ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, Camp at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No. 128/2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the quantum of the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further one month and dismissed the criminal appeal. However, the learned appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in G.R. No. 566 of 2007 / T.R. No. 333 of 2012 had convicted the petitioner under Sections 323, 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for two months under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner :

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, submitted that the incident is of the year 2007 and much time has elapsed from the date of incident. He further submitted that as per the records, the petitioner has remained in jail custody from 12.12.2007 to 24.05.2008 during trial stage of the case and from 23.01.2014 to at least 07.02.2014 when he was directed to be released on bail by this Court and thereafter, a few days must have been taken by the petitioner to furnish the bail bond before the learned court below and as such, the petitioner has also remained in jail custody for some period during the pendency of the present criminal revision. He also submitted that the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as imposed by the learned appellate court. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner may be modified to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State :

6. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is 07 years with fine and the learned appellate court has imposed sentence of one year only. Accordingly, he submits that the learned appellate court has already taken a very lenient view in favour of the petitioner.

7. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that initially the petitioner took the victim outside the State and solemnized marriage with her there and as such, the manner, in which the offence has been committed by the petitioner, does not call for any sympathetic view of this Court. He also submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of this Court :

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the Complaint No.105/2007 presented by Ti