IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1536 of 2010 JANARDAN ROUT, SON OF LATE GANESH ROURT, RESIDENT OF VILAGE- DHARAMPUR SINDURIYA, POLICE STATION- RAMGARH, DISTRICT- DUMKA (JHARKHAND)……………….. .PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAXAMI DEVI, WIFE OF JANARDAN ROUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KATIYA, POLICE STATION- RAJOUN, DISTRICT- BANKA. Mr. Ajay Mukharjee Adv. For the petitioner Mr. Uday Pratap Singh (APP) for the State ----------- 2 02.12.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate court order/Judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed on Criminal Appeal No. 174/08, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed with modification in sentence. Petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P Act in complaint case no. 427/04/Tr. No. 619/08 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge (s). On a consideration of the evidence on record, learned Court below by judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 found him guilty under Section 498A IPC as also under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for three years and S.I. for six months with fine having default clause(s) respectively. Aggrieved by the said conviction, he preferred criminal appeal which was dismissed with modification in 2 sentence. Learned lower appellate Court on an appraisal of evidence on record found that charges under Section 498A IPC was based on evidence and as such the conviction thereunder was maintained. He was however, awarded lesser sentence of one year under Section 498A IPC. Learned trial court further found conviction under Section 4 of the DP Act sustainable but awarded no separate sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing of the present complaint, the petitioner had lodged a matrimonial suit and in retaliation whereof the present complaint was lodged. It is next contended that the petitioner has to support his old blind mother and 13 years old son. It is the stand of the petitioner that lesser quantum of sentence be awarded. Learned APP supported the two impugned judgments. It is submitted that the findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below cannot be said to the perverse. I have heard the party and perused on record. The petitioner was initially sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years which was subsequently reduced to S.I. for 01 year under Section 498A. It is also seen from the order and judgment that no separate sentence was inflicted on him under Section 4 of the D.P. 3 Act. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and have recorded findings of guilt against the petitioner. In my view, the order impugned does not require interference on merit. One aspect however, needs consideration. The petitioner had to fight the present litigation for about six years. At the time of conviction he was found about 38 years. It is the stand of the petitioner that he has to support his son who is fairly young. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in focus, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will serve the cause of justice. Consequently, while upholding the conviction, the sentence awarded under Section 498A IPC, is reduced to S.I. for 9 months. Other part(s) of sentence, if any, shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. Amredra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)