JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2003 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in G.R. Case No. 249 of 1999, T.R. No. 184 of 2003 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. case No. 09 of 1999 dated 11.02.1999 whereby, the learned trial court had held the petitioners guilty for the offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years to Md. Moin (petitioner no. 1), while R.I. of two years to Md. Nooruddin (petitioner no. 2), Kulsum Khatton (petitioner no. 3) and Md. Ainul and six months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the four accused persons and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass is that the marriage of informant Jakimun Nisha was solemnized with Md. Moin on 03.05.1994, according to Mohammadan Rites and Customs. After her marriage, the present petitioners started demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-along with motorcycle, but due to non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to torture and she was ousted from her in-law’s house on 07.10.1997. The villagers intervened and the informant was again sent to Sasural after agreement, but her mother-in-law mixed poison in her food and due to that, she became senseless and after getting her consciousness, she found herself at Maike. A Panchayati was called and convened in the Village, but the Panchayati was not helpful and husband of the informant Md. Moin went to Delhi and leave the informant in her Maike. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint petition before the court of C.J.M., which has been sent to police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. Thereafter, the present First Information Report was lodged. 4. Moin went to Delhi and leave the informant in her Maike. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint petition before the court of C.J.M., which has been sent to police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. Thereafter, the present First Information Report was lodged. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted and held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as aforesaid. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner has preferred Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2003 and the same was dismissed on 05.02.2016, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with the informant in the year 1994 and now 30 years has been elapsed, but unfortunately, the marriage between the parties has miserably failed. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the informant and at present he is aged about 46 years, petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the informant and at present, he is aged about 71 years and petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the informant and at present, she is aged about 66 years. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that there was demand of dowry including cash of Rs. 20,000/-and motorcycle and also of administering her poison, but the informant has not disclosed the first date of demand of dowry and the date on which she was administered poison. She has not taken the name of the person who has administered poison in her food. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the alleged poisoning. The petitioner no. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and petitioner nos. She has not taken the name of the person who has administered poison in her food. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence in support of the alleged poisoning. The petitioner no. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and six months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and out of the aforesaid substantive imprisonment, the petitioner no. 1 has already undergone 01 Year & 41 days and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 have already undergone 02 Months & 11 days in custody during trial and during pendency of appeal and revision. There is no chance of rehabilitation or restitution of conjugal life between the parties. Further imprisonment of the petitioners would yield no fruitful purpose as a measure of deterrence. Therefore, taking the circumstances of the petitioners and the informant, who has also settled at her parental home, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to award the petitioners substantive imprisonment already undergone by them instead of sentence awarded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioners have been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced adequately. Petitioner no. 1, who is the husband of the informant has subjected the informant to cruelty and even after convening Panchayat several times, he did not mend himself, but attempted to kill the informant by administering poisonous substance, who is suffering for her own misfortune. Therefore, petitioners do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence 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 and it appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The finding of fact of the court 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 petitioners is concerned admittedly petitioner no. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and six months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner no. 1 has already undergone imprisonment of 01 Year & 41 days and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 have already undergone imprisonment of 02 Months & 11 days in custody during trial and pendency of appeal and revision. 11. It appears that the alleged occurrence was of the year 1994 and approximately 30 years has been passed from the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have sustained agony of trial for the aforesaid period and also served sentence for some time. 12. Under the aforementioned circumstances, in the interest of justice, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners appear to be sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them, as more than 30 years have elapsed and it will amount to travesty to justice to the petitioners to send jail custody to serve the remaining part of the sentences. 13. In view of above discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed on merits, but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above i.e. petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone. 14. Petitioners are on bail, as such, they shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 15. Let the copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith.