IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.945 of 2011 Shakeel Ahmad @ Shakil Ahmad, son of Zameel Ahmad, resident of vill. Sabuni, P.S. Ramnagar, Distt. West Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sabana Khatoon, D/o Md. Idrish Mishri village- Narainapur, P.S. + P.O. Ram Nagar, District- West Champaran. .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 22.11.2011 I. A. No. 1662 of 2011 at Flag ‘A’ has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this revision application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Even after service of notice, opposite party no. 2 has not appeared. It appears that sufficient ground has been given in the petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. This interlocutory application stands allowed. The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha in Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 2007 by which judgment and 2 order of conviction dated 30.4.2007 passed by the learned SDJM, Bagaha in complaint Case No. 42-C/2000, Trial No. 84 of 2007 has been confirmed and the sentence has been modified. The prosecution case, in brief, is that opposite party no. 2 Sabana Khatoon was married to the petitioner and she filed a complaint petition on 26.1.2000 against the accused for the offence committed between 20.6.1992 to 6.7.1997. She was married on 19.6.1992 according to Muslim custom. After marriage she has gone to her sasural where the husband and members of his family tortured her and demanded cash and motor-cycle. For the fulfillment of the demand she was tortured by them. In the meantime, a female child was born. After the trial the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 498 A and in default of payment of fine, further one month rigorous imprisonment and the other accused were acquitted vide order 30.4.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 2007 which has been dismissed with modification in the sentence. The sentence was reduced to 3 simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 498 A I.P.C. and in case of non-payment of fine, further imprisonment for 15 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the prosecution case itself the occurrence has taken place between 20.6.1992 to 6.7.1997. More than 14 years have passed and the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also been in custody for more than five months before conviction and after conviction. He has further submitted the notices were issued to opposite party no. 2. From the service report of opposite party no. 2 it appears that she has been married to another man 4-5 years ago and she has been leading conjugal life with her husband and she lives at Delhi and her father refused to give her address. The petitioner has also performed another marriage after divorce from his first wife- opposite party no. 2. In these circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner requires modification. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner and he has fairly submitted that since the 4 petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have already married to another woman and man respectively, leniency in the sentence may be taken. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the order passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It also appears from the service report of opposite party no. 2 that her father has reported that opposite party no. 2 has already married to another man 4-5 years ago and she lives at Delhi but he refused to divulge the address. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence can be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. In the result, this application is dismissed with modification in the sentence to the aforesaid extent. Let a copy of this order be given to 5 learned SDJM, Bagaha in Complaint Case No. 42- C/2000, Trial No. 84 of 2007 through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)