of the witnesses of the complainant led to a concurrent finding by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. Merely because P.W-2 and P.W-3 are related the same by itself would not make their evidence untrustworthy. Consistent evidence on record of the witnesses of the complainant led to a concurrent finding by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. Merely because P.W-2 and P.W-3 are related the same by itself would not make their evidence untrustworthy. The evidence is consistent with respect to the demand made and the subsequent disappearance of P.W-3 which ultimately led to institution of Raneshwar P.S. Case No. 45 of 1991 against Md. Hasim and Md. Majid. 6. Thus, there being consistent evidence on record to sustain the order of conviction passed against the petitioner and I am not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, It appears that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since 1992 and had remained in custody for a considerable length of time. In view of such fact, therefore, I am inclined to consider the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner which is modified to the period already undergone. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.