JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and other co-convicts have been acquitted. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 10.06.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad passed in C.P. Case No. 1369 of 2010 and was held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. 3. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this revision is that complainant Gyatri Devi was married with present petitioner Jitendra Sao on 16.08.2008. After marriage complainant came to her matrimonial home, where additional demand of dowry was raised in the shape of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle, due to non-fulfillment of which by the parents of the complainant, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by not supplying her proper food, cloths, medicines and torturing and tormenting regularly. It is alleged that prior to marriage, the father of the complainant transferred a big chunk of land of 95 ½ decimals in the name of complainant through the registered sale deed. When the accused persons came to know about the said property in the name of complainant, her husband started putting pressure to get the land transferred in his favour. It is also alleged that present petitioner was habitual drunker and frequently used to assault the complainant with fist, slaps and legs. She was ousted from matrimonial home, but later on an agreement was entered into between the parties on 08.02.2010, wherein the husband (petitioner) undertake not to torture the complainant in future and keep her quite well, but their demand and torture against the complainant did not stop rather increased, then matter was reported to police, but no action has been taken, hence this complaint case was lodged. 4. Before the trial court, apart from present petitioner, five other accused persons, who were and in-laws relative of the complainant have been tried and present petitioner, mother and father of the petitioner were held guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. 5. 4. Before the trial court, apart from present petitioner, five other accused persons, who were and in-laws relative of the complainant have been tried and present petitioner, mother and father of the petitioner were held guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2015 was preferred by all the six convicted persons which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, who after reappraising the evidence partly allowed the appeal and found the present petitioner guilty alone for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and rest convicts were extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges under Section 498A of the I.P.C. 6. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgments of learned trial court and appellate court on the following grounds:- (i) Admittedly the marriage was solemnized on 18.06.2009 and it is admitted by complainant herself that she along with her husband left the matrimonial home just after six months of the marriage and thereafter present petitioner started residing at the parental house of the complainant stayed there for 1½ years. This complaint case was lodged on 29.07.2010 when the petitioner returned from the parental house of the complainant, the full co-operation run in the aforesaid period, as no complaint or any factum of dispute ever took place or made anyway by the complainant or her parents. Since the petitioner did not choose to remain to any further as ghar jamai at his Sasural, this false case has been lodged against him as a pressure tactics. (ii) It is admitted by prosecution that the marriage of the complainant and the petitioner was solemnized in a temple as such demand and present of any kind as alleged does not arise. (iii) It is also admitted fact by the complainant herself that from the month of June, 2008 to November, 2008 she stayed at her parental house till the lodging of this case. Therefore, there was no occasion of any demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle or torturing the complainant as alleged. (iv) It is also admitted that upon refusal of the petitioner to stay at his Sasural along with complainant the difference and dispute arose and this case was lodged. Therefore, there was no occasion of any demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing motorcycle or torturing the complainant as alleged. (iv) It is also admitted that upon refusal of the petitioner to stay at his Sasural along with complainant the difference and dispute arose and this case was lodged. (v) The learned court below has failed to consider the evidence of P.W.-1, which elaborately explains that how the marriage was solemnized with a condition that petitioner shall remain as ghar jamai, but he was ill-treated at his Sasural then asking his wife to accompany him at her matrimonial home, which she flatly denied and falsely prosecuted the petitioner. (vi) The trial court as well as the appellate court has ignored the very crucial facts and circumstances of the case, which if taken into account, no offence under Section 498A of the IPC is constituted in this case. 7. In alternative, it has been prayed that the complainant has been reported to have been died about five years ago. The petitioner has also undergone imprisonment for some period in this case during pendency of the trial and appeal and has been sufficiently punished. Hence, petitioner may be released to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone instead of going further remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor have raised no objection as regard to aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that on merits, the revision is fit to be dismissed, but so far modification in sentence is concerned, in the factual aspect of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court. The finding of the courts below appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 10. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of three years rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of six months during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and revision. 11. It appears that the occurrence is of the year 2010 and about 14 years has been elapsed. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, admittedly out of three years rigorous imprisonment, he has sustained substantial part of the imprisonment to the extent of six months during course of trial and during pendency of the appeal and revision. 11. It appears that the occurrence is of the year 2010 and about 14 years has been elapsed. The petitioner has sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also remained in custody for about six months. 12. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone appears to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 13. In view of discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioner is sentenced to go imprisonment for the period already undergone. 14. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful.