IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1781 of 2010 1. NANHAK RAM 2. RAM PRAVESH RAM 3. RISAL RAM ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 03.01.2011 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 disposed of at this stage itself. Three petitioners were charged under Sections 406, 504 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and tried by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah in Tr. No. 122 of 2008. On a consideration of the materials on record they were held guilty under Section 406 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 years under each count with fine having default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction they preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 82 of 2008. Learned appellate Court re-evaluated the evidence on record and allowed the said appeal in part. By the said order they were acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code. Having regard to the long period of litigation the sentence awarded under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was reduced to R.I. for six months with fine having default clause. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place some time in the year 1995-96. The petitioners had to fight the criminal litigation for about 14 years. Trial Court ultimately by judgment and order dated 17th November 2008 held them guilty under Section 406 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Referring to the judgment of the trial Court, it is submitted that at the time of recording conviction petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were found aged about 65 years and 70 years respectively. Petitioner no.3 was found aged about 29 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). It is also submitted that age of the appellants shall also be a relevant consideration in the matter. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below and as such the same do no call for any interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Admittedly the petitioners had to fight the criminal litigation for about 14 years. It appears from the trial Court’s judgment that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were found fairly aged at the time of recording conviction. It further appears that petitioner no. 3 on whose behalf the demand of dowry was to be made was found aged about 29 years. Fighting criminal 3 litigation definitely tells upon the mental, physical and economical condition of the litigant. They must have undergone several excruciating circumstances during all these years. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence shall sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence of R.I. for 06 months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is reduced to R.I. for 02 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence(s), if any, imposed by lower appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Since I have considered the case on merit, the question of limitation pales into insignificance. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)