Probation should be considered alongside the nature of the offence and character of the offender, emphasizing rehabilitation over routine punishment for dowry-related convictions.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, 1. Md. Abul Kalam Azad @ Abu Kalam Azad, 2. Md. Wazed Ali and 3. Ms. Urful Begum impugning the judgment and order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldoi, Darrang in C.A. Case No. 2(D-1)/2012 whereby it affirmed the judgment and order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangaldoi, Darrang.

3. By the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 498 A/34 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner No. 1 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of instant criminal revision petition, in brief, is that on 09.09.2008, the complainant Sanowara Begum had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Sipajhar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 about nine months prior to lodging of the FIR. It was in the FIR that about ten to fifteen days after the marriage, the petitioner No. 1 being instigated by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 started demanding Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) from the complainant and asked her to bring the said money from her parents and they started torturing her for demand of the said dowry. It was also alleged that the complainant was physically tortured and on 02.09.2008, the petitioners drove her out of her matrimonial house. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioners under Sections 4 98A/323/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The petitioners appeared before the Trial Court to face the trial. The charges under the aforesaid provision of law were framed against them. When the said charges were read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution side examined four witnesses. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded innocence. However, they declined to adduce any evidence in defence. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 17.12.2011, passed in GR Case No. 904/2008, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioners under Sections 324/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . However, they were convicted under Sections 4 98A/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and were sentenced in the manner as already described in the following paragraphs.

5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the petitioners preferred a criminal appeal which was registered as C.A. Case No. 2(D-1)/2012 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldaoi, Darrang. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldaoi, Darrang by the judgment dated 10.04.2013 had upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The said judgment has been impugned in the instant criminal petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have erred in convicting them upholding the conviction respectively of the petitioners under Section 498A of BNSS inasmuch as during t