1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 1999 Pralhad s/o Sandu Doiphode, Aged 29 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Bhalgaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. P.F. Patani, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the Courts below convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default clause by the original accused No. 1 in R.C.C. No. 141 of 1991. The facts leading to this litigation are as under : 2. In 1988, the marriage of the applicant took place with the complainant. Some time prior to April, 1991, the complainant started making complaints of harassment etc. Ultimately, on 25th April, 1991, she lodged a complaint accusing the applicant and his parents of harassing her over demands of dowry etc, and offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the Chikhalthana Police Station. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other two accused. On 30th September, 1996, the learned Judicial 2 Magistrate, First Class, convicted the applicant and other two accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine. But, he sentenced the other two accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay certain fine. All the convicts preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1996, which was ultimately disposed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. He dismissed the appeal. As against this, the present applicant filed this Criminal Revision Application. The other two accused did not prefer any revision. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant fairly conceded that he would not challenge the legality and correctness of the finding that the applicant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but he suggested that the duration of sentence be reduced to the sentence, for the period the applicant has undergone. Shri. Patni, Advocate appearing for the applicant showed me the record that on 31st August, 1999, when the applicant’s appeal was dismissed, he was taken in custody and the High Court granted bail to him on 8th September, 1999, and thereafter, on 10th September, 1999, the applicant was released from the custody. 4. The question is, whether the period for which the applicant was in custody, was sufficient for mitigating the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant showed me from the record that even prior to the registration of the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and his parents, on 2nd March, 1991, the applicant and his wife / the complainant had settled their dispute and secured customary divorce from each other by executing a deed of divorce privately. It has also come on record that the deed of divorce was even registered. This clearly indicates that 3 the complainant voluntarily divorced the applicant. Such event would take place only if she has no grievance left against her husband. Despite of this, on 25th April, 1991, as said above, the complaint was lodged and the offence was registered. 5. The second reason, in support of Shri. Patni’s submissions, is that though the complaint was lodged in 1991, after eight long years the case got over when the appeal was dismissed and the applicant was sent in custody.. This long pendency of the criminal case, in the background mentioned above, must have taxed the applicant, both emotionally as well as financially. In view of these circumstances, I accept the suggestion of Shri. Patni that the revision can be allowed partly to reduce the duration of the substantive sentence. The revision is partly allowed. The duration of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month is reduced to the period for which the applicant already undergone. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) SRM/CRA/344/99/3910