IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1183 of 2011 Deban Mandal, son of Sukhdeo Mandal, resident of village- Pashchim Purkarsoda, P.S.-Ajam Nagar, District- Katihar. ….Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 20.09.2011 The accused appellant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Katihar in Criminal Appeal No.26/06 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.03.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.2013/98, Trial No.282/06 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of at the time of admission itself. The learned A.P.P. for the State has got no objection. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Bulo Devi @ Bhumeshwari Devi was married. After one year of her marriage, she went to her Sasural where she was treated as a maidservant by the accused including the petitioner and she was tortured. As such, she could not live 2 there for more than a month, and came back to the house of her parents where she learnt from various sources that her husband (petitioner) has developed immoral relationship with a girl and during the period of her residing at her parental house, her husband never came to see her. After remaining at her father’s house for about six months, the complainant again went to her Sasural at her own accord with her father where she again received very cold treatment both from her husband and in-laws and her husband did not lead conjugal life with the complainant. A complaint was filed for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against five accused including the petitioner in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. After inquiry, cognizance was taken. After the trial, the accused including the petitioner were convicted under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.03.2006. Thereafter, the accused including the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No.26/06 before the learned Sessions Judge. After hearing the appeal, the conviction and sentence of the other accused have been set aside and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner has 3 been confirmed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and out of which, the petitioner has already remained in custody for about one and half years. He further submits that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. He further submits that the victim complainant has got married with another person and living with him peacefully. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The complaint case is of the year 1998 and almost 12 years have passed. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony and has also served the sentence for one and half years. The sentence requires to be modified. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is fit case in which the order of sentence should 4 be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. With this modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Let this order be communicated to the learned trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)