IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.847 of 2010 1. RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA, son of Sri Shashi Nath Thakur. 2. Shashi Nath Thakur, son of Late Gena Lal Thakur. 3. Moneshwari Devi @ Maneshwari Devi, wife of Sri Shashi Nath Thakur, all are residents of village Bans Kothi, Digha P.S. Digha, Patna. 4. Chulhai Thakur, the son-in-law of Sri Shashi Nath Thakur, R/V Belkunda p.s. Mahua district Vaishali. … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party For the petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP 04. 08.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of. Petitioners herein are husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law and brother-in-law of the victim (P.W.3). They were charged under section 498-A IPC and section 3 of D.P.Act. Husband-petitioner no.1 was additionally charged under section 494 IPC. At the trial, five witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, namely, father, mother and informant herself consistently supported the case. On a consideration of material on records, learned trial court while acquitting the husband of the charge punishable under section 494 IPC, convicted all of them under section 498-A IPC and section 3 ¼ D.P. Act.. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine having default clause under section - 2 - 498-A IPC and R.I. for six months with fine having default clause under section 3 of the D.P. Act. Sentence awarded u/s 4 of D.P. Act is R.I. for six months and imposition of fine with default clause. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction, petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.2005/05 which was heard and disposed of by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XII, Patna on 13.01.2007. On a re-appraisal of evidence on record it was found that the judgment and order recorded by learned trial court does not require any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the occurrence as per the prosecution case had taken place in the year 1995. They were made to undergo the rigours of trial for nearly five years when the judgment and order of conviction was recorded by learned trial court. Referring to different documents on record, it is contended that petitioner no.2 (father-in-law) is aged about 65 years, whereas petitioner no.3(mother-in-law) is aged about 64 years. It appears from the judgment of the trial court that at the time of recording conviction petitioner nos.2 and 3 were found aged about 58 and 55 years. True it is that they were made to fight the present litigation for about ten years and thereby to undergo consistent threat of punishment. Fighting litigation for such a long time is definitely a shade of punishment which needs to be borne in mind while recording sentence. Having heard the parties and after going through the materials on records, this court is satisfied that a lenient view in so far - 3 - as imposition of sentence is concerned, shall subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly petitioner no.1 (Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kr. Sharma) is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one and a half years under section 498-A IPC. Petitioner nos.2, 3, and 4 are sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 498-A IPC. It is made clear that other part/condition of sentence(s) imposed by learned trial court and upheld by learned lower appellate court is/are not interfered with and they remain unaltered. Since the matter has been dealt with on merit, the limitation petition ((I.A.No.1200 of 2010) pales into insignificance). With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )