IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 1996 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 1996 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 1996 Jagannath Dada Satpute. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Niranjan P. Shimpi for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 10th April 2008. DATED: 10th April 2008. DATED: 10th April 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 4th October, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Appeal No.68/1995 as well as judgment and order dated 29the September, 1995 passed by Second Extra J.M.F.C., Nashik in Regular Criminal Case No.245/1993 convicting the applicant of the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and imposing fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days as per section 248(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The applicant was acquitted of offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 3. The factual matrix sketched in both the orders passed by the Courts below are not in dispute. 4. The findings of the Courts below revolve around appreciation of evidence on record. The allegations were made by the complainant- wife against the applicant- husband alleging harassment and unlawful demand for money. The findings of the Courts below are based on the evidence brought on record and appreciation thereof. Considering the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court; wherein the re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible, it is not possible to interfere with the order impugned since no perversity in appreciation of evidence or factual and legal aspects is brought to my notice. 4. However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that accused No.1 and the complainant- wife have already divorced each other as per the customs prevailing in their community and both of them are living separately and happily. 5. The applicant, after having suffered adverse - 3 - order at the hands of the appellate Court and having suffered conviction under section 498A and was in custody with effect from 4th October, 1996. Thereafter, immediately, he was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 6th November, 1996. The applicant was, thus, in custody for a period of about one month i.e. from 4th October, 1996 to 8th November, 1996. 6. In the above view of the matter, considering the fact that the applicant- accused No.1 and the complainant have divorced each other and are living separately and happily, in my considered view, the sentence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of I.P.C. can be reduced to the extent undergone by the applicant. 7. In the result sentence awarded to the applicant under section 498A read with section 34 of I.P.C. is reduced to the extent undergone without any fine. With this modification, revision application is partly allowed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE