ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. J.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

3. Heard Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

4. The present revision application has been filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sahebganj in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No. 381 of 1999 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced for further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

Arguments of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while challenging the impugned judgments has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and there are no independent witnesses in the present case. He submits that the learned courts below have failed to consider that the case was filed by the complainant in the year 1999 and the marriage was solemnized 15 years ago as back as in the year 1983 and the story of demand of dowry and torture has been concocted by the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments of conviction of the petitioner under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code are perverse and are fit to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel further submits that although the charge was framed against the petitioner and other accused persons for alleged offence under Sections 494/323/384/504/498A/34 of Indian Penal Code, but it was only the petitioner, being the husband of the complainant, who has been convicted only under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and the other accused namely Purni Devi, sister of the petitioner, was acquitted by holding that there was no direct allegation against her from the side of the complainant that she subjected the complainant to physical and mental torture or made any demand of dowry.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while confining his argument on the point of sentence, has submitted that the marriage had taken place as back as in the year 1983 and the case was filed in the year 1999 and altogether, four children were born out of wedlock. He submits that on the date of conviction, the petitioner was aged 42 years on 16.02.2012 and accordingly, he is more than 50 years of age as on today. The petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for a very long time i.e. since 1999 and has remained in custody during the pendency of the present case when he surrendered on 25.10.2013 and was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2013 and as per his instructions, he was released on 11.12.2013. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount imposed by the learned court below.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner does not have any other criminal antecedent and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence be modified and be confined to the period already undergone in custody. The learned counsel further submits that he is ready to pay any amount that may be fixed by this Court by way of fine or victim compensation, as found fit.

Arguments of the State

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and merely because the marriage was solemnized in the year 1983 and the criminal ca