IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.526 of 2010 MURARI PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE JAMUNA PD. SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAITPUR, P.S. BARAHIYA DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF EAST KARIYANAND NAGAR WARD NO. 4, P.S. & DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI …… Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Rampraveshnath Tiwari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 4 21.06.2010 Heard. Rule confined to the question of sentence. Lower Court records have already been received. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. A complaint was lodged on 26.9.2004 under Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the complainant (P.W. 6) was married with the petitioner in the year 1988. The marriage produced one female child in the year 1991. Subsequently a demand for certain amount was made from the complainant and on non-fulfillment of the same, she was tortured and ultimately ousted from the matrimonial home. The petitioner was tried by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai vide Case no. 368C of 2004. It is to be stated here that apart from the petitioner, three other family members also faced the aforesaid trial. The learned Trial Court by its judgment dated 13th August, 2008 found that the evidence available on record conclusively proved the charge/charges framed under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against them. So far as the charge 2 under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the same was not found to have been substantiated. The petitioner and other accused(s) were acquitted of the said charge. The Trial Court imposed sentence and directed the petitioner and others to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. They were also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) with default clause. All the convicts including the petitioner herein preferred Cr. Appeal no. 19 of 2008. The learned Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Lakhisarai) by its judgment and order dated 22.01.2010, allowed the said appeal so far as rest of the family members is/are concerned. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it was found and held that the materials on record justify his conviction. The learned Appellate Court found as under in paragraph 22 of the judgment: “22. So far appellant no. 1 is concerned he is the husband of complainant PW.6 and father of PW.2. PW6 at para 24 admits that PW2 was reading in Class-X and upto that all expenses of her education was made by appellant no. 1. In para 36 she has further admitted that in the share of appellant no. 1, there are 75 bighas of land and appellant no. 1 has no son and PW. 2 is his only successor. PW2 is the daughter of appellant no. 1 has stated in para 11 that she appeared in Class-VII and VIII examination in 2004 and 2005. Her father (appellant no. 1) used to carry her for examination. All expenses of her education used to bear by her father. It established good relationship up to 2005. So any prudent men will not believe allegation of cruelty for the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- only for the marriage of girl (PW.2) who is the only child of appellant no. 1 but PW. 6 as well as PW.2 have deposed against appellant no. 1 that he ousted her from house and in my view that appellant no. 1 has prime duty to keep his wife and daughter happily. So there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of wife (PW.6) and daughter (PW.2) against him.” 3 This Court on perusal of the impugned judgments is of the considered view that there is absolutely no infirmity and/or illegality in the said finding justifying any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage in the present case had taken place in the year 1988. The couple lived happily for several years. A baby child was born in the year 1991. It is the prosecution case that several years thereafter a demand was raised and on non-fulfillment thereof it is alleged that the complainant (P.W. 6) was tortured and ultimately ousted from the house. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below have completely failed to take into consideration the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also contended that the petitioner has already remained in custody for nearly four months. This Court finds from the impugned judgment itself that the learned Trial Court has noted that the petitioner is facing criminal proceeding for the first time. This Court further finds that the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceeding since last 6-7 years. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice shall be sub- served if the sentence is reduced. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. So far as imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause is concerned, the same is not interfered with. In case the fine is paid by the petitioner, the same 4 shall be paid to the complainant (P.W. 6). With this modification in sentence, the revision application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )