ORDER : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners namely, Milan Singh and Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh. 2. Heard Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State. 3. As per the records, it appears that the present criminal revision petition was initially preferred by four petitioners, but the name of Petitioner No.2 namely, Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.01.2015 and the petitioner No.4 namely, Kalo Devi died on 28.11.2018 which is apparent from the affidavit dated 15.10.2020 filed by the State on 20.10.2020 and accordingly, pursuant to order dated 20.10.2020, her name has been deleted from the cause title of the criminal revision petition. 4. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is confined to the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh and Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh only. 5. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.10.2012 in Complaint Case No.136/2006 (T.R. No. 160/2012) has been affirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed. 6. The learned Trial Court had convicted the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for 01 month and had sentenced the Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh alongwith Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh and Kalo Devi to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners : 7. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners : 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh is the husband and the Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo Singh is the father-in-law of the Complainant. So far the rest two petitioners are concerned, the case of the Petitioner No.2 (Gouri Singh @ Gouri Shankar Singh) has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.01.2015 as he did not surrender at the stage of revision and the Petitioner No.4 (Kalo Devi) has already expired on 28.11.2018 and pursuant to order dated 20.10.2020, her name has been deleted from the cause title. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is required to be considered for the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 only. 8. He further submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted all the accused persons under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and there is no finding recorded by the learned courts below that the cruelty was to such an extent that the Complainant would have committed suicide and therefore, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the facts remains that the petitioners were all along on bail during trial and both have remained in jail custody from 14.11.2014 to 04.02.2015 i.e. for 02 months and 21 days at revisional stage of the case. He further submitted that the Complaint was filed as back as on 16.02.2006 and since then, more than 15 years have elapsed and the petitioner have no previous conviction and as per the trial court’s judgment, on the date of conviction, the petitioners were aged about 35 years and 65 years respectively. Accordingly, the present age of the Petitioner No.1 would be about 43 years and the present age of the Petitioner No.3 would be about 73 years. He also submitted that the Complainant is already getting maintenance allowance from the Petitioner No.1 and the petitioners are law abided citizens. Accordingly, the present age of the Petitioner No.1 would be about 43 years and the present age of the Petitioner No.3 would be about 73 years. He also submitted that the Complainant is already getting maintenance allowance from the Petitioner No.1 and the petitioners are law abided citizens. He further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentences of the petitioners may be modified and reduced to some extent by enhancing the fine amounts. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State : 10. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, opposing the prayer submitted that the acquittal of the accused under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has no bearing in the present case. She further submitted that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the demand of property (a motorcycle and a T.V.) as well as assault has been duly proved. She also submitted that there is no scope for interference so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned which is based upon concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. She further submitted that so far as the sentences of the petitioners are concerned, the Petitioner No. 1 has been sentenced for two years simple imprisonment and the Petitioner No. 3 has been sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view. She further submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 does not deserve any sympathetic view, but so far as the Petitioner No. 3 is concerned, considering his age, appropriate order may be passed and his sentence may be modified subject to enhancement of the fine amount. Findings of this Court : 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments as well as the lower Court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the Complaint being Complaint Case No.136/2006 presented by the Complainant namely, Anita Devi on 16.02.2006 stating inter-alia that the Complainant was married with the Petitioner No.1 in the year 1998 and at the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.15,000/-, clothes, utensils, ornaments, cycle, wrist watch as gift. After spending some time, she was blessed with one baby. It has been alleged that thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting her and tortured her physically and mentally by stopping meal, clothes, etc. and they started demanding a motorcycle and one T.V. On non-fulfillment of demand, they assaulted the Complainant and after snatching her ornaments, clothes and entire stridhan, they ousted her from her matrimonial house. She reported the matter to the police station, but the police did not take any action and thereafter, she filed the Complaint. 12. The Complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter, she also examined two enquiry witnesses, Ramnandan Singh as E.W.-1 and Kamla Devi as E.W.-2 and on the basis of the materials available on record, a prima facie case was found under Sections 323, 379, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act found against the accused persons and summons were issued. After appearance of the accused persons, the case was fixed for evidence before charge and the Complainant examined C.W.-1 Kamla Devi, C.W.-2 Ramnandan Singh and C.W.-3 Anita Devi and thereafter, the evidence before charge was closed on 18.03.2009. 13. On 03.11.2009, the charges under Sections 498(A)/34 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 14. In course of trial, the evidence after charge of the witnesses was recorded and the evidence after charge was closed on 03.08.2012. 15. On 01.10.2012, the statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. 16. 15. On 01.10.2012, the statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence. 16. This Court finds that the learned trial court considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the Complainant and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Para-10 that C.W.-1 Kamla Devi is the mother and C.W.-2 Ramnandan Singh is the father of the Complainant and C.W.