JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2012 dated 07.12.2013 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to hold the petitioners guilty of having committed offence under Sections 498A and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and has been pleased to modify the sentence of the petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The trial court judgment was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Ghatshila on 24.07.2012 in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2009 Corresponding to T.R. No. 450 of 2012 who was pleased to hold both the petitioners guilty of offence under Sections 498A and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and was further pleased to inflict punishment of two years and seven months Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. It was directed that in default of payment of fine, both the petitioners would undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 7 days. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to inflict punishment upon the petitioners under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 9 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone was directed to be set-off against the period of detention. 5. The learned trial court had also convicted the husband of the complainant in the same manner and the husband was also one of the co-appellants before the learned lower appellate court. However, the husband is not a petitioner before this Court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the husband - a co-convict, has already served the sentence and no separate revision application has been filed by husband of the complainant. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners 6. However, the husband is not a petitioner before this Court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the husband - a co-convict, has already served the sentence and no separate revision application has been filed by husband of the complainant. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 498A and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code along with the husband of the complainant. However, the husband is not the petitioner in the present case. 7. The learned counsel, while advancing his submissions on merits, has specifically submitted that so far as the father-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, it is a case of no evidence against them. There were general allegations against other accused also, but they have been acquitted by the learned trial court on account of absence of evidence against them. He submits that the case of the petitioners is on similar footing and accordingly the petitioners should also have been acquitted by the learned trial court itself. He submits that all the family members were made accused and four persons were acquitted and three were convicted. He also submits that only two witnesses were examined before the learned court below - the complainant and her father. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while giving the relevant dates, has submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2005 and a girl child was born on 05.11.2006. Subsequently, another girl child was also born. He submits that there is an allegation that in the year 2007, when the sister of the complainant got married, the marriage ceremony was attended by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant. At that point of time, there was some quarrel on the point that more articles were given to the sister of the complainant in marriage as compared to that of the complainant. He also submits that ultimately, the complainant was shifted to a rented house and it is alleged that even from the rented house, she was driven out by her husband. 9. He also submits that ultimately, the complainant was shifted to a rented house and it is alleged that even from the rented house, she was driven out by her husband. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to buy peace, a Panchayati was conducted and after Panchayati the complainant and her husband were shifted to a rented house, but ultimately, they could not live peacefully in the rented house as well. As per the complaint, the last incident had taken place in the year 2009 and it has specifically come that she ultimately left the matrimonial house from the rented house itself. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is no independent witness to the occurrence and there is no evidence as to the manner in which the Marpit (assault) had taken place. He submits that the learned courts below have failed to consider that during cross examination PW-2 has admitted that there has been no marpit in his presence and that his daughter, PW-1 had told him about marpit. He submits that no weapon as such has been mentioned to have been used during Marpit. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments: (i) Ismail Mian vs. State, 2007 (2) JLJR 490 (ii) Rajendra Mahto vs. State, 2007 (2) JLJR 72 (iii) Basant Singh vs. State, 2007 (2) JLJR 149 (iv) Ajay Kumar Jain vs. State, 2007 (2) JLJR 282 12. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period from 14.02.2014 to 07.03.2014 when they were enlarged on bail by an order of this Court dated 07.03.2014 and a few days must have been taken to furnish the bail bond. 13. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Chandreshwar Sharma vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 245 (Para 3) to submit that it is mandatory for the learned courts below to consider as to whether the accused deserve the benefit of being released on probation by furnishing bond under Section 360/361 of Indian Penal Code, but this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the learned courts below. He refers to Section 360(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure to submits that such powers can be exercised even by this Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner no. 1 is 70 years of age and petitioner no. 2 is 68 years of age. He submits that considering their age and also the fact that they do not have any criminal antecedent and they have also suffered rigours of the criminal case for a long time, some lenient view may be taken and appropriate orders may be passed by exercising powers under Section 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, Ms. Vandana Bharti, has opposed the prayer and submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the husband of the complainant. It has come that belt was used to hurt the complainant. She submits that ultimately the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house. She submits that since there was specific allegations against the mother-in-law and father-in-law and the husband of the complainant, only these three persons were ultimately convicted and rest of the persons were acquitted by the learned trial court itself. 15. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State further submits that there is also an allegation that the complainant was tortured not only because of demand of dowry but also because of the fact that she gave birth to a girl child and these allegations have serious consequences in the society and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any benefit under Section 360/361 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She submits that although the learned courts below have not specifically referred to Section 360/361 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but certainly the learned trial court has recorded the seriousness of the allegations and the manner in which it was committed and passed the sentence on such consideration. She also submits that the learned appellate court has taken into consideration the age of the petitioners and reduced the sentence adequately and accordingly there may not be any further interference in sentence. Findings of this Court 16. This Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 22.11.2005 with accused no. 1 namely Jamil Akhtar as per Muslim customs in presence of both the sides’ parents and other persons. Findings of this Court 16. This Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 22.11.2005 with accused no. 1 namely Jamil Akhtar as per Muslim customs in presence of both the sides’ parents and other persons. The parents of the complainant had given all kind of articles worth Rs. 91,000/- which were handed over to the father-in-law of the complainant i.e. accused no. 2 and present petitioner no. 1. The accused nos. 1 and 2 had put a demand of Rs. 40,000/- for the purposes of purchase of motorcycle for accused no. 1 and the same was fulfilled by the parents of the complainant. The accused persons started demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of starting business for accused no. 1, but the complainant expressed her inability and thereafter, the accused persons started torturing, misbehaving and ill-treating the complainant physically and mentally. It was also alleged that the accused nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 also joined accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 in torturing the complainant. Accused no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, who is petitioner no. 2 in the present case. The accused nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were the other family members who were acquitted by the learned trial court. It is further case of the complainant that on 28.10.2007 when the accused nos. 1 and 2 came to attend the marriage of the complainant’s sister, they became highly agitated and jealous after seeing the valuable presents and articles given at the marriage ceremony of complainant’s sister. The accused no. 1 started quarreling with the complainant in presence of family members and assaulted her. After birth of female child of the complainant, the accused persons became cruel towards the complainant and when the complainant gave birth to a second female child, she was again tortured and ultimately driven out from the matrimonial house. It was also the specific case of the complainant that at one night of February, 2009, the accused no. 1 brutally assaulted the complainant and compelled her to take shelter in the neighbouring house and the father of the complainant who knew about these things, brought her to his house at Chakulia. The complainant had also sent legal notice to accused nos. 1 brutally assaulted the complainant and compelled her to take shelter in the neighbouring house and the father of the complainant who knew about these things, brought her to his house at Chakulia. The complainant had also sent legal notice to accused nos. 1 and 2 to return the entire articles received by them at the time of marriage, but the articles were never returned by the accused persons and they had misappropriated the said articles. The complaint was presented before the court on 13.07.2009. 17. On conclusion of inquiry, a prima-facie case was found out under Section 498A/323/504 of Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and summons were issued vide order dated 02.09.2009. All the accused persons surrendered before the court and thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence before charge which was closed vide order dated 17.08.2010. All the accused persons were read over and explained the charge under Sections 323/498A/504/34 of Indian Penal Code and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed for evidence after charge which was ultimately closed on 08.06.2012 and thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was fixed for defence evidence and the same was closed on 15.06.2012. 18. The complainant had produced two witnesses. One is the complainant herself who was examined as PW-1 and the other is her father PW-2. The prosecution proved the list of articles given at the time of marriage, notice to accused persons dated 08.06.2009 and the paper of Anjuman dated 16.10.2008 which were marked as Exhibit-1, 2 and 3 respectively. 