IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.629 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
1. Ashok Prasad son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village- Samhauta, P.S.-
Sathi, District- West Champaran.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
…. …. Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar
Mr. Shivjee Sisngh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
ORAL
Date: 17-07-2017
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
2. The petitioner stood convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at a
trial before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III,
Bettiah, West Champaran, arising out of Complaint Case No.
2963C of 2003 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The said conviction, recorded by the learned
Trial Court and sentence imposed by it, has been affirmed by
learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2016, by judgment and order, dated
16.02.2017.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.629 of 2017 dt.17-07-2017
2/3
4. The Appellate Court’s judgment and order, dated
16.02.2017, is being assailed in the present criminal revision
application, by the petitioner, who is the husband. The
complainant, i.e. the petitioner’s wife, is no more. For her
death, a case has been registered against the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, in which the trial is still pending.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that father of the deceased, in course
of time, when he realized that the petitioner was being
wrongly prosecuted, wanted to get the matter compromised
before the learned Appellate Court, but the offence being non-
compoundable, the learned Appellate Court refused to accept
the petition filed on behalf of the father of the deceased for
compromising the case, under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, further,
submitted that there being no dispute that the case of the
prosecution has been supported by the witnesses at the trial,
leading to petitioner’s conviction and there being concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below of conviction, the
judgments cannot be assailed on the ground of perversity. He
has, however, submitted that there being mitigating
circumstances available on record, the sentence of
imprisonment of three years is excessive and should be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.629 of 2017 dt.17-07-2017
3/3
reduced to a reasonable period. It is also submitted that the
only child, born out of the marriage, is living with the
petitioner.
7. In view of what has been submitted on behalf of
the petitioner, as noted above, I find it to be fit case where the
sentence, which has been imposed by the learned Trial Court
and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, should be
reduced.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed
that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than six
months.
9. In that view of the matter, this revision
application is disposed of by modifying the order of sentence
from imprisonment for a period of three years to the
imprisonment for a period of six months.
10. This application stands disposed of.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22-07-2017
Transmission Date 22-07-2017
