JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2010 was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 2062/2006 (T.R. No. 180/2010) arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 136/2006), whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of fine, the petitioner has been directed to undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

Arguments of the Petitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he is confining his arguments on the point of sentence.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has almost served his sentence and only a few days of the sentence are left. He submits that during the stage of trial, the petitioner has remained in custody in connection with the present case for a period from 11.10.2006 to 01.02.2007 i.e. three months and 20 days and subsequently at the stage of revision, the petitioner has remained in custody for a period from 16.02.2012 to 02.04.2012 i.e. one month and 17 days. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total period of custody of the petitioner in connection with the present case has been 5 months and 7 days.

6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. He submits that the First Information Report was lodged as back as on 10.10.2006 and immediately the petitioner surrendered on 11.10.2006 and almost more than fourteen and a half years have elapsed from the date of the F.I.R. The petitioner has suffered the rigors of the criminal case for a long time and in such circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner be modified. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to pay some amount by way of fine.

Arguments of the opposite party-State

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has no serious objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. He also submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, the fine amount may not be less than Rs. 5,000/- and he has no objection if the fine amount is remitted to the victim i.e., the wife of the petitioner, upon due identification.

Finding of this Court

8. This instant case arises out of Dhanwar P.S. case number 136/2006 dated 10.10.2006. The Prosecution case in brief is that, the informant was married with the present petitioner about 6 years before the date of F.I.R. At the time of marriage, cash Rs.81,000/- alongwith other household articles and ornaments were presented to the husband and his relatives. After some days of marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding one colour T.V and Hero Honda motorcycle. The informant’s father could not fulfill the aforesaid demand due to paucity of fund. Then accused persons started harassing, assaulting and torturing the informant. It is further alleged that in the month of January 2003, informant was pregnant about six months and even at that point of time, she was brutally assaulted by the accused persons and came under situation of death, then she informed her father. Meanwhile, her husband left home and fled away elsewhere. Mother and uncle of informant came to her matrimonial home, but the accused persons were adamant for fulfilling their demand. She was brought to Calcutta for treatment and she gave birth to child through operation, which incurred expenses of about Rs. 60,000/-. Her husband came to