-3 Anita Devi is the Complainant herself and in their evidence, they have fully supported the occurrence of driving out the Complainant from her matrimonial house after assaulting her for non-fulfillment of demand of property i.e. Hero Honda and T.V. and the Complainant is residing in her parental house with her daughter. The learned trial court further recorded that there are minor contradictions in their evidence which is natural. Their evidences cannot be doubted on the basis that they are their parents. 17. The learned trial court convicted the accused persons including the Petitioner No.1 and 3 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. However, the learned trial court acquitted them from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act holding that the Complainant has failed to prove its case under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt. 18. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court also considered the oral evidences adduced on behalf of the Complainant and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Paras-13, 14 and 15 which read as under : “13. On perusal, it appears that C.W.-3 the Complainant herself has supported the case of Complainant for the offence u/s 498(A) of IPC i.e. husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty and C.W.-1 and C.W.-2 have also corroborated the case of Complainant and Complainant has proved that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws (accused persons) and nothing has been brought by the defence during cross-examination which falsify the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses of Complainant. From the evidence of witnesses, it is apparent that the essential ingredient of the offence i.e. a woman was married, she was subjected to cruelty and such cruelty consisted in – (i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical; (ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand; (iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband; was fulfilled in this case. Although some contradictions appears minor have come during the evidence of the witnesses on record, but it is settled that minor discrepancy due to lapse of memory immaterial. It is also settled that evidence of related and partisan witness cannot be rejected ought by reason of relation and interestedness. It has to be scrutinised with caution. 14. From the evidence of C.W.-1 to C.W.-3, whole evidence appears credible and trustworthy and there is nothing, but supporting and corroborative evidence of Complainant and their testimonies are found to be cogent, convincing and trustworthy and it is also well settled that in a criminal trial, credible evidence of even a solitary witness form the basis of conviction. 19. Vide para 15 of the impugned judgement, the learned appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons including petitioners. 20. This Court finds that C.W.-3, the Complainant has fully supported her version stated in her Complaint and C.W.- 1(mother of the complainant) and C.W.-2 (father of the complainant) have corroborated the evidence of the Complainant with regard to the demand of Hero Honda motorcycle and T.V. and assaulting the Complainant by the petitioners for non-fulfillment of the demand thereof. 21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts with regard to the demand of property i.e Hero Honda motorcycle and T.V. and assault of the Complainant by the petitioners and ultimately the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house along with a baby girl. This court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences and convicted the accused under section 498(A) of IPC. 22. This court is of the considered view that the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized the evidences and convicted the accused under section 498(A) of IPC. 22. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason for re-appreciation of the evidences for interference under revisional jurisdiction. This Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or perversity in the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 23. On the point of sentence, this Court further finds that the Complaint case was filed on 16.02.2006 and since then, more than 15 years have elapsed and the petitioners have faced the rigors of the criminal litigation for a long period and both the petitioners have already remained in jail custody for a period of 02 months and 21 days during pendency of the present criminal revision petition and the present case is their first offence. The present age of the Petitioner No.1 is about 43 years and the present age of the Petitioner No.3 is about 73 years. Considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served, if the sentences of the petitioners are modified to some extent. 24. Accordingly, the sentence of the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh is modified and reduced to Simple Imprisonment for six (06) months and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only and the sentence of the Petitioner No.3 namely, Basu Singh @ Basudeo is modified and reduced to the period already undergone in jail custody by him and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) only. The period already undergone in jail custody by the Petitioner No.1 shall be set off. If the fine amounts are not deposited within the time frame as indicated above, the petitioners would serve their respective sentences passed by the learned trial court. 25. The petitioners are directed to deposit the respective fine amounts before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. The learned trial court is directed to remit the fine amounts, so deposited by the petitioners, to the Complainant upon due identification. 26. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner no. 1 is cancelled. The learned trial court is directed to remit the fine amounts, so deposited by the petitioners, to the Complainant upon due identification. 26. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner no. 1 is cancelled. The petitioner no 3 would be discharged from his liability under the bail bond only upon deposit of the fine amount as indicated above. In case of non-deposit of the fine amount within the stipulated time frame, the bail bond of the petitioner number 3 will be cancelled by the learned court below. 27. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is upheld and their respective sentences are modified as indicated above. 28. With the aforesaid findings and modification in the sentences of the petitioners, this criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of. 29. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the learned court below is directed to take all steps to ensure that he serves the sentence imposed by the learned courts below as his case has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.01.2015 and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he did not surrender before the learned court below at the stage of revision. 30. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 31. The bail bond furnished by the Petitioner No.1 namely, Milan Singh is cancelled. 32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 33. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 34. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/E-mail”.