JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel ppearing on behalf of the petitioner.

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

3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This revision petition has been directed against the judgement dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2011, by which, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 117/2001 and T.R. No. 110/2011, whereby the petitioner was found guilty for offence under Sections 498-A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. The petitioner was also awarded sentence for a period of four months for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The realized amount was to be given to the complainant as compensation.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole convict in the present case and happens to be the husband of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 who has been convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed a case being Matrimonial Suit No. 10 of 2001 on 16.03.2001 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the complaint was filed on 25.04.2001. He further submits that filing of the case under restitution of conjugal rights clearly indicates that the petitioner is willing to keep the opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of the records of this case it appears that there was some dispute in connection with the jewellery which was to be given by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 2 which escalated and, in fact, the petitioner had made an arrangement for a separate rented house for the complainant. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC as well as under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has also submitted that the case was instituted as back as in the year 2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of filing of the case. Accordingly, he submitted that some sympathetic view may be taken and sentence may be modified as the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for 4 months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below during the pendency of the present case on 27.08.2012 and was directed to be enlarged on bail by the order of this court dated 01.09.2012.

Arguments of the opposite party

7. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State as well as opposite party No. 2 while opposing the prayer have submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after considering the materials on record and there is no scope for interference in the conviction of the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the order passed by the learned court below.

So far as sentence is concerned, the learned counsels have submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, if this court is inclined to modify the sentence, then some heav