IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.556 of 2011 BINOD PURBEY SON OF LATE JUGESHWAR PURBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHERWA, P.S. RUNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI …….PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ……..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 02. 10.05.2011 Rule confined to question to sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein was put on trial vide T.R. No. 616 of 2003 for the charge(s) punishable under sections 498A, 379 and 323 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Two witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents to prove the charge(s). The victim was examined as court witness (C.W-1). On a consideration of the matter, learned trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 498A IPC & 4 D.P. Act and sentenced to under go R.I. for 02 years with fine having default clause and R.I. for 06 months respectively. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.01.2003. The petitioner preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2003. Learned appellate court reappraised the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner. Conviction of petitioner recorded by the trial court was affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the prosecution case victim was married to petitioner while she was aged about 16 years. It is the 2 prosecution case that she was ousted only after 02/03 months of marriage from her matrimonial home. This all happened in 1993. Complaint was lodged two months thereafter which was treated as an F.I.R. in the year 1996 leading to filing of charge-sheet giving rise to trial. It is thus submitted that the petitioner deserves lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the court below, which cannot be said to be perverse and/or illegal. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that trial court consumed more than 07 years in concluding the trial. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as during this period the litigant has to suffer the rigorous/ordeal of trial and to face several excruciating circumstances having telling effects on the economical as well as mental condition of the litigant. It further appears from the appellate court judgment that the victim has since been married with some other persons. Considering these aspects of the matter, this court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial court and duly affirmed by the lower appellate court the sentence awarded under Section 498A I.P.C. is reduced to R.I. to one and half 3 years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, shall remain intact. With this modification is sentence only, the application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)