JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2006 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in PCR No. 118 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A/323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 500/- each and also sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with default stipulation and the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld and confirmed the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the complainant Nasima Khatoon was married with the petitioner no. 1 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs about four years ago (approx. in the year 1998-99) on fixed den mehar of Rs. 5,051/- which was in the deferred form. It is alleged that as per capacity, the parents of the complainant had presented some articles as mentioned in the Schedule to the complaint and she went to her matrimonial home and started discharging her matrimonial obligations. It is further alleged that about 2 ½ years everything was quite well. Thereafter, all accused persons started raising demand of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a milching cow from the father of the complainant, which could not be fulfilled, then all the accused persons/petitioners started assaulting the complainant and also tried to terminate her pregnancy, but she gave birth to a female child, who died on 05.11.2002 due to negligence in medical treatment and the accused persons drove her away from the matrimonial home on the same date. All the efforts were made to settle the matter /disputes, but went in vain. It is further alleged that on 06.05.2003, all the accused persons came to the parental home of the complainant and insisted upon the said demand in a threatening manner, otherwise her husband would perform second marriage with another girl within 10 days. All the efforts were made to settle the matter /disputes, but went in vain. It is further alleged that on 06.05.2003, all the accused persons came to the parental home of the complainant and insisted upon the said demand in a threatening manner, otherwise her husband would perform second marriage with another girl within 10 days. The complainant also went to lodge FIR at the concerned police station, but was advised to lodge case before the Court. Accordingly, the complaint case was lodged on 09.05.2003. 4. After enquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. all the petitioners were summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. All the accused persons/petitioners appeared and denied the allegations/charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 5. In course of trial, on behalf of complainant three witnesses were examined including herself. The case of defence was denial from the allegations and false implication. One witness namely, Yasin Mian D.W.-1 was examined by defence and also some documentary evidences were adduced marked as Exhibits - A, B, C & D. 6. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the concerned trial court, which has been affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court and assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have challenged the impugned judgments mainly on following grounds:- (i) The learned trial court without considering the facts and circumstances, materials available on record, held the petitioners guilty by terms of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which suffers from perversity in the sense that even if the entire allegation is taken to be correct on their face value, the ingredients of offence under Sections 498A and 323 I.P.C. are absolutely lacking in this case, as defined under the statute. (ii) The trial court as well as appellate court have miserably erred to take into consideration the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence adduced in this case and the probable factor of its truthfulness and arrived at erroneous finding. (iii) The learned appellate court has absolutely failed in discharge its duty as a court of facts having dominion over the case as a trial court and was duty bound to appreciate and evaluate particularly value of testimony of witnesses in examined in this case. (iii) The learned appellate court has absolutely failed in discharge its duty as a court of facts having dominion over the case as a trial court and was duty bound to appreciate and evaluate particularly value of testimony of witnesses in examined in this case. (iv) Admittedly, as per complainant, there was demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a milching cow and due to non-fulfillment of which she was driven away from the matrimonial home and the death of a baby child during pregnancy is attributed towards medical negligence and not against this petitioner. (v) It is settled law that for invoking offence under Section 498A I.P.C. there must be specific allegations constitute offence. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. either in the purview of Explanation (a) or (b) appended to Section 498A I.P.C. (vi) That the chain of events have been described in two parts, 1st part of the offence has been alleged to have been happened at the matrimonial home and the second limb of offence is concerned to have occurred at the parental home of the complainant, but none of the incident have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, rather in a mechanical manner, the petitioners were held guilty by the trial court and sentenced illegally and in the same manner, the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and order of learned trial court. (vii) The petitioners are very unfortunate sufferers of the matrimonial crime, which is panel in nature just a tool of oppression and this case is flagrant misuse of a case under Section 498A I.P.C. roping all the family members without any reasonable cause. Therefore, it is fit case where interference of this Court is required. 8. In alternative, if this Court finds any doubt in the acquittal of the petitioners, they may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and may be released on Probation Bond, as it is their first offence and they were not having any previous conviction and having no criminal background. They are escape goat of the circumstances and failure of matrimonial ties has already ruined their life and they have no more capacity to sustain further. 9. They are escape goat of the circumstances and failure of matrimonial ties has already ruined their life and they have no more capacity to sustain further. 9. Learned APP assisted by learned Amicus Curiae have vehemently opposed the aforesaid arguments and points raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that there are consistent testimony of three witnesses examined by complainant including herself, who is sufferer of the crime and rightly believed by the learned trial as well as appellate court. The petitioners in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have simply denied the allegations and pleaded their innocence. D.W.-1 Yasin Mian, who has stated that due to some matrimonial dispute, a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was also initiated between Jahangir Mian and Saffique Mian. D.W.-1 also cross-examined by the accused persons, but cannot bring any material about any defence of the accused persons/petitioners. 10. It is a case where petitioners are incarcerated hardly for two months during trial and pendency of the appeal and they have been held guilty for a serious offence with a married woman willfully causing her physical and matrimonial torture due to non-fulfillment of their illegal demand. Hence, they do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence also and not entitled for extending the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, as such, this revision has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP appearing for the State and learned Amicus Curiae for opposite party no. 2 and also given anxious consideration to the over all aspects of the case as discussed above in the light of submissions raised on behalf of both sides. 12. From perusal of order sheet dated 20.01.2016 of this case, it transpires that the impugned judgment and orders are not assailed on the point of legality of conviction of the petitioners, but confined to the point of sentence. Accordingly, admitted for hearing subject to provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 13. The factual matrix as brought on record clearly shows that the case was instituted after expiry of 4-5 years of marriage between parties. Accordingly, admitted for hearing subject to provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 13. The factual matrix as brought on record clearly shows that the case was instituted after expiry of 4-5 years of marriage between parties. There was domestic dispute of ordinary nature between the accused persons and the informant while she was residing at her matrimonial home and in order to meet out the circumstances, the petitioner take over to keep his wife separately in a rented house of one Safique Ansari in the same village, but a different type of dispute took place suspecting character of informant and the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was undergone between present petitioner (husband of the informant) and the said Safique Ansari. In the above state of affairs, the informant conceived, but admittedly due to medical negligence her female child cannot be saved and she returned to her parental home. It further transpires that both parties could not assimilate their temperament with each other and their relationship could not be restored as normal till the end of the proceedings. Now the victim has also settled her life in her own ways. 14. Since the initiation of the proceedings of this case 19 years have been passed and inspite of service of notice, the prosecutrix/complainant did not turn up to contest this case and she has been represented by Amicus Curiae. Therefore, considering the nature of demand, which was simply alleged to be Rs. 20,000/- and a milching cow and no positive material showing any ill-treatment with the victim, all the family members have been roped in this case and have been convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of two years. 15. Considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, nature of offence committed by the accused persons, their character and antecedents, I feel that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in not considering the extension of benefit of provision of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioners instead of awarding substantive substance of imprisonment. It is a fit case where such benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioners. 16. It is a fit case where such benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioners. 16. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of instant undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, the petitioners are directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court with a condition to maintain peace and be of good behavior till one year and put under supervision of concerned Probation Officer of the district. 17. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the petitioners shall be called upon to undergo substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the trial court. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.