19. PW-1 has fully supported the prosecution case including the date of marriage and that goods worth Rs. 91,000/- was handed over to the father-in-law at the time of marriage. She has also stated that people from the in-laws house had demanded Rs. 40,000/- for the purpose of purchase of one motorcycle which was given by her father. After lapse of about one month, the accused persons started quarreling with her and her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the purposes of organizing business and when she expressed her inability to give such amount, all the accused persons started beating her. 40,000/- for the purpose of purchase of one motorcycle which was given by her father. After lapse of about one month, the accused persons started quarreling with her and her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the purposes of organizing business and when she expressed her inability to give such amount, all the accused persons started beating her. She has also stated that in the year 2007 in the marriage of her sister, her husband and father-in-law had attended the marriage and they told that her parents had given more articles in sister’s marriage and both of them committed marpit with the complainant. They left her there itself and did not even make any telephonic call to her. Thereafter, her father had organized Panchayati and sent her to Ranchi where the complainant gave birth to a female child and six months thereafter, the accused persons kicked her out from in-laws house. The accused persons told her husband that she had given birth to a female child, therefore, they told him to leave her and to do his second marriage. The husband of the complainant took the complainant to her parents’ house again and there, a panchayati was held. Thereafter, again the complainant was sent to her in-laws’ house where she was kept properly for two months. One night, there was a quarrel in which the accused persons committed marpit with her and the husband was not present at that night. However, when the husband of the complainant came next day in the morning, even then the accused persons committed marpit and her husband took her to a rented house where the husband had also committed marpit with her. In the month of February 2008, her husband again committed marpit and kicked her out from the rented house. She took shelter in the neighborhood for two days and thereafter, her father came and took her to his house. She also stated that the accused persons did not allow her to come outside their house and they did not permit her to take medical treatment. 20. PW-2, the father of the complainant has also fully supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage and the relationship of the complainant with the petitioner no. 1 and also the fact that goods worth Rs. 91,000/- along with the list was handed over to the accused no. 2. 20. PW-2, the father of the complainant has also fully supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage and the relationship of the complainant with the petitioner no. 1 and also the fact that goods worth Rs. 91,000/- along with the list was handed over to the accused no. 2. PW-2 also supported the fact that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was given to the accused persons to purchase motorcycle and that PW-1 went to in-laws house after marriage where she was kept properly for about one-and-a-half-months, but thereafter, in-laws started creating problem and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- to do some business, but the demand was not fulfilled and after 15 days, they started quarreling with his daughter. He has further stated that in the year 2008, a panchayati was held and the complainant was sent to her in-laws house. He has stated that on 05.11.2006, PW-1 gave birth to a female child and the in-laws did not take care of her for about six months. Again, a meeting was organized and thereafter, PW-1 was taken to in-law’s house and then again in the month of October, 2007, when he was performing the marriage of his second daughter, the accused nos. 1 and 2 came to attend the marriage ceremony and became jealous of the articles being given by him in his second daughter’s marriage. The accused started quarreling with PW-1 and left the PW-1 at Chakulia. He has stated that thereafter another meeting was organized in mosque at Ranchi and it was decided that he has to send PW-1 to Ranchi and if anything happens to PW-1, the committee will be responsible. He has stated that due to pressure of the committee, the husband of PW-1 went to Chakulia and took PW-1 to a rented house where the husband kept the PW-1 for about 8 to 10 days and started marpit and abuse. When he came to Ranchi, again a meeting was organized and it was decided that the accused should be given one more chance. Consequently, he left PW-1 at Ranchi, but after 15 to 20 days, again the husband started committing marpit and kicked the PW-1 out and the PW-1 took shelter in the neighborhood. Upon receiving information, the PW-2 took the complainant to his house and filed the case. This witness has stated that cash of Rs. Consequently, he left PW-1 at Ranchi, but after 15 to 20 days, again the husband started committing marpit and kicked the PW-1 out and the PW-1 took shelter in the neighborhood. Upon receiving information, the PW-2 took the complainant to his house and filed the case. This witness has stated that cash of Rs. 40,000/- was handed over to the mother of the accused before marriage who was made accused no. 3 in the proceeding and is petitioner no. 2 in the present case. 21. After perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and 2, the learned trial court recorded its finding at para-13 that both the witnesses have categorically stated that after some months, the complainant was being tortured and father of the complainant had given Rs. 40,000/-. Both the witnesses have also supported that after quarreling and after delivery of one female child, accused persons kicked her out from the house and the accused no. 1 kept the complainant in a rented house. The learned trial court found that both the witnesses have also supported that panchayati was held at Anjuman in Ranchi and other places. The learned trial court also recorded that the defence has fully cross-examined the two witnesses, but failed to demolish/falsify their evidence and accordingly, the manner of occurrence was held to be fully established. The learned trial court also recorded further finding in para-15 of the judgment that PW-2 in para-7 and 10 has stated that he had given Rs. 40,000/- in the hand of the mother of the accused no. 1 (mother-in-law/petitioner no. 2 in the present case) and PW-2 had specifically stated in para 15 of the cross-examination that on 28.10.2007 accused nos. 1 and 2 had assaulted the complainant with belt. