IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.194 of 2011 1. MD. ASALAM 2. MD. SAGIR 3. KURAISA KHATOON --- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 03 29.03.2011 Having heard the parties, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration only on the question of sentence. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are husband, elder brother of husband of the complainant. Petitioner no.3 is her elder ‘Nanad’. They are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 5, Muzaffarpur on Cr. Appeal no. 17 of 2008, whereby the judgment and order dated 16.01.2008, passed by learned trial Court in Tr. No. 604 of 2008, was dismissed with modification in sentence. According to the prosecution case, the complainant was married to petitioner no.1 some time in the year 1997. Immediately thereafter she was tortured for non fulfillment of demand. This led to filing of complaint which gave rise to trial no. 604 of 2008. At the trial 06 prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents. Learned trial Court, on perusal of the materials on record found that the charge(s) under Section 498A of the Penal 2 Code have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and accordingly they were convicted thereunder. All the petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years and 06 months. Aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioners filed appeal. Learned appellate Court reappraised the evidence on record as would appear from the judgment and found in para 10 that the view taken by learned trial Court based on appraisal/appreciation of the prosecution witnesses do not require interference. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. However, learned appellate Court modified the sentence imposed upon petitioner no.3, namely, Kuraisa Khatoon from R.I. for 02 years and 06 months to R.I. for one year. While assailing the impugned judgment(s), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence had taken place in the year 1997. Petitioners were made to fight the litigation (trial) for about 11 years when on 16.01.2008 the trial Court finally recorded the order of conviction. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for 02 years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). It is submitted that on the date of recording conviction petitioner no.2, namely, Md. Sagir, was found aged about 50 years whereas petitioner no.3,namely, Kuraisa Khatoon was found aged about 40 years. It is submitted that petitioner no.3 is married ‘Nand’ Learned counsel further referred to the trial Court’s judgment to show that they have been found to be first convicts. On these facts appearing from record, it is submitted that petitioners deserve a lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). 3 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment(s). It is submitted that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below based on appraisal of evidence which cannot be said to be perfunctory and/or patently illegal and as such the finding of guilt do not require any interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that for about 11 years the petitioners had to fight litigation and thereby to face several exasperating and/or excruciating circumstances which tell upon the mental, physical and economical condition of the litigants. Reeling under the threat of being convicted for such a long time is shade of punishment. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction by the trial Court petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were found aged about 50 and 40 years respectively. This Court is also conscious of the fact that petitioner no.3 is married ‘Nand’. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this Court is satisfied that they deserve lenient view so far as sentence is concerned. Accordingly while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial Court and duly confirmed by lower appellate Court, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced in the following manner:- (i) Petitioner no.1, namely Md. Asalam shall undergo R.I. R.I. for 02 years under Section 498A of the Penal Code. (ii) Petitioner no.2, namely, Md. Sagir shall undergo R.I. 01 years and 06 months under Section 498A of the Penal Code. 4 (iii) Petitioner no.3, namely, Kuraisa Khatoon is imposed a sentence of R.I. for 09 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, imposed by learned lower appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)