IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.783 of 2011 Arun Kumar Thakur son of Phuleshwar Thakur, resident of village Sundarpur, Sonar Tola, Naka No. 1, P.S.L.N.M.U., Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Thakur, son of Ramavtar Thakur, resident of Gautam Nagar, Ward No.16, P.S. + District Saharsa. 3. Madhu Devi wife of Ram Kumar Thakur, resident of Goddhajor Parman, P.S. Katoria, District Bhagalpur. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 6. 30.09.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2003 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 617 C of 1995/ Trial No. 261 of 2003 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2 No one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. This application has been placed for hearing for granting bail to the accused- petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since lower court records have been received, this revision application may be disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Madhu Devi, opposite party no. 3 was married to the petitioner in the year 1990, thereafter, she went to her matrimonial house to lead conjugal life. The father (complainant) and the uncle of Madhu Devi went to her matrimonial house to meet her where they could know that the members of her matrimonial house have demanded Rs.50,000/-, a motor cycle and a colour T.V., failing which they would get this petitioner (husband of Madhu Devi) married to another lady. During the meeting, the accused Hira Devi asked both of them (father and uncle of Madhu Devi) to meet the demand or to take Madhu Devi back to her father’s house and also threatened that if they failed, she would be 3 killed. After pacifying the matter the complainant returned to his house. After some time, a letter was received from the accused to take Madhu Devi back, failing which they will have to face the consequences. It has further been alleged that Madhu Devi was tortured by the members of her sasural family and was ousted from her matrimonial house. She came to her father’s house and narrated the matter to her father (Complainant). It has further been alleged that Arun Kumar Thakur, the husband of the petitioner was married to Kumkum Kumari in collusion with other accused. Thereafter, Madhu Devi lodged a petition for maintenance. The petitioner and others came after getting the notice of that case and offered to take Madhu Devi to her matrimonial house. On their assurance of keeping her nicely, Madhu Devi went to her matrimonial house. On 5.12.1995 Madhu Devi went to her father’s house and stated that she has been assaulted after getting her signature and she was confined to a room. Valuable and ornaments have been taken by the accused. The father of Madhu Devi, Ashok Thakur (opposite party no.2) lodged Complaint 4 Case No. 617 C of 1995. After enquiry, cognizance was taken against the accused petitioner and others. Charges were framed against the accused – petitioner, Arun Kumar Thakur, Sudhir Thakur, Hira Devi and Shrawan Thakur for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 323, 379 I.P.C. and the petitioner was further charged for the offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C. No cognizance was taken against the accused Kumkum Devi and two co-accused Krishna Deo Thakur and Phuleshwar Thakur died during pendency of the complaint case, as such, the case has been abated against them vide order dated 30.1.2003 and 6.9.2001. After trial, other accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 494 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498 A I.P.C., simple imprisonment for six months under Section 379 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine two months further simple imprisonment and all the sentences to run 5 concurrently vide order dated 20.2.2003, against which the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2003. The appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the learned trial court without hearing the appellant and the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence has taken place on 5.12.1995. More than 15 years have passed and the petitioner has been suffering from the mental agony. Madhu Devi, wife of the petitioner has remarried to another person and is also leading conjugal life. The petitioner is also leading conjugal life with his second wife. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.6.2011. In these circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner deserves modification. There is no material on record to show that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also on perusal of the lower court records, it 6 appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material on record to show that the accused- petitioner has any criminal antecedent. It has also been submitted that Madhu Devi, wife of the petitioner has already remarried to another man and is leading conjugal life. The petitioner has been suffering mental agony for more than 15 years. He has also been in custody for more than three months. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner can be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.5000/-. The learned trial Court will direct the petitioner to be released from custody after submission of receipt showing payment of fine of Rs.5000/- in the Court, if he is not wanted in any other case. If the said amount of fine is realized, it will be payable to the victim lady, Madhu Devi, opposite party no. 3. In the result, this application is dismissed with modification in the sentence to 7 the extent stated above. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioners. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)