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence, recorded that the two witnesses have categorically stated against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law who committed harassment and torture to the complainant and it was specifically proved by the complainant that these three accused persons had demanded dowry and subjected the complainant to cruelty. The learned trial court found that there was no specific allegation so far as the other accused persons are concerned and acquitted the accused nos. 4 to 7. Although the accused nos. The learned trial court found that there was no specific allegation so far as the other accused persons are concerned and acquitted the accused nos. 4 to 7. Although the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 were facing the trial for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code, but the learned trial court ultimately convicted the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Sections 498A/323/34 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted all the accused persons under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court found that the husband i.e. accused no. 1 was already in jail and the present petitioners were taken into custody after cancellation of their bail bond. 22. While considering the point of sentence, the learned trial court considered the circumstances in which the offence has been committed, the nature and gravity of offence, the age etc. of the accused persons and special enactment against the crime committed against women. The learned trial court was of the considered view that strict punishment should be given to the convicted persons i.e. accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 and accordingly, punished each of the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 with Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and seven months and fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 498A and 9 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. It was also observed that in case of default in payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment of seven days was to be served. All the sentences were directly to run concurrently and the period undergone was directed to be set off. 23. Before the learned lower appellate court, the specific argument of the appellants was that there was major contradiction in demand of dowry and cruelty between evidence of the complainant and her father and none of them supported the prosecution story. It was also argued that there was major contradiction in the manner of occurrence. It was also argued that there was no evidence regarding demand of dowry and cruelty by the three convicted persons. It was also argued that the father-in-law and mother-in-law were residing in separate house and they did not demand dowry and made cruelty to the complainant and therefore, a prayer was made for acquittal of the convicts. 24. It was also argued that there was no evidence regarding demand of dowry and cruelty by the three convicted persons. It was also argued that the father-in-law and mother-in-law were residing in separate house and they did not demand dowry and made cruelty to the complainant and therefore, a prayer was made for acquittal of the convicts. 24. The learned lower appellate court, while scrutinizing the evidence of the complainant PW-1, has inter-alia recorded that she had submitted that the accused persons smashed her hair, assaulted with hand and abused her and she had specifically stated that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband, devar and Nanad had assaulted her except one of the devar. The learned lower appellate court also recorded that the complainant had specifically mentioned about the assault by her father-in-law and husband in the year 2007 at the time when her sister was newly married on the pretext that the gifts given to her sister were much more as compared to what was given to her at the time of marriage. 25. The learned lower appellate court also considered the evidence of PW-2 who has fully supported the prosecution case. The learned lower appellate court considered the basic ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and ultimately held in Para-13 as follows: “13. From discussion of above evidence there is cogent and clear evidence that accused/appellant Md. Jamil Akhtar, Jano Mustafa and Sahida Khatoon committed offence of demand of dowry, cruelty towards the complainant Wilkis Bano @ Rubana Parveen, they are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law they catched her hair assaulted with hand and abused. There evidence that Jamil Akhtar demanded from complainant to do business she said I am unable to give this money my father did not pay Rs. 50,000/- at once he spend money in our marriage then her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, Debar and Nanad assaulted to me. In cross-examination para-16 he has deposed that my husband is selling Ice-cream. In para-6 she further stated that for doing business I gave Rs. 2,000/- to my husband, to did business I had taken this debt from my neighbours but he did not return, in cross-examination para-50 she has deposed that before marriage they demanded Rs. 40,000/- my father gave this money to accused person. In cross-examination CW-2 stated in para-13 that for the purpose of business they demanded Rs. 2,000/- to my husband, to did business I had taken this debt from my neighbours but he did not return, in cross-examination para-50 she has deposed that before marriage they demanded Rs. 40,000/- my father gave this money to accused person. In cross-examination CW-2 stated in para-13 that for the purpose of business they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from me, there is cogent, corroborative evidence against accused/appellant Md. Jamil Akhtar, Jano Mustafa and Sahida Khatoon evidence relating U/s 498A and 323/34 I.P.C. Judgment passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ghatsila dated 29.7.2012. In this Complaint Case No. 58/2009 and convicted accused persons Md. Jamil Akhtar, Jano Mustafa @ Jeno Mustafa and Sahida Khatoon is proper and in accordance with the law, but in my opinion conviction and sentence passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate Sri. Dinesh Kumar relating to father-in-law of complainant Jenav Mustafa @ Jeno Mustafa. Considering his age I modify sentence U/s 498A I.P.C. Simple Imprisonment for two years and also six months Simple Imprisonment U/s 323 I.P.C. Further sentence also passed against Sahida Khatoon who is mother-in-law of complainant. I modify sentence two year Simple Imprisonment U/s 498A I.P.C. and also Simple Imprisonment U/s 323 I.P.C. for six months, according to their old age and they are senior citizen with the above observation. This appeal is dismissed.” 26. The learned lower appellate court took a lenient view so far as the mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned considering their age and modified the sentence to two years Simple Imprisonment under Section 498A and six months Simple Imprisonment under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and observed that they are senior citizens and therefore, some lenient view is required to be taken. 27. So far as the judgment reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 282 (Supra) is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The said case was filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the mala-fide prosecution. Territorial jurisdiction to the court at Hazaribagh was sought to be given on the basis of certain telephonic conversation made by one of the co-accused with the complainant. The said case was filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the mala-fide prosecution. Territorial jurisdiction to the court at Hazaribagh was sought to be given on the basis of certain telephonic conversation made by one of the co-accused with the complainant. This Court while considering the plea of territorial jurisdiction found that neither the actual content of the telephonic calls was disclosed nor any specific date was mentioned regarding calls made to the complainant so as to give territorial jurisdiction to court to entertain the complaint case. This Court quashed the proceeding at Hazaribagh solely on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 28. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued in the present case that no specific date of any of the occurrence has been given except the date of marriage and accordingly, the allegations are vague and unspecific on which the conviction cannot be sustained. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid arguments are devoid of any merits. The evidences recorded by the learned court below indicate clear sequence of events and specific allegations against all the three convicts i.e. the husband as well his parents regarding demand of dowry and torture/harassment of the petitioners on account of non-payment. The learned courts below have given concurrent finding on the said point after appreciation of evidence. There is no scope of re-appreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 29. The other argument of the petitioners regarding absence of independent witness with regard to the occurrence throughout the prosecution case has no bearing in the case particularly when the prosecution evidence is consistent which includes the evidence of the victim, the complainant herself and both the witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined. This Court finds that the learned courts below have thoroughly scrutinized the evidences on record and not found any material contradiction or inconsistencies in the evidences. Accordingly, there is no merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 30. So far as the judgment passed in the case reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 490 (supra) is concerned, the said judgment also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, there is no merits in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 30. So far as the judgment passed in the case reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 490 (supra) is concerned, the said judgment also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction found that death having been caused on account of accident, charge under 304B and Section 498A failed. There was absence of any positive proof that the appellant of the said case used to torture the lady for dowry. 31. In the present case, there is positive evidence regarding demand of dowry by the convicts and both the learned courts below have given concurrent findings of facts after due appreciation of evidences on record. 32. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has failed to establish the manner of assault and the weapon used and accordingly, the cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry has not been legally proved. This Court finds that the term cruelty has been defined by way of explanation to section 498A of Indian Penal Code which includes harassment to coerce the wife or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The harassment as mentioned in section 498A of Indian Penal Code need not be coupled with any bodily injury in order to constitute any offence under section 498A of IPC. This Court also finds that there is specific allegation of assault and it is not the case of the complainant that pursuant to the assault, she was medically examined by any doctor and accordingly, non-production of any medical evidence in connection with assault is not fatal to the prosecution case. The evidence on record clearly established the allegation of demand of dowry and assault beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts by concurrent finding by the learned courts below. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the matter of appreciation of evidences on the said points. 33. The evidence on record clearly established the allegation of demand of dowry and assault beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts by concurrent finding by the learned courts below. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the matter of appreciation of evidences on the said points. 