IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1251 of 2010 1. RUBI DEVI 2. GITA DEVI …PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner :Mr.Arbind Kr. Singh For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP For the informant :Mr.S.M.Ashraf ----------- 02. 20.09.2010 Learned counsel for the parties. The two petitioners are married Nanads of the informant. They faced the trial and ultimately convicted under section 498A, 323 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution in order to prove the charge(s) examined four witnesses besides bringing on record certain documents including letters written by the informant to her father (Exts. 1 to 1/6). On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court found by judgment and order dated 17th August, 2009, passed in T.R.No.858/09 that prosecution was able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Petitioners along with other convicts preferred Cr. Appeal No. 86/09. Learned lower appellate court (Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II Munger) re-scanned the evidence on record and by judgment and order dated 19.06.2010, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court. Let it be recorded that petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine under section 498A IPC having default clause. They were also held guilty under sections 323 IPC and section 4 of the D.P. Act and 2 sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and R.I. for two months with fine having default clause respectively. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order submits that diverse allegations have been set out in letters (exts. 1 to 1/6) written by the informant (Rubi Devi). It is contended that on the strength of aforesaid letters it would appear that there is only one allegation that these two married Nanads instigated other accused persons for commission of atrocities on the informant because of the reasons that her father was unable to meet the demand of dowry and that she was unable to produce any child. It is next contended that two petitioners were found aged about 28 years and 45 years respectively at the time of conviction. They had to fight present criminal litigation for about five years. It is next contended that considering their age and the materials on record, the sentence(s) awarded on them is/are excessive. Learned counsel for the State as well as the informant supported the impugned orders. It is contended that the submissions made on behalf of petitioners were duly considered by learned lower appellate court as would appear from paragraphs 24 to 29 of the appellate order. It is submitted that learned lower appellate court has re-scanned the evidence on record and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the finding of guilt recorded against them did not warrant any interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused two impugned orders. Learned 3 lower appellate court has re-appraised the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that finding of guilt recorded by learned trial court did not merit interference as no illegality was found therein. This Court is also unable to find any illegality in the consideration of the matter by both the courts below. The findings, therefore, recorded against the petitioners by two courts below do not warrant any interference. One aspect of the matter, however, needs consideration. Petitioners are married Nanads. They are young ladies. Materials on record suggest that they were instigating other accused persons for torturing the informant. For these allegations, they had to fight criminal litigation for about five years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long period of time and thereby undergoing the ordeal of trial is a shade of punishment which is to be kept in mind while sentencing the accused(s) for the proven charge(s). This Court on a consideration of materials on record and after going through two impugned orders is satisfied that a lessor sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the order of conviction, the petitioners herein are sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight months under section 498A IPC, besides imposition of fine as ordered under the impugned order. It is made clear that other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence so awarded by learned trial court and affirmed by learned lower appellate court shall remain untouched/unaltered. 4 With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )