JUDGMENT :

1. Initially the instant application was preferred by the present petitioner and Munni Devi as petitioner No.2.

2. An interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner No.1, praying to delete the name of petitioner No.2-Munni Devi who died on 08.09.2017 and a death certificate to that effect has also been annexed with the interlocutory application.

3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the I.A is allowed and the name of the petitioner No.2 stands deleted.

4. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 14.06.2013, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.9 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the co-convicts has been partly allowed.

5. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 19.12.2011, passed in Complaint Case No.588/1999 (T.R. No.1301/2011), convicted the petitioner and her mother along with other family members of petitioner's family for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned appellate court after appreciating the evidences and arguments adduced by the parties sustained the conviction against the petitioner and her mother-Munni Devi and acquitted rest of the co-convict who were the family members of the petitioner.

7. After some argument on merit of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence only. He further submits that petitioner is not a habitual offender and this is a single case in which he has been convicted. He further submits that sending the petitioner back to prison will ruin his entire future as such, this is a fit case in which the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

8. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned PP and Birendra Burman, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 though supported the impugned order but fairly submitted that if some amount is paid to the O.P. No.2 she will be benefited. The learned counsel for O.P. No.2 further submits that she is on the verge of starvation and her Maintenance Case has also been dismissed due to non-prosecution. As such, some amount may be awarded in the nature of fine which shall be paid to her.

9. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 tendered the bank account of the O.P. No.2 by submitting that any amount of fine may be directly send to her bank account. The details of the Account is mentioned herein below:

Name - Aruna Rani,

Account No.2983000100988718,

IFSC Code No. PUNB0298300,

Bank- Punjab National Bank, Ranchi Kishoreganj.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

11. After going through the impugned orders including lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of the revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, confirmed.

12. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1999 and 20 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 20 years and also remained in custody for 77 days. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail.

13. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused person back to prison rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

14. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.60,000/-.

15. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.60,000/- to the O.P. No.2 within a period of 6 months from today. The amount shall be either by the bank draft