IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.335 of 2011 MADAN MOHAN PASWAN . --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. USHA KIRAN --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the informant/opposite party no.2. Petitioner is raising a grievance with regard to the judgment and order dated 18.02.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Katihar on his appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 25 of 2008 whereby the same was considered and dismissed. In other words, the judgment and order of conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 494 of the Penal Code by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Tr. No 1258 of 2008 has been affirmed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the factum of marriage with the complainant/opposite party no.2 has not been proved. In this connection, he has referred to paragraph no. 13 of the appellate Court’s judgment to show that various documents were referred to and relied upon to substantiate that the complainant was married with the petitioner. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the second marriage with one Mina Devi only on the strength of these documents/orders. It is submitted that admission, if any, of the second wife of the petitioner which was relied upon by the Courts below will not absolve the prosecution of proving the factum of second marriage with Mina Devi. Reliance in 2 this regard has been placed on following judgments:- 1. AIR 1971 SC 1153 (Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh) 2. AIR 1965 SC 1564 ( Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtrar & Anr.) Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that oral evidence was led besides exhibiting host of documents which conclusively demonstrate/prove that the complainant/opposite party no.2 was married to the petitioner and subsequently she was ousted and the petitioner re-married with one Mina Kumari. On a close perusal of the trial Court’s judgment, it appears that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in the shape of the complainant and his father. In order to come at a just conclusion the trial Court summoned aforesaid Mina Devi/kumari as a Court witness. The marriage certificate (Exhibit 1) was also filed. The complainant and her father consistently supported the case made out in the complaint. The said witnesses summoned at the instance of the Court in her deposition stated that she was legally married to the petitioner after performing all the ceremonies/rituals of marriage. Said witness was not even cross-examined by the petitioner. This factum would appear from para 12 of the trial Court’s judgment. This Court, therefore, does not find any manifest error in the consideration of the matter by the two Courts below. At this stage, it is submitted that according to the prosecution, the petitioner had re-married in the year 1988 whereas the 3 prosecution was launched in the year 2000. Thereafter the trial consumed more than 08 years. Fighting a criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner deserves a lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 opposed the same. This much is evident that for 08 years the petitioner had to undergo the rigours of trial. Fighting litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting the sentence for the proven charge(s). Consequently, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstance of the case, would sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by lower appellate Court the sentence imposed on petitioner under Section 494 of the Penal Code is reduced to S.I. for 01 year and 06 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, imposed by lower appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal , J)