IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.837 of 2010 AFGAN KHAN S/O SUBEJAN KHAN R/O VILL- RUPIN, P.S. FATEHPUR, DISTT. GAYA. --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. For the Opp.Party : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP ----------- 04. 01.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and State. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State of Bihar. With the consent of the parties, the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein is the husband. He has been charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498A and 379 of the Penal Code. Let it be recorded that the father, mother and two sisters of the petitioner were also charged under the same Sections. According to the prosecution case lodged by the victim Nazmun Praveen, she was married with the petitioner 10 years ago as per Muslim rites and rituals. Several gifts were given to her at the time of marriage. At the „Sasural‟ she was tortured for non-fulfillment of certain demands. An attempt was subsequently made to do away with her life. Father of the 2 complainant/informant ultimately retrieved her from „Sasural‟. Her jewellery and other belongings were illegally retained by the accused persons. At the trial prosecution seems to have examined as many as 07 witnesses. On appraisal of their testimony, the learned trial Court found and held that the charge(s) under Section 379 of the Penal Code have not been proved against the petitioner and other accused persons standing the trial. They were, however, found guilty under Section 498A of the Penal Code, and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years. This is what the learned trial Court has held:- “…thus in final prosecution successfully passed the charge of 498A IPC against Afgan Khan, Subejaan Khan, Khairoon Nisha, Genis Khatton and Sairun Nishan beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly they are held guilty for the charge of 498A IPC and so convicted thereunder…” Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner herein and other co-convicts filed appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 63 of 2002, which was considered and disposed of by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Nawadah by order dated 25.11.2009. On a reappraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it was found that so far as the other members of the husband (in-law‟s of the complainant) are concerned, the material on record were general and vague not inspiring confidence. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was found that physical cruelty and harassment to the complainant/informant at the hands of the petitioner for non-fulfillment of certain demands has been proved 3 to the hilt. Accordingly, while acquitting other convicts, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner was maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place sometimes in the year 1997. The trial of the petitioner consumed more than five years. Admittedly the allegation pertains to demand of certain amounts for running business. It is next contended that trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate Court has not considered the provision contained under Section 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „The Code‟). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and State, however, supported the impugned judgments. It is submitted that there is concurrent finding(s) of guilt recorded against the petitioner. The appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy. Accordingly conviction of the petitioner has been maintained. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below, this Court should refrain from interfering with the findings so recorded by them. It is next contended that cruelty and torture, at the hands of the husband, has become rampant. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to consideration under Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the entire material reflected from the two impugned judgments, this Court is of the view that in the particular facts of 4 the case a lenient view, in so far as the imposition of sentence is concerned, shall sub serve the cause of justice. Admittedly petitioner laboured under the threat of being punished for over five years. This is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while imposing sentence for the guilt proved against the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that a sentence of 02 years R.I. under Section 498A of the Penal Code shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, the sentence awarded under Section 498A of the Penal Code is reduced to 02 years R.I. With this modification in sentence(s), the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)