33. So far as the judgment recorded in 2007 (2) JLJR 72 (supra) is concerned, said judgment also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The said case before this court was in appellate jurisdiction and learned trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 304B/34 of IPC. This Court found that except one witness all the witnesses were hearsay, who were close relatives and had given almost identical account of story and the doctor in his evidence clearly stated that he could not say cause of death and the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by fall and further, in his opinion, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This Court also found certain discrepancies in the questions put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In such background, this Court found that the legal presumption under Section 113 of the Evidence Act, 1872 stood rebutted and neither the manner of assault nor the weapon used nor cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry was legally proved. This Court ultimately acquitted the appellant of the said case. 34. In the present case, the facts are entirely different and there are evidences to satisfy the basic ingredients of offence under section 498A and 323 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of which both the learned courts have convicted the petitioners as well as the husband of the complainant. 35. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 149 (supra) to submit that in the instant case marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2005 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2009 and accordingly, there is delay of more than 3 years and therefore, the complaint itself was barred by limitation under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. 36. The said judgment also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the fact that the cause of action to file the present complaint arose on number of occasions and the entire sequence of events have been well explained by the prosecution and the delay, if any, is well explained. The prosecution has proved that there was continuous demand of money and repeated harassment of the complainant even some time prior to filing of the complaint which was filed as a last resort. Thus, contention of the petitioners that the complaint is barred by limitation is hereby rejected and delay, if any, in filing the complaint case is not fatal to the prosecution case. 37. In the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2007 (2) JLJR 149 (supra), this Court has held that last act of cruelty would be the starting point of limitation and considering the facts of the case, this Court found that the cause of action to file the case arose beyond 3 years and this Court was of the view that no liberal approach for the application of Section 473 of Cr.P.C could be taken and the limitation would be the date on which the complainant left the matrimonial house forever. In the present case, though the marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2005, but the cause of action for filing the complaint case arose much thereafter and the sequence of evidence prior to filing of the complaint case have been well explained. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the cross examination of PW-2 wherein it is said that PW-2 had admitted that no marpit/assault had taken place in his presence and the allegation regarding assault and torture was informed to him by his daughter (PW-1). This Court finds that the victim, who is the complainant of the present case has sufficiently supported the prosecution case and has been thoroughly cross examined. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 regarding torture and demand of dowry cannot be disregarded merely because PW-2 during his cross examination has stated that the PW-1 had informed PW-2 about the torture and physical assault and that he had seen the assault. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 regarding torture and demand of dowry cannot be disregarded merely because PW-2 during his cross examination has stated that the PW-1 had informed PW-2 about the torture and physical assault and that he had seen the assault. The evidence is required to be read as a whole and the evidence of the PW-2, as recorded by the learned court below demonstrates that he has supported the prosecution case and there is no material contradiction between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 39. This Court finds that the learned courts below have given concurrent finding of facts in connection with offence committed under Sections 498A/323/34 of Indian Penal Code after considering the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 which are consistent. This Court also finds that although the learned trial court has not specifically mentioned about Sections 360 and 361 of Code of Criminal Procedure while sentencing the father-in-law and mother-in-law, but at the same time, the learned trial court while imposing the punishment took into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, the age etc. of the accused persons and special enactment against crime committed against women and imposed punishment. Further, the learned lower appellate court has reduced the sentence of the mother-in-law and father-in-law considering their age and that they are senior citizens. At the time of judgment of trial court i.e. on 24.07.2012, the age of petitioner no. 1 was 62 years and the age of the petitioner no. 2 was 60 years. 40. This Court, in revisional jurisdiction, is of the considered view that the manner in which the offence has been committed and in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to the accused no. 1, 2 and 3, they did not mend their way and ultimately the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house with two female children. The present case does not call for any sympathetic view in order to give any benefit of Section 360/361 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioners. 41. This Court also finds that the learned lower appellate court has already given sufficient indulgence in reducing the sentence of the petitioners considering their age and this Court is not inclined to give any further indulgence on the point of sentence to the petitioners in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 41. This Court also finds that the learned lower appellate court has already given sufficient indulgence in reducing the sentence of the petitioners considering their age and this Court is not inclined to give any further indulgence on the point of sentence to the petitioners in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. 42. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are hereby cancelled. 43. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 44. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 45. Let the Lower Court’s Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 46. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX.”