IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.495 of 2011 1. UMESH PANDIT @ SANJAY PANDIT SON OF LATE MANOHAR PANDIT 2. SUNIL KUMAR VERMA @ MUNI PANDIT @ SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA SON OF LATE MANOHAR PANDIT 3. SUHAG DEVI @ SUHAGI DEVI WIFE OF LATE MANOHAR PANDIT, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-PACHAURI P.S. DEEPNAGAR, DISTRICT-NALADNA …PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 02. 29.04.2011 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage. The three petitioners herein are husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/informant (P.W.6). They were tried along with others vide Trial No. 388/08 by learned S.D.J.M., Nalanda, Biharsharif for charge(s) punishable under sections 498A,494/109 and 406/34 IPC. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution besides exhibiting documents to prove the prosecution case. P.W.6, the victim and P.W.2 her 17 year-old daughter supported the case. On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court found and held them guilty under sections 498A IPC. Petitioner no.1 was additionally held guilty under section 494 IPC. Petitioner no.1 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine under section 498A IPC and R.I. for two years with fine having default clause under section 494 IPC. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 being in-laws of the complainant/informant were held guilty under 2 section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, they preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 149/2008. Learned appellate court re-appraised the evidence and found that conviction was based on materials on record and, as such, did not interfere therewith. However, while dismissing the appeal, the sentence imposed on petitioner no.3 was altered. Instead of R.I. for six months she was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions in support of the application. It is submitted that the marriage had taken place in June 1982 whereafter Duragaman was held in the year 1987. In 1990 the victim is said to have been blessed with a daughter (P.W.2). Some time in the year 1998, the informant was tortured and ousted from matrimonial home on account of non- fulfilment of the demand made by the husband. It is submitted that the accused had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for about ten years as the trial court convicted them by judgment and order dated 9.9.2008. Referring to trial court judgment as well as appellate court judgment, it is contended that the mother-in-law(petitioner no.3) was assessed at the time of appellate court judgment close to 80 years. In fighting criminal litigation a litigant has to undergo several excruciating/exasperating circumstances having telling effects on his/their mental conditions. It is thus contended that they deserve lessor quantum of sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that there is/are a concurrent findings of guilt based on appraisal/reappraisal of 3 materials on record which cannot be said to be perverse and patently illegal justifying interference. It appears from perusal of materials on record including two judgments that petitioners had to under rigours of trial for about ten years. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that for all these years they had to reel under the threat of being punished which is a shade of punishment. It further appears from appellate court judgment that petitioner no.3 was found aged about 80 years. Taking into consideration all these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a lessor quantum of sentence would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction as recorded by learned trial court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate court, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is/are modified in the following manner:- Petitioner no.1 shall undergo R.I. for two years under section 498A IPC. Other part(s)/condition(s) shall remain untouched. Petitioner no.2 shall undergo R.I. for four months. Petitioner no.3 shall undergo S.I. for two months. Other part(s)/condition(s), if any, shall remain untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )