JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Ms. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 17th May, 2012, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Cr. Appeal No. 74/10 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court. The learned S.D.J.M. Giridih, vide order dated 30.09.2010 passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and convicted the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the case has been instituted after inordinate delay. He submits that the case was instituted in the year 2003 and at that point of time it was stated that marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 had taken place 14 years ago. He submits that one other witness has stated that the marriage had taken place 20 years ago. Learned counsel submits that there is no independent witness in the present case and the delay is absolutely unexplained. Learned counsel submits that the learned court below has also not considered the fact that there was separation between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 and the document was also prepared on 30.03.2004 and the dispute between the parties had settled. He submits that the said document which was produced by the defence has not been considered by the learned court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He also submits that the complainant had failed to prove the case against the petitioner for the offence under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted from the said charges and was only convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody during the pendency of this case from 19.02.2013 to 18.04.2013 and the petitioner is also ready to give victim compensation to the opposite party No. 2 as may be fixed by this court. Learned counsel has also submitted that considering the fact that the complaint case was filed in the year 2003 and the present case is the first offence of the petitioner, the sentence may be modified.

Submission on behalf of the opposite party-State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and stated that there was compromise between the parties that the complainant was taken back to the matrimonial house and was again thrown out from the matrimonial house within a period of 20 days. He submits that the delay in filing the complaint case is well explained. Learned counsel has also submitted that as long as the said case was pending, the petitioner used to keep the opposite party No. 2, but the moment the case was compromised, the opposite party No. 2 was thrown out within a period of 20 days thereafter she filed the present case. Learned counsel has also submits that the petitioner has performed second marriage but it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 are governed by Muslim law. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below which does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. So far as modification of sentence is concerned, he submits that it is for the court to pass appropriate order. He also submits that victim compensation should also be given to the opposite party No. 2.

7. Learned counsel ap