ORDER : Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.P.Act’, for short). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the conviction has been recorded based on the evidence of interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to establish the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused No.1’). It is further contended that no evidence was produced in proof of demand and acceptance of dowry and therefore the trial Court has erred in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. Further, the learned counsel would submit that based on the very same evidence, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4, by the same yardstick, the petitioner also should have been acquitted of the above charges. 3. These submissions are seriously contested by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and by referring to the evidence of complainant-PW1, which is duly corroborated by the evidence of her father-PW5 and two independent witnesses namely PW3 and PW4 would submit that the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC as well as the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt and moreover, the Courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact after analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no scope for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or to differ with the view taken by the Courts below as long as the view taken by the Trial Court is based on the evidence let in by the prosecution. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and have carefully scrutinized the impugned judgments and the material on record. 5. Insofar as the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, prosecution has rested its case mainly on the evidence of PW1, namely the wife of accused No.1. 5. Insofar as the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, prosecution has rested its case mainly on the evidence of PW1, namely the wife of accused No.1. I have gone through her evidence. A plain reading of the evidence of PW1 goes to show that except making general statements that after marriage she resided with accused Nos.1 to 4 for a period of three months and thereafter shifted to different rented houses and police quarters and thereafter, she resided in the house of her parents, she has not mentioned any specific instance of cruelty meted out to her. It is trite law that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the cruelty alleged against the accused should be of such nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or any harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Such evidence is conspicuously absent in the instant case. There are only general allegations that when she was residing in a rented house and in her parents’ house, accused No.1 used to assault her by making a demand for site and to get further money from her parents. These allegations are not substantiated with any cogent evidence. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to substantiate the alleged demand for site subsequent to marriage between the petitioner/accused No.1 and complainant/PW1. Eventhough PW2 and PW3, the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that they have also witnessed accused No.1 assaulting and ill-treating PW1, their evidence is not clear with regard to specific instance of cruelty. Moreover, PW1 herself having not spoken about any specific instance of cruelty, I am of the view that, evidence of PW1 and evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, is not sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Moreover, PW1 herself having not spoken about any specific instance of cruelty, I am of the view that, evidence of PW1 and evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, is not sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. As a result, the findings recorded by the Courts below convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, in my view, cannot be sustained and the same being contrary to the evidence on record, is liable to be set aside. 6. However, insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act are concerned, I find that the evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of these charges deserve acceptance. The evidence of PW1 is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW3 which establishes that at the time of marriage, a demand was placed by accused No.1 for Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid by way of dowry along with gold ornaments weighing 150 grams. The testimony of PW1 in this regard is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. Though the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 has assailed the testimony of these witnesses on the ground that these witnesses are related to each other, but on considering their evidence, I find that these witnesses being the relatives of the petitioner/accused No.1 as well as complainant/PW1 are natural and truthful witnesses, as only the relatives of the parties are expected to participate/witness the marriage negotiation and in the said circumstance, merely because PW3 and PW4 happen to be the relative of PW.1, their evidence cannot be doubted or disbelieved on that score. The petitioner/accused No.1 has not been able to bring out anything in their cross-examination to discredit the evidence of these witnesses. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 that their testimony is contrary to the statement given by them under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted for the reason that no such statement has been brought on record so as to impeach the credibility of their testimonies. On the other hand, in the course of cross-examination, a specific suggestion was made to these witnesses suggesting that the amount of Rs.35,000/- was given to accused No.1 as a customary present. On the other hand, in the course of cross-examination, a specific suggestion was made to these witnesses suggesting that the amount of Rs.35,000/- was given to accused No.1 as a customary present. This suggestion has been categorically denied by the witnesses thereby establishing the fact that there was demand for Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.35,000/- was paid to accused No.1 as dowry. Thus the prosecution having established the factum of demand and payment of dowry at the time of marriage, in my view, the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, does not call for any interference. As a result, the conviction of accused No.1/petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act deserves to be confirmed. 7. Insofar as the award of sentence is concerned, the petitioner/accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act. This sentence, in my view, is grossly disproportionate to the offences proved against the petitioner. The evidence on record goes to show that accused No.1 was a Police Constable and on account of frequent transfer, he had to change his residence from place to place. When the complainant-PW1 and the petitioner/accused No.1 were staying together they were blessed with two children. The evidence on record suggests that except the ordinary wear and tear of marriage, there were no serious differences between them. Eventhough the prosecution has projected that PW1 was the victim of cruelty and harassment at the hands of the petitioner, yet no material is available to show that prior to registration of the case there was any complaint between the parties and considering all these facts, the charge against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC is held not proved. 8. Further, prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged demand made by the petitioner/accused No.1 for registration of site. 8. Further, prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged demand made by the petitioner/accused No.1 for registration of site. As a result, the only charge proved against the petitioner is that at the time of marriage, accused No.1 made a demand for dowry and received a sum of Rs.35,000/- as dowry. In the said circumstances, it would serve the ends of justice if minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence is awarded to the petitioner/accused No.1. In that view of the matter, the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the above offence is required to be modified. Hence, the following:- ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part. The conviction of the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and the consequent sentence awarded for the said offence is set-aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the said charge. The conviction of the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act is confirmed. In modification of the sentence awarded by the trial court, the petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The fine awarded by the trial Court for the above offences stands unaltered. The period of custody already undergone by the petitioner/accused No.1 as under trial prisoner shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.