JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State.

3. This revision application has been filed challenging the correctness and legality or propriety of the judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharswan in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2005 whereby he has upheld the conviction/sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella.

4. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 500/34 of Indian Penal Code. The co-accused parents of the petitioner were also sentenced for Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 500/34 of Indian Penal Code. The judgment of the trial court was passed in Trial No. 100 of 2005/C/1 Case No. 37 of 2002.

5. The learned appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquitted the co-accused parents of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period from 20.03.2012 to 02.07.2012. The learned counsel submits that the present age of the petitioner is 49 years and the present age of the victim is 40 years. He submits that the case arises out of a complaint filed in the year 2002.

7. While mentioning about factual background of the case, the learned counsel submits that, a case under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was filed by the complainant against the petitioner which ended into a compromise and the petitioner was acquitted. However ultimately, the petitioner did not marry the complainant. He submits that subsequently, the present complaint was filed in the year 2002 in which the petitioner has been ultimately convicted under Sections 417 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on the point of sentence and has submitted that considering the fact that much time has elapsed and also the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent, some lenient view may be taken and sentence of the petitioner may be confined to the period already undergone by the petitioner in jail custody. The learned counsel also submits that he has come to know that the victim of the present case has already got married.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer and submits that there are concurrent findings which do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that in case this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, then some fine amount may be imposed.

Findings of the Court

10. The prosecution story, as per the complaint petition was that the complainant used to reside with her uncle since childhood due to death of her parents. The accused persons namely Prameshwar Mudi, Kali Charan Mudi and Debki Mudi wife of Kali Charan Mudi are also residents of the same village. The complainant had gone to Tamlup, West Bengal to work as a labourer at the brick kiln and the present petitioner had also gone there, who developed intimacy with the complainant and forcibly established physical relationship with her on the assurance of marriage and accordingly, he sexually exploited the complainant since January, 2001 and till June, 2001 during their stay. This fact was known to the co-labourer. The complainant came to her native village in the last week of June, 2001 and the petitioner also followed her. The petitioner sexually exploited the complainant till 24th August 2001 on the assurance to marry and when the complainant insisted for solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and his parents flatly refused.

11. It was further the case of the complainant that despite good