IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.752 of 2009 SRIMAN NARAYAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7 12.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. In brief, there is allegation that for several years after marriage, there was no Bidai of the informant, on request that could be possible only after giving of a she-buffalo that could pacify after making all attempts by the informant’s side. Thereafter again demand of cash was made by the in-laws which could not be fulfilled and lastly the informant was ousted by the in-laws including the petitioner. In all five witnesses namely P.W.1 Rameshwar Singh, P.W.2 Guli Devi, P.W.3 Murlidhar Singh, P.W.4 informant Suli Devi and P.W.5 Sri Krishna Pathak, I.O. of the case, were examined in the case on behalf of prosecution. Exhibit-1 is formal FIR of the case. On behalf of defence, three witnesses are examined and they are Ram Shankar Singh (D.W.1), Shashilal (D.W.2) - 2 - and Sunil Kumar Dubey (D.W.3). Exhibits-A, B, C, D and E are notice through advocate, memorandum of partition, original complaint petition, formal FIR of Buxar Mufassil P.S.Case No. 151/04 and Complaint petition no. 117/99. Accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and after considering all the materials on record and after hearing the parties, the case was resulted into conviction which was affirmed by the appellate court. Though several infirmities are shown in concluding the trial as well as appeal but at the end learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument on the point of sentence awarded by the trial court only. On this point, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation against all accused persons for offence under sections 323, 325 and 341 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is disbelieved and this petitioner has only been convicted for the offence under section 498A IPC. In that - 3 - case also the petitioner remained in custody from 21.6.1999 to 13.8.1999 and from 24.4.2009 till today, which, in view of learned counsel for the petitioner, is sufficient towards sentence, though that is opposed on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the informant but taking into consideration the circumstances discussed by both the courts below that the informant is residing with her parents, the period of custody of the petitioner already undergone by him appears sufficient. With such modification in sentence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court dated 17.5.2007 in T.R.No.241/07 as well as by the appellate court dated 28.2.2009 in Criminal Appeal no. 33/07 are affirmed. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. The above named petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from custody in Trial no. 241/07, G.R.No. 303/99 arising out of Buxar (M) P.S.Case No. 46/99, if not required in any other case. - 4 - Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner to the court of Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in T.R.No.241/07, G.R.No.303/1999. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI