IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.543 of 2002 [Against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2002 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 215 of 1999] ======================================================= 1. Rekha Sah w/o Naresh Shah, resident of 601(A),Raj Bhawan, Lokmanas Tilak Road, (West) P.S. Borivali, Bombay. 2. Jaisree Doshi w/o Narendra Doshi, resident of 508 Chandralok ‘B’ Manas Mandir Road, P.S. Balkeshwar, Bombay. 3. Rama Ben w/o Fatehchand Talakchand Karodia. 4. Fatehchand Talakchand Karodia @ Fatehchand Karodia, son of Talakchand Karodia. 5. Pankaj Fatehchand Karodia son of Fatehchand Talakchand Karodia. Nos. 3 to 5 resident of 203, Sri Apartment, Firoz Shah Street, Next to Acharat Bag, Santacruz West P.S. Santacruz West Bombay. .... Accused.... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Usha Pankaj w/o Pankaj Fatehchand Karodia, residing in Mohalla Nageshwar Colony, Bakerganj, P.S. Pirbahore, Dist. Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Nagendra Kumar Roy, adv. :Mr. Brajesh Ranjan, Adv. For the O.Party No.2 :Mr. Arvind Sarat, Adv. For the State :Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no. 4 Fatehchand Talakchand Karodia @ Fatehchand Karodia died on 10.7.2007 and a copy of death certificate granted by the Municipal Corporation of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2002 dt.23-11-2011 2 Greater Mumbai has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not controvert the contention of the petitioner. 3. Let the name of petitioner no. 4 be deleted. 4. The accused- petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2002 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 215 of 1999 by which the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.8.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 246(C) of 1990, Trial No. 167 of 1999 by which they have been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under Section 498 A and have been acquitted under Section 120 B I.P.C., has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 5. Complaint Case No. 246 (C) of 1990 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by opposite party no. 2 making the allegation of demand of dowry and torture by the accused- petitioners. After enquiry accused were summoned. After framing Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2002 dt.23-11-2011 3 of charge under Section 498 A, 406 and 120 B I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act they were tried. After trial, offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. only was proved against the accused- petitioners and they were convicted to simple imprisonment for one year under Section 498 A I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 12.8.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. Thereafter, they preferred Cr. Appeal No. 215 of 1999 against that order. After hearing both the parties the appeal has been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged occurrence has taken place between 15.2.1989 to 30.3.1990. More than 21 years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. They have also remained in custody for a month before and after the conviction. There has also been divorce between both the parties and the amount of maintenance is also being given to the complaint opposite party no. 2 by the accused petitioner no. 5 Pankaj. The petitioners have Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2002 dt.23-11-2011 4 no criminal antecedent and the petitioners should be given the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the State as well as of the opp. Party no. 2 could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner but has submitted that the petitioners have committed the offence against opposite party no. 2 who is the wife of petitioner no. 5 and a member of another family and she has been tortured by the petitioners as such the benefit under Section 360 or the Probation of Offenders Act should not be given. 8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The petitioners have been suffering from mental agony for more than 21 years. The learned trial court has found that the petitioner no. 4 was aged about 73 years who died during the pendency of this revision application. The petitioner Ram Ben is aged about more than 85 years and other petitioners are also more than 65 years. It Patna High Court CR. REV. No.543 of 2002 dt.23-11-2011 5 has been found that the petitioners have also remained in custody for some time. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioners deserves to be modified. It is not proper now to send the petitioners to custody after a lapse of 21 years of the occurrence. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and also a fine of Rs.1000/- each. The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- each in the Nazarat Civil Court, Patna by 14th of January 2012, failing which the sentence passed the learned trial court will revive and they would be taken into custody for serving out the sentence. 10. If the aforesaid amount is realized, it will be payable to opposite party no. 2 Usha Pankaj, the victim and complainant of the occurrence. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 23rd of November 2011 N.A.F.R/Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)