IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1328 of 2010 1. MOSMAT JASMATI DEVI W/O LATE BACHHU MAHTON 2. SUNIL KUMAR @ TIPPU SULTAN S/O LATE BACHHU MAHTON -- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR -- OPP. PARTY For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 20.09.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally heard and disposed of at this stage itself. The two petitioners are the mother and son. They are mother-in-law and husband of the complainant/informant. They along with others were charged for having committed offence(s) punishable under Section 498A of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the trial, in all 07 prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s) besides bringing on record certain documents as exhibits. The defence also adduced few witnesses. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found that the petitioners and others were guilty of having committed offence(s) punishable under Section 498A of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly petitioner no.1,namely, Mosmat Jasmati Devi was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 years besides imposition of fine under Section 498A of the Penal Code. She was also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 year besides imposition of fine under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Similarly petitioner no.2, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Tippu Sultan was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years besides imposition of fine under Section 498A of the Penal Code. He 2 was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months besides imposition of fine under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The imposition of fine recorded against them had the default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2006 passed in Tr. No. 494 of 2006, petitioners herein and other co-convicts preferred Cr. Appeal no. 35 of 2006 of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Nalanda, Biharsharif. Learned lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence on record and by a judgment and order dated 26.04.2010 partly allowed the same. So far as the petitioners are concerned the conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court was affirmed. While assailing the impugned judgment(s), learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1998-99. As per the allegation the complainant/informant was ousted from the matrimonial home on 20.08.99. Initially the complaint was lodged on 24.08.99 which was subsequently treated as an F.I.R. which gave rise to the order taking cognizance and hence the trial. It is the contention that petitioners had to undergo the rigours/agony of trial for about more than 06 years. It is next contended that at the time of recording conviction petitioner no.1 was found aged about 65 years whereas petitioner no.2 was found aged about 28 years. Learned trial Court has found and recorded that there is/was no past conviction recorded against any of them. It is stated that considering the nature of evidence available on record, the age of the petitioners and their past antecedent, learned trial Court ought to have released the petitioners in terms of Sections 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Trial Court has committed an error in not considering that aspect of the matter. Learned counsel submits that the sentence recorded by trial 3 Court and duly confirmed by learned lower appellate Court is somewhat excessive having regard to the age of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgment and order of conviction. It is contended that there are concurrent findings of guilt recorded against the petitioners which have not been shown to be perverse or perfunctory meriting interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. There appears to be concurrent findings of guilt recorded against both the petitioners on an appreciation of the materials/evidence on record. Petitioners were made to undergo the rigours of trial for about 06 years. Petitioner no.1 was found aged about 65 years at the time of recording conviction. Fighting a criminal litigation is definitely a shade of punishment. During these years the accuseds/litigants had to undergo various excruciating circumstances which definitely tell upon the mental, physical and economical condition of the litigant(s). These aspects of the matter have to be kept in focus particularly when it is found that they are the first convicts and that some of them are fairly old lady. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly while upholding the conviction this Court reduces the sentence(s) of the petitioners in the following manner:- (i) Petitioner no.1, namely, Mosmat Jasmati Devi is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months under Section 498A of the Penal Code. She is also sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months 4 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Other part(s)/condition(s), of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and duly approved by learned lower appellate Court however, shall remain unaltered/untouched. (ii) Petitioner no.2, namely, Sunil Kumar @ Tippu Sultan is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years under Section 498 of the Penal Code. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Other part(s)/condition(s), of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and approved by learned lower appellate Court however, shall remain unaltered/untouched. With this modification in sentence, the present application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)