IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.693 of 2011 1. SUBODH DAS SON OF NAND KESHWAR DAS 2. NAND KESHWAR DAS SON OF BULAKI DAS, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FATEHPUR,P.S. AKBARPUR, DIST. NAWADA. …PETIIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF KESHAR DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANDE RUKHI TOLA BAKHARI P.S. AKBARPUR, DIST NAWADA …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 21.06.2011 After hearing the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration only on the question of sentence. Hence RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage. The two petitioners herein are husband and father-in- law of the complainant (o.p.no.2). They were charged and tried under sections 498A, vide Trial No.202 of 2001 of the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Nawada. On a consideration of materials, they were held guilty under section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years thereunder. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred appeal being Cr. appeal No.53/01/35/05. Learned appellate court on a reconsideration of the evidence on record concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 marriage, as per the complaint, had taken place in the year 1993. About five years thereafter the compliant was lodged alleging mental and physical tortures at the hands of the accuseds for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. As many as six witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). Learned counsel submits that prosecution in the present case was lodged in the year 1997-98. The trial consumed more than three years. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for about eight years. For all these years, petitioner had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of the proceeding(s) which is a shade of punishment. Relying on Annexure-1, it is submitted that the complainant has since been married to some other person and is living in her Sasural. At the time of recording conviction, learned trial court assessed the age of petitioner no.2 as 50 years, whereas petitioner no.1 was assessed at 22 years of age. It is next contended that there is no murky past found and recorded against the petitioners as would appear from the trial court judgment. It is submitted that petitioners, thus, deserve lessor quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned judgment(s) submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts which have not been demonstrated as perverse and/or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears from the averments made in the memo of 3 revision as well as Annexure-1 that the complainant (o.p.no.2) has since been married to some other person and is living in her Sasural. It further appears that petitioners had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial at least for three years and thereafter the appeal remained pending for about eight years. Petitioners must have undergone several exasperating/excruciating circumstances having adverse bearings on their mental/economical condition(s). These are relevant considerations which have to be kept in focus while inflicting punishment. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction under section 498A IPC, as recorded by learned trial court and duly approved by learned lower appellate court, the sentence awarded on the petitioners are modified in the following terms: Petitioner no.1 shall undergo S.I. for one year. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain in tact. Petitioner no.2 shall undergo S.I. for eight months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, shall remain in tact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. If the fine is realized, the same shall be paid to the complainant (o.p.no.2). hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )