IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1085 of 2010 PRABHU DAYAL @ PRABHU DAYAL YADAV S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 26.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of 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 is the brother of the prospective groom of the daughter of the complainant. It is alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was settled with the brother of the petitioner. In the meanwhile the groom (brother of the petitioner) became a Government servant. The allegation is that they demanded enhanced dowry. As a result whereof, the marriage could not be performed. This all happened in 1994-95. The complaint was lodged on 01.11.1995. Petitioner herein was therefore charged under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with prospective groom and his father. At the trial, prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. This is what learned trial Court has observed in paragraph no.18:- “18. On the ultimate analysis of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record as discussed above I find that prosecution examined altogether 6 witnesses and thereafter court also called two witnesses as court witness and I find there is cohesion and consistency in the evidence of witnesses regarding the prosecution case about the 2 charge of sec. 4 of D.P. Act leveled against the accused persons. I find no material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. I further find that Sec. 8A of D.P. Act shows accused persons are saddled with the burden of proof in case of prosecution for the demand of dowry that he has not committed offence under the said sec. but here accused persons have been miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving that they have not committed the offence u/s 4 of D.P. Act.” Appeal of the petitioner being Cr. Appeal no. 108 of 2005 failed. Lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal after having found that there was no infirmity in the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence in the present case had taken place in 1994-95. Trial remained pending for about more than 13 years. For all these years the petitioner had to undergo excruciating circumstances in contesting the litigation. It is the contention of the petitioner that fighting a criminal litigation for such a long time and thereby reel under the threat of being punished is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while imposing sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the two judgments impugned. It is contended that the findings of guilt recorded by trial Court and affirmed by lower appellate Court do not suffer from any patent illegality meriting interference. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that following sentence(s) shall sub serve the cause of justice in the present case:- The petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 3 months and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default whereof to undergo further period of R.I. for 01 month. With this modification in sentence(s) only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)