Point of Law: Offence of Cruelty by husband or his relatives - Reduction of Sentence - Evidences against petitioners and gravity of offences committed by them petitioners do not deserve any leniency on point of their sentence and this Court is also not inclined to interfere with sentences imposed upon petitioners by trial court and affirmed by appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases.

2. Heard Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Mr. Tapas Roy and Md. Hatim, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State in the respective criminal revision petitions.

3. All the criminal revision petitions are directed against the Judgment dated 18.09.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the criminal appeal.

4. The petitioners had preferred the criminal appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.06.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 344 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The learned trial court sentenced the petitioner-Raj Kumar Mahto (husband of Complainant) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 Years for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced Sukhlal Mahto and Udasi Mahtain (father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the Complainant) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 Years for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Ashok Kumar Mahto and Bishwanath Mahto (both Brother-in-law of Complainant) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 Year for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court further sentenced all the petitioners to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned trial court directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently and the detentions of the petitioners in custody shall be set off from the period of imprisonment. However, the learned trial court acquitted Sister -in -law of the Complainant giving benefit of doubt to her.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners

6. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ashok Kumar Mahto and Bishwanath Mahto are the brothers-in-law, Udasi Mahtain and Sukhlal Mahto are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively and Raj Kumar Mahto is the husband of the Complainant. The learned counsel submitted that although the respective ages of the petitioners are not mentioned in the impugned judgments, but their age is reflected from their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In the month of January, 2005, when the statements of the mother-in-law and father-in-law were recorded, they were 48 years and 54 years of age respectively and accordingly, their present age is 64 years and 70 years respectively. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the brothers-in-law and mother-in-law are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner-Ashok Kumar Mahto has remained in custody since 13.09.2012 to 12.11.2012 (02 months), Raj Kumar Mahto has remained in custody since 13.09.2012 to 11.12.2012 (03 months), Sukhlal Mahto has remained in custody since 28.01.2013 to 31.01.2013 (04 days), Udasi Mahtain has remained in custody since 04.02.2013 to 07.02.2013 (04 days) and Bishwanath Mahto has remained in custody since 28.01.2013 to 22.02.2013 (26 days).

8. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that the minimum sentence for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is 06 months. It also transpired during the course of hearing that the Complainant of the case has already expired and this fact is re