IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the petitioner's 20 years of ongoing litigation and the lack of fruitful purpose in sending the petitioner back to prison, leading to the modification of the sentence to a fine.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2011; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Dhanbad, in connection with C.P. Case No. 921 of 2004, corresponding to T.R. No. 220/2011; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 498A/323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Three years u/S 498A IPC and S.I. for one year u/S 323 IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently; has been dismissed with modification.

The learned appellate court has confirmed the conviction under Section 498A IPC, however set aside the conviction under Section 323 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

(i) Learned court below have miserably failed to appreciate that there is no any medical evidence or proof of assault or any type of physical or mental cruelty in support of the prosecution case.

(ii) The learned court below did not consider the fact that the petitioner of this case had already filed a suit for decree of divorce.

(iii) For the same set of allegation and evidences all the accused persons were acquitted except this petitioner.

(iv) The learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has not able to prove the fact that there was any illegal demand by the accused persons which amounts to constitute any offence under Section 498A IPC.

After the aforesaid submission, she further made an alternative argument that the incident is of the year 2003 and the petitioner has suffered the mental agony due to ongoing litigation and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may kindly at least modify the sentence for the period already undergone as the petitioner is middle aged person and he also remained in custody for few days.

4. Learned counsel for the State as well as leanred counsel for the O.P. No. 2 supported the judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the courts below. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 further submits that there is clear and consistent evidence that the complainant/victim was not treated well in her matrimonial home and she was tortured mentally and physically by the accused which has been corroborated by all the witnesses examined by the complainant As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

5. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the scope of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and modified by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

6. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2003 and about 20 years have elapsed and the petitioner must has suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 20 years. It is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail and he also remained in custody for about few days.

7. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

8. Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and modified by the appellate court is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

9. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of