The court considered the compromise between the parties and the petitioner's age and time spent in custody in modifying the sentence, while upholding the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anupam Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

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

3. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.-2.

4. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgement dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Appeal No. 04/2006, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. No. 125/1996 corresponding to T.R. No. 40/2005. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 submits that they have filed a joint compromise petition being I.A No. 488 of 2021 pursuant to mediation between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 that had taken place at JHALSA (Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority) and as per the joint compromise petition, they have amicably settled their dispute and an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- has also been paid to the opposite party No.-2 which forms a part of the compromise. He submits that he would be satisfied if the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 has specifically submitted that the entire amount, as per the joint compromise petition, has been received by the opposite party No.-2. He has also submitted that in view of the joint compromise petition filed in the instant case, he has no objection, if the sentence of the petitioner, which has been awarded by the learned court below, is set-aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has submitted that so far as the conviction is concerned, the same is based on concurrent findings and that may not be interfered with. But with regard to the sentence, the learned counsel submits that if the parties have settled their dispute out of the court and have also filed the joint compromise petition, he has no objection if the sentence of the petitioner is modified.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds altogether three accused persons have faced the trial including the petitioner and others were acquitted on account of benefit of doubt by the learned trial court and the petitioner- husband was convicted under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.

9. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after appreciating the materials on record. It has been categorically held by the learned appellate court that there is consistent evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 that Bijeta Devi (Opposite Party No.2), was married in the year 1985 with the petitioner and at the time of marriage, her father gifted some articles. It has also been recorded that the opposite party no.2 went to matrimonial house and remained there for 2-3 years in good condition. Thereafter, the accused including the petitioner started beating and abusing and demanded pots, bed and motorcycle and also asked her to bring pulses and grains and thereafter, she was driven out from the matrimonial house. P.W.3 had also stated that the opposite party no. 2 reached village with torn clothes.

10. There are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction and there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgements on the point of conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction