JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 2-Luxmi Devi @ Laxmi Devi is dead. 3. In view of the said submission, this application is now restricted only to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 only. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgement dated 19.2.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 100 of 2006, by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.4.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 308 of 2001 convicting the petitioners for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of Rs.500/-has been affirmed. 5. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married with the petitioner no. 1 on 23.4.2000 and when she went to her inlaws house, there was a demand of dowry by the petitioners. It has been alleged that for non fulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant was subjected to torture both physically and mentally. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 308 of 2001 was instituted, in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1-Arjun Sharma is the brother of the informant, who has stated about the marriage of his sister having been solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 on 23.4.2000. He has stated that after three days of marriage, there was a demand of Rs.5,000/-and a letter was also sent by the mother in law of the informant through mediator making an illegal demand. He has stated that when the demand could not be fulfilled, his sister was brutally assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house. He has also stated that subsequently there was a compromise and when his sister returned to her matrimonial house, torture was repeated and she was once again driven out. P.W-2-Meena Devi is the informant of the case who has stated that her marriage with the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 23.4.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. He has also stated that subsequently there was a compromise and when his sister returned to her matrimonial house, torture was repeated and she was once again driven out. P.W-2-Meena Devi is the informant of the case who has stated that her marriage with the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 23.4.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. She has stated that right from the first day she was subjected to taunts for bringing lesser dowry and since she was unable to fulfill the illegal demand of dowry made by her inlaws, she was brutally assaulted and was driven out from her matrimonial house. She has stated that subsequently she had received a notice from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, where she went with her mother and brothers and after her matrimonial ties were restored she went to her matrimonial house by the order of the Deputy Commissioner. She has also stated that her mother in law and husband had repeated the torture committed upon her. She has stated that when she was going to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, she was brutally assaulted and when the matter was informed to the Deputy Commissioner, this witness was directed to go to her parents house. This witness has identified the written report, which has been marked as Ext-2 and the letter written by her mother in law exhibited as Ext-1 and 1/1. P.W-3-Raghu Nath Mistri is the father of the informant, who has supported the allegation of torture and assault upon his daughter on non fulfillment of demand of dowry. P.W-4-Saryug Sharma is the brother of the informant, who has supported the prosecution case. 6. The defence had examined one witness namely Laxmi Narayan Sinha who is a formal witness and who had identified the notice of the court of Deputy Commissioner and the signature of mother inlaw of the informant on a petition dated 30.5.2001, which have been marked as Ext-A and Ext-B respectively. 7. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Learned senior counsel submits that all the witnesses are related to the informant-P.W-2 and therefore are interested witnesses. It has further been submitted that there are no independent witness, who have been examined by the prosecution. 7. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Learned senior counsel submits that all the witnesses are related to the informant-P.W-2 and therefore are interested witnesses. It has further been submitted that there are no independent witness, who have been examined by the prosecution. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and the same has caused prejudice to the defence. 8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. It appears from the evidences of the witnesses that the informant, P.W-2 has categorically supported her written complaint before the police with respect to torture and assault committed upon her by the accused persons on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The evidence of P.W-2 has been supported and corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Although P.Ws1, 3 and 4 are related to P.W-2 but only on such score, their evidence cannot termed to be partisan in nature and brushed aside. An offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code generally is committed behind close doors and therefore it is but natural of the absence of any witness to the occurrence and the evidence of the relatives of the aggrieved person cannot be brushed aside or treated as untrustworthy merely because they are the relatives of the victim. However, the evidence of such witnesses have to be scrutinized appropriately in order to come to a conclusion that there is no semblance of partisanship in their evidence and that their evidence is clear from any doubt whatsoever. 10. Adverting back to the evidence of the witnesses in the present case, it is clear that attrition between both the sides had travelled up to the Deputy Commissioner where a compromise was effected but subsequently again the informant was subjected to torture thereby leading to institution of a criminal case. The demand of dowry and the subsequent torture on account of non-fulfillment has also been highlighted in the letter written by the mother inlaw addressed to the family of the informant wherein such demand was put forward. Therefore, the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution being cogent, reliable and corroborative and reliance having been placed on them, the case of the prosecution becomes more consistent. Therefore, the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution being cogent, reliable and corroborative and reliance having been placed on them, the case of the prosecution becomes more consistent. The absence of examination of the Investigating Officer pales into insignificance as nothing has been stated by the witness as to how the defence has been prejudiced on account of such non examination. 11. In view of what has been stated above, therefore, learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The same is hereby sustained. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 2001 and have also remained in custody for sometime. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioners, is modified to the period already undergone. 13. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the period of sentence.