IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.876 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ramadhar Yadav R/O vill.- Pachpatra, P.S. Ravilganj, Dist. Saran. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deonath Yadav son of Late Mangal Yadav R/o vill. Sarkhel Par P.S. Daudpur, Dist. Saran ---- Informant/Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sinha No.3, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amarendra Kr. Sinha, APP For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar,Advocate. ----------- 02 24.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is husband, questions the legality of the appellate order dated 6th March 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal no. 64 of 2007, whereby the appeal so far as the petitioner is concerned has been dismissed with modification in sentence. Petitioner along with his other family members such as mother, father and brother were put on trial for an offence(s) punishable under Sections 498A/34, 323, 325 and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the trial six witnesses including, the victim were examined to substantiate the charges/allegations. The defence, however, did not examine any witness. On a consideration of the materials available on record, the learned trial Court found and held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges punishable under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, petitioner herein (husband) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 498A of the Penal Code 2 and a fine of Rs. five thousand with default clause was also imposed. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Petitioner along with other convicts preferred the aforesaid appeal. Learned appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence available on record, found and held that the evidence against other family members was/were frugal and/or deficient. Accordingly the mother, father and brother of the petitioner herein were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the Court found as under:- “….Accused Rajesh has re-married during the course of trial and now the evidence of victim and other P.W.s who are close relative were in position to look all the affairs regarding manner of the occurrence, resegaste and all the episode as such in absence of independent witnesses their evidence can not be brushed aside. The evidence of sole victim is sufficient that one accused Rajesh severely assaulted the victim and has made cruelty and due to fear and assault she left her Sasural…..” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses are interested. The law is settled that the Court has to examine an interested witness with due care and caution. Here is a case where both the Courts below has considered the evidence on record carefully and has come to a definite conclusion that the charge of cruelty and ouster at the hands of the present petitioner has been duly proved. There is no merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)