IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1680 of 2010 1. JAI MANGAL RAI S/O JADUBANSHI RAI 2. DEVENDRA RAI @ DEVENDRA PD. YADAV S/O JADUBANSHI RAI 3. RAVINDRA RAI @ RAVINDRA PD. YADAV S/O JADUBANSHI RAI 4. SITA DEVI W/O JADUBANSHI RAI 5. URMILA DEVI W/O DEVENDRA RAI --- PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY For the petitioners : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 26.11.2010 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 disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioners herein are husband, brothers-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law respectively of the informant (PW6). They assail the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court no. I, Sitamarhi, on their appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 23 of 2000 which was filed assailing the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pupri at Sitamarhi in Trial no. 29 of 2000, whereby, on a consideration of the materials on record including the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it was found that accuseds/petitioners were not guilt for the offence punishable under Sections 341,323 and 354 of the Penal Code. Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Penal Code. However, all of them were held 2 guilty under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 02 years. Aggrieved thereby the appeal was preferred which stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the prosecution case the marriage of the informant with petitioner no.1 was solemnized sometimes in the year 1981. The F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1991. Petitioners had to fight the criminal litigation for about 09 years when the trial Court on 29.04.2000 found them guilty under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentenced thereunder. Thereafter the appeal again remains pending for about 10 years. It is submitted that at the time of recording conviction petitioner no.4, namely, Sita Devi was found close to 56 years and as such she is a fairly aged lady. It is contended that petitioner no.5, namely, Urmila Devi has to cater to the needs of her minor children, one of whom have recently been born. Admittedly they had no criminal antecedent. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioners herein deserve lesser punishment for the charge they have been held guilty. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below upon appraisal of 07 prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge(s). I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the two judgments. Petitioner no.4, namely, Sita Devi being the mother-in- law was definitely found 56 years of age at the time of recording 3 the conviction. She must be now close to 70 years. Petitioner no.5, namely Urmila Devi is a lady and at the time of conviction she was fairly young. She is sister-in-law of the informant. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law of the informant whereas petitioner no.1 is the husband of the informant. This much is apparent from the judgment(s) that occurrence had taken place in the year 1991 and the trial of the petitioners consumed about 09 years. For all these years they were made to undergo the ordeals of trial and thereby to face several excruciating circumstances. These factors required to be borne in mind while awarding sentence for the proven charge(s). The inter se relation in such matters also assumes some significance. Considering all these aspects, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners herein deserve a lenient view, in so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Accordingly, this Court, while upholding the judgment and order under revision reduces the sentence in the following manner:- (i) Petitioner no.1, namely, Jai Mangal Rai shall undergo S.I. for 01 years under Section 498A of the Penal Code. (ii) Petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely Devendra Rai @ Devendra Pd. Yadav and Ravindra Rai @ Ravindra Pd. Yadav respectively, shall undergo S.I. for 03 months for the proven charge under Section 498A of the Penal Code. (iii) Petitioner nos. 4 and 5, namely Sita Devi and Urmila Devi shall undergo S.I. for 02 months for the charge 4 under Section 498A of the Penal Code. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, as awarded by learned lower appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below through FAX at the cost to be deposited by the petitioners. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)