IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1414 of 2011 Shamsujoha @ Md. Shamsujoha S/O Late Md. Daud, Resident of Village- Bargarwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. …….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 22.11.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.21/2011, which was heard alongwith Cr. Appeal No.05/2011 by which the judgment and order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Trial No.1609/2010 arising out of G.R.No.1576/2008 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of complaitn petition filed by one Jannati Khatoon, who is legally wedded wife of Md. Shamsujoha. It has been alleged by the complainant that her marriage was solemnized with accused petitioner according to the Muslim customs and rites before 10 years on the date of filing of complaint petition. She went at her Sasural and started residing matrimonial life. At the time of her marriage, her parents has given Rs.30,000/- and other 2 household articles and other materials to the accused person and the amount of Mehar was fixed in her marriage Rs.10,786/-. It is alleged that accused persons, after some time started demanding dowry Rs.40,000/- and a Hero Honda Motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of said demand, above named accused persons always subjected her to cruelty and she was subjected to mental land physical torture. It is alleged that after the death of her father-in-law, accused persons stopped giving food to her and always assaulting her. The brother of the complainant has given Rs.10,000/- to them but in spite of that, accused persons on 5.07.2008 assaulted her with Khanti and after pouring K.oil, they wanted to kill her but anyhow, complainant was saved. Then after taking her two children, accused persons dragged her from the house, and then she came back to the house of her parents. It is further alleged that on 6.07.2008, her father and brother went to her Sasural land a Panchayati was held but no result. Then this case has been filed by her before the learned C.J.M, Sitamarhi. The complaint petition was forwarded to the police station concerned and accordingly Dumra P.S. Case No.190/2008 was lodged against all the five accused 3 persons. Charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, all the accused including the petitioner were convicted and sentenced to S.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.5000/-each under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, six months S.I. and S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/-each under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused Tabassum Khatoon was acquitted from the charges levelled against her. The petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.21/2011 and other accused preferred Cr. Appeal No.5/2011. Both the appeals have been heard together and Cr. Appeal No.5/2011 filed on behalf of other accused has been allowed and Cr. Appeal No.21/2011 was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the informant. He has remained in custody for more than one year and eight months, whereas, he has been sentenced to S.I. for 2 years and fine under Section 498A and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and both the sentences to run concurrently. The other accused have been acquitted 4 by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears from the Memo No.1679 dated 16.11.2011 issued by the Jail Superintendent, Sitamarhi that the petitioner had been in custody from 28.04.2009 to 22.07.2009 and again he has been in custody since 28.05.2010. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the sentence of the petitioner should be modified/reduced. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this application is dismissed. 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.)